Heroin was legal and regularly prescribed by family doctors in the UK until the mid 50s. Anybody could have stumbled across it lying around in medicine cabinets - including children!
The Times records that at that period there were a grand total of 50 heroin addicts. Most of these were doctors or middle class professionals.
As a counter example, iirc cocaine was criminalised because of how fast it spread while legal and the problems it caused.
Of course he is. Not far right, but definitely hard right. He considers the Blair premiership to be a "coup d'etat", believes sex education to be anti-Christian propaganda, thinks there should have been a public debate before we introduced television, and that the presence of American troops during the War damaged British culture.
It is worth remembering that in the days before pre-marital sex was generally accepted, as many as three quarters of men admitted to visiting prostitutes. People remember the good things about "the old days" and choose to forget the bad.
The disapproval of pre-marital sex wasn't to police men, it was to provide them with virgin wives that they didn't need to feel insecure about.
Oh c'mon !!
The scares started due to the fear of white women sleeping with dark-skinned men.
Which relates to white male anxiety about dark skinned equipment
Of course he is. Not far right, but definitely hard right. He considers the Blair premiership to be a "coup d'etat", believes sex education to be anti-Christian propaganda, thinks there should have been a public debate before we introduced television, and that the presence of American troops during the War damaged British culture.
It is worth remembering that in the days before pre-marital sex was generally accepted, as many as three quarters of men admitted to visiting prostitutes. People remember the good things about "the old days" and choose to forget the bad.
The disapproval of pre-marital sex wasn't to police men, it was to provide them with virgin wives that they didn't need to feel insecure about.
Oh c'mon !!
Traditional morality laws have always been about policing women's "innocence" rather than men's. Just look at the laws against interracial sex in the US south or British India. White men had been having relations with dark-skinned women for centuries - Thomas Jefferson sexually abused his own slaves - and no one gave a damn. The scares started due to the fear of white women sleeping with dark-skinned men.
I don't think there were ever laws against inter-racial sex in British India (after c.1850 it attracted social disapproval, prior to then it was very much the norm). Much of the hostility towards the practice actually came from the growing number of British women who came out to India, as communications improved.
People don't get put in prison for taking drugs. Don't believe anyone who tells you otherwise.
If you put people in prison for taking drugs you'd have hundreds of thousands of lags. Maybe more.
Or fewer people would start taking drugs maybe?
How about banning 'gateway' drugs, like alcohol or nicotine?
I wouldn't be surprised if the use of tobacco was banned in my lifetime. It seems to provoke disgust among a large number of people.
As a milder step, what about an EU agreement (or does it need the WTO?) to end the sale of duty-free cigarettes at airports etc? It's a ridiculous officially-sanctioned way of making yourself ill, loading travellers down, giving airports an incentive to make you come early and dodging tax at the same time. Knock a bit off the tax on fags in normal shops in exchange and the backlash will be limited.
I don't actually mind people smoking around me, personally. But it seems mad to have a public health policy to discourage it and then create a big fat loophole for people who happen to cross a border.
On drugs, the Swiss system of offering addicts heroin through GPs has worked pretty well in terms of slashing crime rates, and survived a referendum challenge.
If you remember when the Labour government was legislating to introduce VAT in duty free shops, the business lobby came up with the doomsday scenario of 40000 jobs being lost.
The loss was exactly equal to zero ! If anything, since then, the duty free shops have expanded hugely.
In fcat, the next time I land I am expecting to pick up bread and milk at the airport !
Of course he is. Not far right, but definitely hard right. He considers the Blair premiership to be a "coup d'etat", believes sex education to be anti-Christian propaganda, thinks there should have been a public debate before we introduced television, and that the presence of American troops during the War damaged British culture.
It is worth remembering that in the days before pre-marital sex was generally accepted, as many as three quarters of men admitted to visiting prostitutes. People remember the good things about "the old days" and choose to forget the bad.
The disapproval of pre-marital sex wasn't to police men, it was to provide them with virgin wives that they didn't need to feel insecure about.
Oh c'mon !!
The scares started due to the fear of white women sleeping with dark-skinned men.
Which relates to white male anxiety about dark skinned male (cough) "equipment"
Of course he is. Not far right, but definitely hard right. He considers the Blair premiership to be a "coup d'etat", believes sex education to be anti-Christian propaganda, thinks there should have been a public debate before we introduced television, and that the presence of American troops during the War damaged British culture.
It is worth remembering that in the days before pre-marital sex was generally accepted, as many as three quarters of men admitted to visiting prostitutes. People remember the good things about "the old days" and choose to forget the bad.
The disapproval of pre-marital sex wasn't to police men, it was to provide them with virgin wives that they didn't need to feel insecure about.
Oh c'mon !!
Traditional morality laws have always been about policing women's "innocence" rather than men's. Just look at the laws against interracial sex in the US south or British India. White men had been having relations with dark-skinned women for centuries - Thomas Jefferson sexually abused his own slaves - and no one gave a damn. The scares started due to the fear of white women sleeping with dark-skinned men.
I don't think there were ever laws against inter-racial sex in British India (after c.1850 it attracted social disapproval, prior to then it was very much the norm). Much of the hostility towards the practice actually came from the growing number of British women who came out to India, as communications improved.
The Anglo-Indian community still have 2 out of 545 seats reserved for them in the Indian lower house (Lok Sabha).
Historically, most sex was pre-marital as most people did not actually get married. It was what wealthy people did. Throughout most of our history we have been a pretty degenerate country - lots of boozing, lots of debauched sex, lots of violence. There was a period when this was curtailed, maybe because of two world wars and, before that in the Victorian/Edwardian eras, a whole host of imperial adventures, a lot of emigration and the rise of non-conformist christianity; but since the 60s, we have been reverting to type.
Historically, most sex was pre-marital as most people did not actually get married. It was what wealthy people did. Throughout most of our history we have been a pretty degenerate country - lots of boozing, lots of debauched sex, lots of violence. There was a period when this was curtailed, maybe because of two world wars and, before that in the Victorian/Edwardian eras, a whole host of imperial adventures, a lot of emigration and the rise of non-conformist christianity; but since the 60s, we have been reverting to type.
I think the World Wars weren't entirely free of debauched sex and lots of violence (especially WW2).
we informed the majority of the families in advance of the Prime Minister’s statement in person and by telephone. SMSs were used only as an additional means of communicating with the families
Of course he is. Not far right, but definitely hard right. He considers the Blair premiership to be a "coup d'etat", believes sex education to be anti-Christian propaganda, thinks there should have been a public debate before we introduced television, and that the presence of American troops during the War damaged British culture.
It is worth remembering that in the days before pre-marital sex was generally accepted, as many as three quarters of men admitted to visiting prostitutes. People remember the good things about "the old days" and choose to forget the bad.
The disapproval of pre-marital sex wasn't to police men, it was to provide them with virgin wives that they didn't need to feel insecure about.
Oh c'mon !!
Traditional morality laws have always been about policing women's "innocence" rather than men's. Just look at the laws against interracial sex in the US south or British India. White men had been having relations with dark-skinned women for centuries - Thomas Jefferson sexually abused his own slaves - and no one gave a damn. The scares started due to the fear of white women sleeping with dark-skinned men.
I think it was slightly more pragmatic than protecting'innocence' in that in an age before effective birth control (and social welfare ) it was more about not creating kids with nobody to support to adulthood
Of course he is. Not far right, but definitely hard right. He considers the Blair premiership to be a "coup d'etat", believes sex education to be anti-Christian propaganda, thinks there should have been a public debate before we introduced television, and that the presence of American troops during the War damaged British culture.
It is worth remembering that in the days before pre-marital sex was generally accepted, as many as three quarters of men admitted to visiting prostitutes. People remember the good things about "the old days" and choose to forget the bad.
The disapproval of pre-marital sex wasn't to police men, it was to provide them with virgin wives that they didn't need to feel insecure about.
Oh c'mon !!
The scares started due to the fear of white women sleeping with dark-skinned men.
Which relates to white male anxiety about dark skinned male (cough) "equipment"
Of course he is. Not far right, but definitely hard right. He considers the Blair premiership to be a "coup d'etat", believes sex education to be anti-Christian propaganda, thinks there should have been a public debate before we introduced television, and that the presence of American troops during the War damaged British culture.
It is worth remembering that in the days before pre-marital sex was generally accepted, as many as three quarters of men admitted to visiting prostitutes. People remember the good things about "the old days" and choose to forget the bad.
The disapproval of pre-marital sex wasn't to police men, it was to provide them with virgin wives that they didn't need to feel insecure about.
Oh c'mon !!
Traditional morality laws have always been about policing women's "innocence" rather than men's. Just look at the laws against interracial sex in the US south or British India. White men had been having relations with dark-skinned women for centuries - Thomas Jefferson sexually abused his own slaves - and no one gave a damn. The scares started due to the fear of white women sleeping with dark-skinned men.
I don't think there were ever laws against inter-racial sex in British India (after c.1850 it attracted social disapproval, prior to then it was very much the norm). Much of the hostility towards the practice actually came from the growing number of British women who came out to India, as communications improved.
The Anglo-Indian community still have 2 out of 545 seats reserved for them in the Indian lower house (Lok Sabha).
A big difference with the US South is that (in the 18th and early 19th centuries) quite a lot of upper and middle class British men in India married Indian women.
Historically, most sex was pre-marital as most people did not actually get married. It was what wealthy people did. Throughout most of our history we have been a pretty degenerate country - lots of boozing, lots of debauched sex, lots of violence. There was a period when this was curtailed, maybe because of two world wars and, before that in the Victorian/Edwardian eras, a whole host of imperial adventures, a lot of emigration and the rise of non-conformist christianity; but since the 60s, we have been reverting to type.
To go against you Southam I think people did get married but it was a much simpler thing back then. Essentially a public declaration was all that was needed (not even religious involvement if you go way back).
The move of the church to bring marriage strictly within it's purview was a power-grab to try and control people.
Of course he is. Not far right, but definitely hard right. He considers the Blair premiership to be a "coup d'etat", believes sex education to be anti-Christian propaganda, thinks there should have been a public debate before we introduced television, and that the presence of American troops during the War damaged British culture.
It is worth remembering that in the days before pre-marital sex was generally accepted, as many as three quarters of men admitted to visiting prostitutes. People remember the good things about "the old days" and choose to forget the bad.
The disapproval of pre-marital sex wasn't to police men, it was to provide them with virgin wives that they didn't need to feel insecure about.
Oh c'mon !!
Traditional morality laws have always been about policing women's "innocence" rather than men's. Just look at the laws against interracial sex in the US south or British India. White men had been having relations with dark-skinned women for centuries - Thomas Jefferson sexually abused his own slaves - and no one gave a damn. The scares started due to the fear of white women sleeping with dark-skinned men.
I think it was slightly more pragmatic than protecting'innocence' in that in an age before effective birth control (and social welfare ) it was more about not creating kids with nobody to support to adulthood
Plus it reinforced patriarchal control of communities (whether by the local chief/shaman or through a church). Weddings are largely just an elaborate social 'sanction' of a relationship.
Historically, most sex was pre-marital as most people did not actually get married. It was what wealthy people did. Throughout most of our history we have been a pretty degenerate country - lots of boozing, lots of debauched sex, lots of violence. There was a period when this was curtailed, maybe because of two world wars and, before that in the Victorian/Edwardian eras, a whole host of imperial adventures, a lot of emigration and the rise of non-conformist christianity; but since the 60s, we have been reverting to type.
To go against you Southam I think people did get married but it was a much simpler thing back then. Essentially a public declaration was all that was needed (not even religious involvement if you go way back).
The move of the church to bring marriage strictly within it's purview was a power-grab to try and control people.
Yes, I think you're probably right. It wasn't the big, formal set-to it has become. And I don't think there was a great deal of "shame" attached to not being hitched or about having kids out of wedlock.
Of course he is. Not far right, but definitely hard right. He considers the Blair premiership to be a "coup d'etat", believes sex education to be anti-Christian propaganda, thinks there should have been a public debate before we introduced television, and that the presence of American troops during the War damaged British culture.
It is worth remembering that in the days before pre-marital sex was generally accepted, as many as three quarters of men admitted to visiting prostitutes. People remember the good things about "the old days" and choose to forget the bad.
The disapproval of pre-marital sex wasn't to police men, it was to provide them with virgin wives that they didn't need to feel insecure about.
Oh c'mon !!
Traditional morality laws have always been about policing women's "innocence" rather than men's. Just look at the laws against interracial sex in the US south or British India. White men had been having relations with dark-skinned women for centuries - Thomas Jefferson sexually abused his own slaves - and no one gave a damn. The scares started due to the fear of white women sleeping with dark-skinned men.
I think it was slightly more pragmatic than protecting'innocence' in that in an age before effective birth control (and social welfare ) it was more about not creating kids with nobody to support to adulthood
I'd suggest that the need for clear lines of inheritance would play a part, of course more of an aristocratic concern.
Historically, most sex was pre-marital as most people did not actually get married. It was what wealthy people did. Throughout most of our history we have been a pretty degenerate country - lots of boozing, lots of debauched sex, lots of violence. There was a period when this was curtailed, maybe because of two world wars and, before that in the Victorian/Edwardian eras, a whole host of imperial adventures, a lot of emigration and the rise of non-conformist christianity; but since the 60s, we have been reverting to type.
Historically, most sex was pre-marital as most people did not actually get married. It was what wealthy people did. Throughout most of our history we have been a pretty degenerate country - lots of boozing, lots of debauched sex, lots of violence. There was a period when this was curtailed, maybe because of two world wars and, before that in the Victorian/Edwardian eras, a whole host of imperial adventures, a lot of emigration and the rise of non-conformist christianity; but since the 60s, we have been reverting to type.
To go against you Southam I think people did get married but it was a much simpler thing back then. Essentially a public declaration was all that was needed (not even religious involvement if you go way back).
The move of the church to bring marriage strictly within it's purview was a power-grab to try and control people.
Yes, I think you're probably right. It wasn't the big, formal set-to it has become. And I don't think there was a great deal of "shame" attached to not being hitched or about having kids out of wedlock.
I'm not convinced. Shakespeare's characters seem to take for granted that bastards are treacherous by nature. Even if that wasn't his opinion, it must have reflected a widespread view at the time.
"Labour is set to back plans to give ministers powers to decriminalise non-payment of the BBC licence fee, giving the move cross-party political support."
Of course he is. Not far right, but definitely hard right. He considers the Blair premiership to be a "coup d'etat", believes sex education to be anti-Christian propaganda, thinks there should have been a public debate before we introduced television, and that the presence of American troops during the War damaged British culture.
It is worth remembering that in the days before pre-marital sex was generally accepted, as many as three quarters of men admitted to visiting prostitutes. People remember the good things about "the old days" and choose to forget the bad.
The disapproval of pre-marital sex wasn't to police men, it was to provide them with virgin wives that they didn't need to feel insecure about.
Oh c'mon !!
Traditional morality laws have always been about policing women's "innocence" rather than men's. Just look at the laws against interracial sex in the US south or British India. White men had been having relations with dark-skinned women for centuries - Thomas Jefferson sexually abused his own slaves - and no one gave a damn. The scares started due to the fear of white women sleeping with dark-skinned men.
I don't think there were ever laws against inter-racial sex in British India (after c.1850 it attracted social disapproval, prior to then it was very much the norm). Much of the hostility towards the practice actually came from the growing number of British women who came out to India, as communications improved.
The Anglo-Indian community still have 2 out of 545 seats reserved for them in the Indian lower house (Lok Sabha).
A big difference with the US South is that (in the 18th and early 19th centuries) quite a lot of upper and middle class British men in India married Indian women.
However, from about 1800 onward it was illegal for the "result" of British/Indian "cohabitations" to be employed at medium to high levels in the East India Company or, after 1857, the Indian Civil Service.
I'm pretty sure that any Army officer who married an Indian lady would have to "send in his papers". Have a look at "The Fishing Fleet" by Anne de Courcy.
Historically, most sex was pre-marital as most people did not actually get married. It was what wealthy people did. Throughout most of our history we have been a pretty degenerate country - lots of boozing, lots of debauched sex, lots of violence. There was a period when this was curtailed, maybe because of two world wars and, before that in the Victorian/Edwardian eras, a whole host of imperial adventures, a lot of emigration and the rise of non-conformist christianity; but since the 60s, we have been reverting to type.
To go against you Southam I think people did get married but it was a much simpler thing back then. Essentially a public declaration was all that was needed (not even religious involvement if you go way back).
The move of the church to bring marriage strictly within it's purview was a power-grab to try and control people.
Yes, I think you're probably right. It wasn't the big, formal set-to it has become. And I don't think there was a great deal of "shame" attached to not being hitched or about having kids out of wedlock.
I'm not convinced. Shakespeare's characters seem to take for granted that bastards are treacherous by nature. Even if that wasn't his opinion, it must have reflected a widespread view at the time.
That might not be due to prejudice more observation that 'bastards' would oft feel aggrieved about lack of status or inheritance and hence do more plotting. Sort of stands to reason
Historically, most sex was pre-marital as most people did not actually get married. It was what wealthy people did. Throughout most of our history we have been a pretty degenerate country - lots of boozing, lots of debauched sex, lots of violence. There was a period when this was curtailed, maybe because of two world wars and, before that in the Victorian/Edwardian eras, a whole host of imperial adventures, a lot of emigration and the rise of non-conformist christianity; but since the 60s, we have been reverting to type.
To go against you Southam I think people did get married but it was a much simpler thing back then. Essentially a public declaration was all that was needed (not even religious involvement if you go way back).
The move of the church to bring marriage strictly within it's purview was a power-grab to try and control people.
Yes, I think you're probably right. It wasn't the big, formal set-to it has become. And I don't think there was a great deal of "shame" attached to not being hitched or about having kids out of wedlock.
I'm not convinced. Shakespeare's characters seem to take for granted that bastards are treacherous by nature. Even if that wasn't his opinion, it must have reflected a widespread view at the time.
At the top end of society - which Shakespeare wrote about mainly - they were certainly a complication because they could get in the way of inheritances etc. But, at the same time, many royal bastards were looked after very well. Isn't that where we get Fitzroys from?
Of course he is. Not far right, but definitely hard right. He considers the Blair premiership to be a "coup d'etat", believes sex education to be anti-Christian propaganda, thinks there should have been a public debate before we introduced television, and that the presence of American troops during the War damaged British culture.
It is worth remembering that in the days before pre-marital sex was generally accepted, as many as three quarters of men admitted to visiting prostitutes. People remember the good things about "the old days" and choose to forget the bad.
The disapproval of pre-marital sex wasn't to police men, it was to provide them with virgin wives that they didn't need to feel insecure about.
Oh c'mon !!
The scares started due to the fear of white women sleeping with dark-skinned men.
Which relates to white male anxiety about dark skinned male (cough) "equipment"
Of course he is. Not far right, but definitely hard right. He considers the Blair premiership to be a "coup d'etat", believes sex education to be anti-Christian propaganda, thinks there should have been a public debate before we introduced television, and that the presence of American troops during the War damaged British culture.
It is worth remembering that in the days before pre-marital sex was generally accepted, as many as three quarters of men admitted to visiting prostitutes. People remember the good things about "the old days" and choose to forget the bad.
The disapproval of pre-marital sex wasn't to police men, it was to provide them with virgin wives that they didn't need to feel insecure about.
Oh c'mon !!
Traditional morality laws have always been about policing women's "innocence" rather than men's. Just look at the laws against interracial sex in the US south or British India. White men had been having relations with dark-skinned women for centuries - Thomas Jefferson sexually abused his own slaves - and no one gave a damn. The scares started due to the fear of white women sleeping with dark-skinned men.
I think it was slightly more pragmatic than protecting'innocence' in that in an age before effective birth control (and social welfare ) it was more about not creating kids with nobody to support to adulthood
I'd suggest that the need for clear lines of inheritance would play a part, of course more of an aristocratic concern.
Historically, most sex was pre-marital as most people did not actually get married. It was what wealthy people did. Throughout most of our history we have been a pretty degenerate country - lots of boozing, lots of debauched sex, lots of violence. There was a period when this was curtailed, maybe because of two world wars and, before that in the Victorian/Edwardian eras, a whole host of imperial adventures, a lot of emigration and the rise of non-conformist christianity; but since the 60s, we have been reverting to type.
To go against you Southam I think people did get married but it was a much simpler thing back then. Essentially a public declaration was all that was needed (not even religious involvement if you go way back).
The move of the church to bring marriage strictly within it's purview was a power-grab to try and control people.
Yes, I think you're probably right. It wasn't the big, formal set-to it has become. And I don't think there was a great deal of "shame" attached to not being hitched or about having kids out of wedlock.
I'm not convinced. Shakespeare's characters seem to take for granted that bastards are treacherous by nature. Even if that wasn't his opinion, it must have reflected a widespread view at the time.
That might not be due to prejudice more observation that 'bastards' would oft feel aggrieved about lack of status or inheritance and hence do more plotting. Sort of stands to reason
I think so, There was some reason to this prejudice. The Beauforts ultimately supplanted the Plantagenets, after all.
Historically, most sex was pre-marital as most people did not actually get married. It was what wealthy people did. Throughout most of our history we have been a pretty degenerate country - lots of boozing, lots of debauched sex, lots of violence. There was a period when this was curtailed, maybe because of two world wars and, before that in the Victorian/Edwardian eras, a whole host of imperial adventures, a lot of emigration and the rise of non-conformist christianity; but since the 60s, we have been reverting to type.
To go against you Southam I think people did get married but it was a much simpler thing back then. Essentially a public declaration was all that was needed (not even religious involvement if you go way back).
The move of the church to bring marriage strictly within it's purview was a power-grab to try and control people.
Yes, I think you're probably right. It wasn't the big, formal set-to it has become. And I don't think there was a great deal of "shame" attached to not being hitched or about having kids out of wedlock.
I'm not convinced. Shakespeare's characters seem to take for granted that bastards are treacherous by nature. Even if that wasn't his opinion, it must have reflected a widespread view at the time.
At the top end of society - which Shakespeare wrote about mainly - they were certainly a complication because they could get in the way of inheritances etc. But, at the same time, many royal bastards were looked after very well. Isn't that where we get Fitzroys from?
Royalty were never really bound by the rules of everyone else. The life of a royal bastard could be great, if your father acknowledged you, or dismal, if he ignored you.
".. lunchtime drinking (when at work) are seen very different then they used to."
Not half, one of the more objectionable American attitudes that were imported after the City's big bang - as if a pint or two at lunchtime or even three or four ever hurt (operators of machinery etc excepted, but they didn't indulge anyway).
With drugs nobody seems to be saying what the ill is that they want to eradicate. Is it Wayne and Waynetta killing themselves? Is it the huge amount of money, and hence power, that the drugs trade gives to criminal gangs? Is it the crime associated with drug use that fills our prisons (in the late 1990s 83% of the prisoners in Lewes Prison were drug users or in for drug associated crime)? Is it to save money in policing (in the early 1990s the USA was spending $60bn a year on counter narcotics policing - the UK figure was per-capita much the same) and let us not forget that the "failing" so called war on drugs provides a nice living to lots of coppers, civil servants, lawyers, social workers etc. etc.. What strategy one adopts depends on what one is trying to achieve.
As with booze and fags, nobody seems to want to think the problem through. Getting people to stop using tobacco has been a massive success, except nobody seems to have thought of the consequences - additional health costs (dementia is far more expensive than lung cancer for example) and pensions becoming unaffordable to name just two.
Ha, this talk of bastards not getting a fair deal with inheritance reminds me of the Sharia story a few days ago.
Incidentally, one lad at my school was a bastard. He got some light ribbing for it, but nothing serious.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Observer, Fitz (a bastard) is the main character in Robin Hobb's Farseer Trilogy.
I was rather taken aback by that Law Society Guidance. People are free to dispose of their property as they wish, but I don't think we should be assisting them to disinherit daughters, illegitimate children, children who convert etc.
Mr. F, absolutely. I saw a snippet of BBC News24, and the presenter and two guests (doing a paper review, I think) all agreed it was a good thing. Either it makes no difference (in which case the change is unnecessary) or it does, in which case it would seem to be inherently misogynist.
I'm not a feminist (indeed, I think feminism's a bad thing, I prefer equality) but that seems utterly unacceptable. We have a de facto censorship law regarding Mohammed, the Rochdale and related incidents are well-known about, and now we seem to be allowing the barbarity of Sharia to creep into the law.
"Labour is set to back plans to give ministers powers to decriminalise non-payment of the BBC licence fee, giving the move cross-party political support."
As an aside, who gets the cash from non-payment penalties? The BBC or the government?
I think the answer is probably noone. There is a huge backlog (AFAIK) of non payment of fines and loads are written off. If they aren't going to pay the license fee, they aren't going top pay the fine either unless threatened with imprisonment. If they are not going to be threatened with imprisonment, what is the incentive to pay>?
Mr. Eagles, I wonder if I'll be around for the thousand year anniversary of Hastings... one hopes there's a suitable link on that evening's Nighthawks thread.
Of course he is. Not far right, but definitely hard right. He considers the Blair premiership to be a "coup d'etat", believes sex education to be anti-Christian propaganda, thinks there should have been a public debate before we introduced television, and that the presence of American troops during the War damaged British culture.
It is worth remembering that in the days before pre-marital sex was generally accepted, as many as three quarters of men admitted to visiting prostitutes. People remember the good things about "the old days" and choose to forget the bad.
The disapproval of pre-marital sex wasn't to police men, it was to provide them with virgin wives that they didn't need to feel insecure about.
Oh c'mon !!
Traditional morality laws have always been about policing women's "innocence" rather than men's. Just look at the laws against interracial sex in the US south or British India. White men had been having relations with dark-skinned women for centuries - Thomas Jefferson sexually abused his own slaves - and no one gave a damn. The scares started due to the fear of white women sleeping with dark-skinned men.
I don't think there were ever laws against inter-racial sex in British India (after c.1850 it attracted social disapproval, prior to then it was very much the norm). Much of the hostility towards the practice actually came from the growing number of British women who came out to India, as communications improved.
Not all female British ex-pats in India were against a spot of tiffin as noted by Lady Rough-Diamond's attraction to the Khazi of Kalibar is testament.
Mr. Corporeal, quite. Did you know another sequel trilogy is in the works? I forget the release date but I think the first book might be out this year.
Edited extra bit: Amazon reckons it'll be out in August, and is called Fool's Assassin.
Ha, this talk of bastards not getting a fair deal with inheritance reminds me of the Sharia story a few days ago.
Incidentally, one lad at my school was a bastard. He got some light ribbing for it, but nothing serious.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Observer, Fitz (a bastard) is the main character in Robin Hobb's Farseer Trilogy.
I was rather taken aback by that Law Society Guidance. People are free to dispose of their property as they wish, but I don't think we should be assisting them to disinherit daughters, illegitimate children, children who convert etc.
Don't we help our rulers to disinherit daughters and those who convert.
I mean converting to Catholicism or marrying one leads you to removed from the line of succession and if Princess Anne was older than Charles....
Of course he is. Not far right, but definitely hard right. He considers the Blair premiership to be a "coup d'etat", believes sex education to be anti-Christian propaganda, thinks there should have been a public debate before we introduced television, and that the presence of American troops during the War damaged British culture.
It is worth remembering that in the days before pre-marital sex was generally accepted, as many as three quarters of men admitted to visiting prostitutes. People remember the good things about "the old days" and choose to forget the bad.
The disapproval of pre-marital sex wasn't to police men, it was to provide them with virgin wives that they didn't need to feel insecure about.
Oh c'mon !!
Traditional morality laws have always been about policing women's "innocence" rather than men's. Just look at the laws against interracial sex in the US south or British India. White men had been having relations with dark-skinned women for centuries - Thomas Jefferson sexually abused his own slaves - and no one gave a damn. The scares started due to the fear of white women sleeping with dark-skinned men.
I don't think there were ever laws against inter-racial sex in British India (after c.1850 it attracted social disapproval, prior to then it was very much the norm). Much of the hostility towards the practice actually came from the growing number of British women who came out to India, as communications improved.
Not all female British ex-pats in India were against a spot of tiffin as noted by Lady Rough-Diamond's attraction to the Khazi of Kalibar is testament.
Of course he is. Not far right, but definitely hard right. He considers the Blair premiership to be a "coup d'etat", believes sex education to be anti-Christian propaganda, thinks there should have been a public debate before we introduced television, and that the presence of American troops during the War damaged British culture.
It is worth remembering that in the days before pre-marital sex was generally accepted, as many as three quarters of men admitted to visiting prostitutes. People remember the good things about "the old days" and choose to forget the bad.
The disapproval of pre-marital sex wasn't to police men, it was to provide them with virgin wives that they didn't need to feel insecure about.
Oh c'mon !!
Traditional morality laws have always been about policing women's "innocence" rather than men's. Just look at the laws against interracial sex in the US south or British India. White men had been having relations with dark-skinned women for centuries - Thomas Jefferson sexually abused his own slaves - and no one gave a damn. The scares started due to the fear of white women sleeping with dark-skinned men.
I think it was slightly more pragmatic than protecting'innocence' in that in an age before effective birth control (and social welfare ) it was more about not creating kids with nobody to support to adulthood
Except that plenty of kids were born to black/Indian women that had been impregnated by white men and not really policed. It was only when the races were switched that it would become a scandal.
Of course he is. Not far right, but definitely hard right. He considers the Blair premiership to be a "coup d'etat", believes sex education to be anti-Christian propaganda, thinks there should have been a public debate before we introduced television, and that the presence of American troops during the War damaged British culture.
It is worth remembering that in the days before pre-marital sex was generally accepted, as many as three quarters of men admitted to visiting prostitutes. People remember the good things about "the old days" and choose to forget the bad.
The disapproval of pre-marital sex wasn't to police men, it was to provide them with virgin wives that they didn't need to feel insecure about.
Oh c'mon !!
Traditional morality laws have always been about policing women's "innocence" rather than men's. Just look at the laws against interracial sex in the US south or British India. White men had been having relations with dark-skinned women for centuries - Thomas Jefferson sexually abused his own slaves - and no one gave a damn. The scares started due to the fear of white women sleeping with dark-skinned men.
I don't think there were ever laws against inter-racial sex in British India (after c.1850 it attracted social disapproval, prior to then it was very much the norm). Much of the hostility towards the practice actually came from the growing number of British women who came out to India, as communications improved.
The Anglo-Indian community still have 2 out of 545 seats reserved for them in the Indian lower house (Lok Sabha).
A big difference with the US South is that (in the 18th and early 19th centuries) quite a lot of upper and middle class British men in India married Indian women.
Plenty of black female slaves gave birth to the sons of their plantation owners.
Mr. Eagles, I wonder if I'll be around for the thousand year anniversary of Hastings... one hopes there's a suitable link on that evening's Nighthawks thread.
October 14th provides a couple of good anniversaries for people in Britain as any proud Scot will tell you.
Mr. Eagles, there's no primacy for male children any more, the law's changed.
Catholicism is a perfectly legitimate grounds for being barred from the throne. You can't have the head of the Anglican Church consider the Pope to be infallible, or the head of state for about 17 countries feel likewise about another head of state.
And, as I'm rambling (whilst I wait for a scan to finish), the British monarchy is probably the closest thing to a successor to the Roman emperors. It would be unseemly to be subservient to a foreign prince.
[Incidentally, many thanks to the those who offered me advice and assistance beforehand. I think the computer's clear. I found an old pain.net file (from before the OS change, and it always worked fine) and opened that, and it seems to be working alright. Should mean I won't have to download anything to fiddle about with maps for Kingdom Asunder etc].
Mr. F, absolutely. I saw a snippet of BBC News24, and the presenter and two guests (doing a paper review, I think) all agreed it was a good thing. Either it makes no difference (in which case the change is unnecessary) or it does, in which case it would seem to be inherently misogynist.
I'm not a feminist (indeed, I think feminism's a bad thing, I prefer equality) but that seems utterly unacceptable. We have a de facto censorship law regarding Mohammed, the Rochdale and related incidents are well-known about, and now we seem to be allowing the barbarity of Sharia to creep into the law.
Mr Dancer, the allowance of 'foreign' religious laws to co-exist beneath the British legal system is a long held standard that has gone on for a century or more (see the Orthodox Jewish Beth Din Courts). Ultimately the point of a lawyer is to act on the wishes of their client and if this guidance assists that then it's sad but correct.
I'd argue heavily against you in your understanding of feminism.
Of course he is. Not far right, but definitely hard right. He considers the Blair premiership to be a "coup d'etat", believes sex education to be anti-Christian propaganda, thinks there should have been a public debate before we introduced television, and that the presence of American troops during the War damaged British culture.
It is worth remembering that in the days before pre-marital sex was generally accepted, as many as three quarters of men admitted to visiting prostitutes. People remember the good things about "the old days" and choose to forget the bad.
The disapproval of pre-marital sex wasn't to police men, it was to provide them with virgin wives that they didn't need to feel insecure about.
Oh c'mon !!
Traditional morality laws have always been about policing women's "innocence" rather than men's. Just look at the laws against interracial sex in the US south or British India. White men had been having relations with dark-skinned women for centuries - Thomas Jefferson sexually abused his own slaves - and no one gave a damn. The scares started due to the fear of white women sleeping with dark-skinned men.
I don't think there were ever laws against inter-racial sex in British India (after c.1850 it attracted social disapproval, prior to then it was very much the norm). Much of the hostility towards the practice actually came from the growing number of British women who came out to India, as communications improved.
The Anglo-Indian community still have 2 out of 545 seats reserved for them in the Indian lower house (Lok Sabha).
A big difference with the US South is that (in the 18th and early 19th centuries) quite a lot of upper and middle class British men in India married Indian women.
Plenty of black female slaves gave birth to the sons of their plantation owners.
Were such children ever treated as legitimate (I believe that in the French West Indies, children of masters and slaves were sometimes legitimised?)
People don't get put in prison for taking drugs. Don't believe anyone who tells you otherwise.
If you put people in prison for taking drugs you'd have hundreds of thousands of lags. Maybe more.
Or fewer people would start taking drugs maybe?
How about banning 'gateway' drugs, like alcohol or nicotine?
I wouldn't be surprised if the use of tobacco was banned in my lifetime. It seems to provoke disgust among a large number of people.
I suspect it will be replaced by less harmful Nicotine delivery methods (which don't have the same side effects for non-consumers) .....the drug will carry on......
Good point. I think e-cigarettes will eventually take over - they are not quite there yet. They need better dosage control (I spin out on nicotine because the product allows you to keep smoking it endlessly) but the tech is still pretty impressive. And you can smoke them inside, which is great.
Ha, this talk of bastards not getting a fair deal with inheritance reminds me of the Sharia story a few days ago.
Incidentally, one lad at my school was a bastard. He got some light ribbing for it, but nothing serious.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Observer, Fitz (a bastard) is the main character in Robin Hobb's Farseer Trilogy.
I was rather taken aback by that Law Society Guidance. People are free to dispose of their property as they wish, but I don't think we should be assisting them to disinherit daughters, illegitimate children, children who convert etc.
Mr. Eagles, there's no primacy for male children any more, the law's changed.
Catholicism is a perfectly legitimate grounds for being barred from the throne. You can't have the head of the Anglican Church consider the Pope to be infallible, or the head of state for about 17 countries feel likewise about another head of state.
And, as I'm rambling (whilst I wait for a scan to finish), the British monarchy is probably the closest thing to a successor to the Roman emperors. It would be unseemly to be subservient to a foreign prince.
[Incidentally, many thanks to the those who offered me advice and assistance beforehand. I think the computer's clear. I found an old pain.net file (from before the OS change, and it always worked fine) and opened that, and it seems to be working alright. Should mean I won't have to download anything to fiddle about with maps for Kingdom Asunder etc].
It is a quirk Mr Dancer that it is only Catholicism that is a disqualifier. It is perfectly legal to be a muslim, hindu, or a non-conformist Christian (and so on).
I hadn't heard of the new series actually, I thought she'd left that series and stuck firmly to other parts of that universe. I'm now quite excited.
People don't get put in prison for taking drugs. Don't believe anyone who tells you otherwise.
No: people get put in prison for dealing drugs. And people get put in prison for the crime that goes alongside the illegal nature of drugs - prostitution, gangs, and the like.
The reason that people don't get put in jail for taking drugs is because if you take a normal person, and put him in Wormwood Scrubs for 18 months for being caught with heroin or the like, then when he comes out he will struggle to find a regular job, and will probably end up doing illegal stuff, like all the guys he's just spent the last 18 months in prison with. (I actually know a guy who spent time in Bedford jail for drug offences, who is now an incredibly successful software developer. He is one of the lucky ones.)
We learnt from the prohibition of alcohol in America that if you make something illegal which there is demand for, then you will create crime around the supply of that substance.
Make it legal, expensive, and controlled.
We already have a black market in cheap booze and fags though, if drugs were decriminalised, then the market would still exist.
ALthough that is simple tax arbitrage, right? People buy fags (legally) in places where they are legal and cheap and import them to the UK. The customer gets a quality controlled product (a Marlboro Light is the same anywhere, right?) at a slightly lower cost.
That's not true with illegal drugs. It's be the choice between Makers Mark at a dispensary or Dave's moonshine out the back of a van.
Agreed. Here's a government certified pill of pure MDMA for £10 or something that could be paracetamol that you have to buy in someone's dodgy flat for £5. Hmm.
Mr. Eagles, there's no primacy for male children any more, the law's changed.
Catholicism is a perfectly legitimate grounds for being barred from the throne. You can't have the head of the Anglican Church consider the Pope to be infallible, or the head of state for about 17 countries feel likewise about another head of state.
And, as I'm rambling (whilst I wait for a scan to finish), the British monarchy is probably the closest thing to a successor to the Roman emperors. It would be unseemly to be subservient to a foreign prince.
[Incidentally, many thanks to the those who offered me advice and assistance beforehand. I think the computer's clear. I found an old pain.net file (from before the OS change, and it always worked fine) and opened that, and it seems to be working alright. Should mean I won't have to download anything to fiddle about with maps for Kingdom Asunder etc].
The law hadn't changed yet!
You see, I love Roman Emperors and Dictators and I love the Queen, but I'm not a fan of the monarchy per se.
I'm not sure I believe in this gubbins about the Divine Right of Kings or a unelected Head of State.
Ha, this talk of bastards not getting a fair deal with inheritance reminds me of the Sharia story a few days ago.
Incidentally, one lad at my school was a bastard. He got some light ribbing for it, but nothing serious.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Observer, Fitz (a bastard) is the main character in Robin Hobb's Farseer Trilogy.
I was rather taken aback by that Law Society Guidance. People are free to dispose of their property as they wish, but I don't think we should be assisting them to disinherit daughters, illegitimate children, children who convert etc.
How about banning 'gateway' drugs, like alcohol or nicotine?
Alcohol is fundamentally different in that people consume it because it tastes good; with a meal, the food and the alcohol improve each other. The point of consumption is not to become intoxicated.
None of this is true of proscribed drugs, AFAIK. Not many western societies have approved of consuming something whose sole use was to get you off your sʇıʇ and that if used in moderation did not work at all.
It is worth remembering that in the days before pre-marital sex was generally accepted, as many as three quarters of men admitted to visiting prostitutes.
Of course he is. Not far right, but definitely hard right. He considers the Blair premiership to be a "coup d'etat", believes sex education to be anti-Christian propaganda, thinks there should have been a public debate before we introduced television, and that the presence of American troops during the War damaged British culture.
It is worth remembering that in the days before pre-marital sex was generally accepted, as many as three quarters of men admitted to visiting prostitutes. People remember the good things about "the old days" and choose to forget the bad.
The disapproval of pre-marital sex wasn't to police men, it was to provide them with virgin wives that they didn't need to feel insecure about.
Oh c'mon !!
Traditional morality laws have always been about policing women's "innocence" rather than men's. Just look at the laws against interracial sex in the US south or British India. White men had been having relations with dark-skinned women for centuries - Thomas Jefferson sexually abused his own slaves - and no one gave a damn. The scares started due to the fear of white women sleeping with dark-skinned men.
I don't think there were ever laws against inter-racial sex in British India (after c.1850 it attracted social disapproval, prior to then it was very much the norm). Much of the hostility towards the practice actually came from the growing number of British women who came out to India, as communications improved.
The Anglo-Indian community still have 2 out of 545 seats reserved for them in the Indian lower house (Lok Sabha).
A big difference with the US South is that (in the 18th and early 19th centuries) quite a lot of upper and middle class British men in India married Indian women.
Plenty of black female slaves gave birth to the sons of their plantation owners.
Were such children ever treated as legitimate (I believe that in the French West Indies, children of masters and slaves were sometimes legitimised?)
Not in the United States. They specifically made the one drop rule, so that the descendants of slaves would always be second class.
Mr. Eagles, I wonder if I'll be around for the thousand year anniversary of Hastings... one hopes there's a suitable link on that evening's Nighthawks thread.
October 14th provides a couple of good anniversaries for people in Britain as any proud Scot will tell you.
@LordAshcroft: The Act of Union uniting England and Scotland was signed today in 1707.
Ha, this talk of bastards not getting a fair deal with inheritance reminds me of the Sharia story a few days ago.
Incidentally, one lad at my school was a bastard. He got some light ribbing for it, but nothing serious.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Observer, Fitz (a bastard) is the main character in Robin Hobb's Farseer Trilogy.
I was rather taken aback by that Law Society Guidance. People are free to dispose of their property as they wish, but I don't think we should be assisting them to disinherit daughters, illegitimate children, children who convert etc.
Agreed. Here's a government certified pill of pure MDMA for £10 or something that could be paracetamol that you have to buy in someone's dodgy flat for £5. Hmm.
You great nancy boy, only buying the nice safe government drugs. Are they nice and safe for you? Not cool enough to buy the one made in someone's dodgy flat that's much better? They go nicely with your NHS frames, you daring rebel you.
Mr. Eagles, I wonder if I'll be around for the thousand year anniversary of Hastings... one hopes there's a suitable link on that evening's Nighthawks thread.
October 14th provides a couple of good anniversaries for people in Britain as any proud Scot will tell you.
@LordAshcroft: The Act of Union uniting England and Scotland was signed today in 1707.
Has anyone noted today's Other constitutional anniversary?
Mr. Eagles, I wonder if I'll be around for the thousand year anniversary of Hastings... one hopes there's a suitable link on that evening's Nighthawks thread.
October 14th provides a couple of good anniversaries for people in Britain as any proud Scot will tell you.
@LordAshcroft: The Act of Union uniting England and Scotland was signed today in 1707.
Ha, this talk of bastards not getting a fair deal with inheritance reminds me of the Sharia story a few days ago.
Incidentally, one lad at my school was a bastard. He got some light ribbing for it, but nothing serious.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Observer, Fitz (a bastard) is the main character in Robin Hobb's Farseer Trilogy.
I was rather taken aback by that Law Society Guidance. People are free to dispose of their property as they wish, but I don't think we should be assisting them to disinherit daughters, illegitimate children, children who convert etc.
I find the idea of assisting people to enforce religiously mandated inequality horrific.
Careful, you'll be labelled a racist, obsessive Islamophobe if you voice views like that.
Depends who's around to sling mud...
Sharia is an abomination. It has no place at all in a tolerant culture.
Indeed. It has no place in a society where equality under the law is a key principle and we do not believe in discrimination on the grounds of gender and have enshrined this in many many pieces of legislation since the 1970's.
Why should a British woman be treated unfavourably purely on the basis of the religion of her father or mother? It is wrong.
Interestingly, in many European countries, it is not possible to disinherit your children nor to treat them uneqally.
Sharia is an abomination. It has no place at all in a tolerant culture.
True, but Labour's Britain was not a tolerant culture. On most things there was only one permissible view and you could be expected to be at the very least scolded / insulted, and in other cases prosecuted, for disagreeing with the one permissible view.
Alcohol is fundamentally different in that people consume it because it tastes good; with a meal, the food and the alcohol improve each other. The point of consumption is not to become intoxicated.
Bollocks. Meals become much more pleasant when you're slightly squiffy, and it does wonders for the conversation. Or would you happily switch to an alcohol-free claret?
Ha, this talk of bastards not getting a fair deal with inheritance reminds me of the Sharia story a few days ago.
Incidentally, one lad at my school was a bastard. He got some light ribbing for it, but nothing serious.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Observer, Fitz (a bastard) is the main character in Robin Hobb's Farseer Trilogy.
I was rather taken aback by that Law Society Guidance. People are free to dispose of their property as they wish, but I don't think we should be assisting them to disinherit daughters, illegitimate children, children who convert etc.
I find the idea of assisting people to enforce religiously mandated inequality horrific.
Careful, you'll be labelled a racist, obsessive Islamophobe if you voice views like that.
Depends who's around to sling mud...
Sharia is an abomination. It has no place at all in a tolerant culture.
What an obnoxious things to say. All cultures are equal, and just because ours values things like equality before the law doesn't mean we should push these cultural sentiments on to others. We must give room for all communities to abide by their own norms side by side with our ones, so that we have a "tossed salad" of a society. It's racist to push immigrant communities to integrate.
In addition, we should not slow down the migration of people with such views into this country either.
Ha, this talk of bastards not getting a fair deal with inheritance reminds me of the Sharia story a few days ago.
Incidentally, one lad at my school was a bastard. He got some light ribbing for it, but nothing serious.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Observer, Fitz (a bastard) is the main character in Robin Hobb's Farseer Trilogy.
I was rather taken aback by that Law Society Guidance. People are free to dispose of their property as they wish, but I don't think we should be assisting them to disinherit daughters, illegitimate children, children who convert etc.
I find the idea of assisting people to enforce religiously mandated inequality horrific.
Careful, you'll be labelled a racist, obsessive Islamophobe if you voice views like that.
Depends who's around to sling mud...
Sharia is an abomination. It has no place at all in a tolerant culture.
What an obnoxious things to say. All cultures are equal, and just because ours values things like equality before the law doesn't mean we should push these cultural sentiments on to others. We must give room for all communities to abide by their own norms side by side with our ones, so that we have a "tossed salad" of a society. It's racist to push immigrant communities to integrate.
In addition, we should not slow down the migration of people with such views into this country either.
I'm duly chastised, and now understand why FGM is viewed so benevolently in the UK.
Ha, this talk of bastards not getting a fair deal with inheritance reminds me of the Sharia story a few days ago.
Incidentally, one lad at my school was a bastard. He got some light ribbing for it, but nothing serious.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Observer, Fitz (a bastard) is the main character in Robin Hobb's Farseer Trilogy.
I was rather taken aback by that Law Society Guidance. People are free to dispose of their property as they wish, but I don't think we should be assisting them to disinherit daughters, illegitimate children, children who convert etc.
I find the idea of assisting people to enforce religiously mandated inequality horrific.
Careful, you'll be labelled a racist, obsessive Islamophobe if you voice views like that.
Depends who's around to sling mud...
Sharia is an abomination. It has no place at all in a tolerant culture.
What an obnoxious things to say. All cultures are equal, and just because ours values things like equality before the law doesn't mean we should push these cultural sentiments on to others. We must give room for all communities to abide by their own norms side by side with our ones, so that we have a "tossed salad" of a society. It's racist to push immigrant communities to integrate.
In addition, we should not slow down the migration of people with such views into this country either.
I'm duly chastised, and now understand why FGM is viewed so benevolently in the UK.
And the war on drugs has hardly been an enormous success.
The war on drugs has failed utterly and completely. legalise, tax and regulate.
Well that's the issue: wahabbi clerics and Peter Hitchen want us to forget the taste of the apple of freedom.
Actually Peter Hitchens never said he thought homosexuality should be illegal. I have heard him say many times that he supported the act that legalised it.
There never has been a war on drugs, that's the point. People don't get nicked for taking or possessing drugs. I, and all my mates, grew up taking drugs, getting caught with them,Going to places where they were openly taken, and the only people that ever got arrested were two massive international dealers/smugglers.
One friend got caught with 10k of coke and scales etc in his house and got let off saying he was depressed and paranoid about getting raw deals!
Every bar in the city of London has people sniffing coke in it on a Friday night. Do the police know this? yes. Would they dream of raiding and searching? No
That's the point. There never has been a war on drugs, it's why Hitchens wrote a book called 'The War We Never Fought'
People don't get put in prison for taking drugs. Don't believe anyone who tells you otherwise.
We learnt from the prohibition of alcohol in America that if you make something illegal which there is demand for, then you will create crime around the supply of that substance.
Make it legal, expensive, and controlled.
It really is remarkably simple, isn't it.....yet legal drugs, alcohol and nicotine, do much more damage, but are regulated (heavily) taxed and the supply controlled.......and 'drug addicts' like 'alcoholics' should be treated as a medical problem.....
Nicotine is pretty harmless (it's even classified in the pharmacopeia as GRAS - generally regarded as safe).
It's tobacco that's the problem.
If only someone could come up with a clinically-proven device for consistent delivery of medical-grade nicotine...
Ha, this talk of bastards not getting a fair deal with inheritance reminds me of the Sharia story a few days ago.
Incidentally, one lad at my school was a bastard. He got some light ribbing for it, but nothing serious.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Observer, Fitz (a bastard) is the main character in Robin Hobb's Farseer Trilogy.
I was rather taken aback by that Law Society Guidance. People are free to dispose of their property as they wish, but I don't think we should be assisting them to disinherit daughters, illegitimate children, children who convert etc.
I find the idea of assisting people to enforce religiously mandated inequality horrific.
Careful, you'll be labelled a racist, obsessive Islamophobe if you voice views like that.
Depends who's around to sling mud...
Sharia is an abomination. It has no place at all in a tolerant culture.
What an obnoxious things to say. All cultures are equal, and just because ours values things like equality before the law doesn't mean we should push these cultural sentiments on to others. We must give room for all communities to abide by their own norms side by side with our ones, so that we have a "tossed salad" of a society. It's racist to push immigrant communities to integrate.
In addition, we should not slow down the migration of people with such views into this country either.
that doesn't make sense to me - you state (as an absolute rule?) that all cultures are equal ,then also say that equality is only a part of our culture. even if it does make sense to more perceptive minds than mine it is totally lacking in pragmatism for it to be entertained seriously
How about banning 'gateway' drugs, like alcohol or nicotine?
Alcohol is fundamentally different in that people consume it because it tastes good; with a meal, the food and the alcohol improve each other. The point of consumption is not to become intoxicated.
How about banning 'gateway' drugs, like alcohol or nicotine?
Alcohol is fundamentally different in that people consume it because it tastes good; with a meal, the food and the alcohol improve each other. The point of consumption is not to become intoxicated.
*coughs*
Really?
I personally like alcohol and hate being drunk - so it works for me the theory!!
Mr. Eagles, I was under the impression that it had.
Would you prefer we used the adoptive principle which saw Rome enjoy a Golden Age, until the overrated Marcus Aurelius buggered it up?
An elected Head of State/Monarch.
Imagine Brian Blessed as King!
Just think of his King's speeches on Christmas Day.
They'd get the same ratings as Doctor Who
Brian Blessed as King I could cope with but suppose it went wrong and the elected Ed Miliband.
Nah, if,as I sincerely hope, we go back to an Elizabethan monarchy (MkI not the MkII we currently have) best leave the choice of monarch to God. Elections based on universal suffrage seldom work above Parish Council level.
Ha, this talk of bastards not getting a fair deal with inheritance reminds me of the Sharia story a few days ago.
Incidentally, one lad at my school was a bastard. He got some light ribbing for it, but nothing serious.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Observer, Fitz (a bastard) is the main character in Robin Hobb's Farseer Trilogy.
I was rather taken aback by that Law Society Guidance. People are free to dispose of their property as they wish, but I don't think we should be assisting them to disinherit daughters, illegitimate children, children who convert etc.
I find the idea of assisting people to enforce religiously mandated inequality horrific.
Careful, you'll be labelled a racist, obsessive Islamophobe if you voice views like that.
Depends who's around to sling mud...
Sharia is an abomination. It has no place at all in a tolerant culture.
What an obnoxious things to say. All cultures are equal, and just because ours values things like equality before the law doesn't mean we should push these cultural sentiments on to others. We must give room for all communities to abide by their own norms side by side with our ones, so that we have a "tossed salad" of a society. It's racist to push immigrant communities to integrate.
In addition, we should not slow down the migration of people with such views into this country either.
I'm duly chastised, and now understand why FGM is viewed so benevolently in the UK.
Double standards, did you say?
FGM has nothing to do with sharia.
Yes. I know.
It was a comment on the acceptability of aspects of various cultures in our current society. Both Sharia and FGM are rabidly misogynistic, so it seemed an appropriate parallel. It also seemed worthy of comment that they're viewed respectively as ok and not-ok, often by the same people.
Mr. Eagles, I was under the impression that it had.
Would you prefer we used the adoptive principle which saw Rome enjoy a Golden Age, until the overrated Marcus Aurelius buggered it up?
An elected Head of State/Monarch.
Imagine Brian Blessed as King!
Just think of his King's speeches on Christmas Day.
They'd get the same ratings as Doctor Who
Brian Blessed as King I could cope with but suppose it went wrong and the elected Ed Miliband.
Nah, if,as I sincerely hope, we go back to an Elizabethan monarchy (MkI not the MkII we currently have) best leave the choice of monarch to God. Elections based on universal suffrage seldom work above Parish Council level.
My plans for a directly elected Dictator are the way forward.
Ha, this talk of bastards not getting a fair deal with inheritance reminds me of the Sharia story a few days ago.
Incidentally, one lad at my school was a bastard. He got some light ribbing for it, but nothing serious.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Observer, Fitz (a bastard) is the main character in Robin Hobb's Farseer Trilogy.
I was rather taken aback by that Law Society Guidance. People are free to dispose of their property as they wish, but I don't think we should be assisting them to disinherit daughters, illegitimate children, children who convert etc.
Ha, this talk of bastards not getting a fair deal with inheritance reminds me of the Sharia story a few days ago.
Incidentally, one lad at my school was a bastard. He got some light ribbing for it, but nothing serious.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Observer, Fitz (a bastard) is the main character in Robin Hobb's Farseer Trilogy.
I was rather taken aback by that Law Society Guidance. People are free to dispose of their property as they wish, but I don't think we should be assisting them to disinherit daughters, illegitimate children, children who convert etc.
I find the idea of assisting people to enforce religiously mandated inequality horrific.
Careful, you'll be labelled a racist, obsessive Islamophobe if you voice views like that.
Depends who's around to sling mud...
Sharia is an abomination. It has no place at all in a tolerant culture.
What an obnoxious things to say. All cultures are equal, and just because ours values things like equality before the law doesn't mean we should push these cultural sentiments on to others. We must give room for all communities to abide by their own norms side by side with our ones, so that we have a "tossed salad" of a society. It's racist to push immigrant communities to integrate.
In addition, we should not slow down the migration of people with such views into this country either.
I'm duly chastised, and now understand why FGM is viewed so benevolently in the UK.
Double standards, did you say?
FGM has nothing to do with sharia.
FGM is a barbaric practice and horrific crime. It arises from a mindset which views women as a mere tool for the production of children and who must be prevented from having or expressing or enjoying their sexuality. We should have no tolerance at all for cultures which have such views and which act on such views by causing grievous bodily harm to young girls, not just at the time of mutilation but for the rest of their lives.
Of course he is. Not far right, but definitely hard right. He considers the Blair premiership to be a "coup d'etat", believes sex education to be anti-Christian propaganda, thinks there should have been a public debate before we introduced television, and that the presence of American troops during the War damaged British culture.
It is worth remembering that in the days before pre-marital sex was generally accepted, as many as three quarters of men admitted to visiting prostitutes. People remember the good things about "the old days" and choose to forget the bad.
The disapproval of pre-marital sex wasn't to police men, it was to provide them with virgin wives that they didn't need to feel insecure about.
Oh c'mon !!
The scares started due to the fear of white women sleeping with dark-skinned men.
Which relates to white male anxiety about dark skinned male (cough) "equipment"
Ha, this talk of bastards not getting a fair deal with inheritance reminds me of the Sharia story a few days ago.
Incidentally, one lad at my school was a bastard. He got some light ribbing for it, but nothing serious.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Observer, Fitz (a bastard) is the main character in Robin Hobb's Farseer Trilogy.
I was rather taken aback by that Law Society Guidance. People are free to dispose of their property as they wish, but I don't think we should be assisting them to disinherit daughters, illegitimate children, children who convert etc.
I find the idea of assisting people to enforce religiously mandated inequality horrific.
Careful, you'll be labelled a racist, obsessive Islamophobe if you voice views like that.
Depends who's around to sling mud...
Sharia is an abomination. It has no place at all in a tolerant culture.
What an obnoxious things to say. All cultures are equal, and just because ours values things like equality before the law doesn't mean we should push these cultural sentiments on to others. We must give room for all communities to abide by their own norms side by side with our ones, so that we have a "tossed salad" of a society. It's racist to push immigrant communities to integrate.
In addition, we should not slow down the migration of people with such views into this country either.
I'm duly chastised, and now understand why FGM is viewed so benevolently in the UK.
Double standards, did you say?
FGM has nothing to do with sharia.
FGM is a barbaric practice and horrific crime. It arises from a mindset which views women as a mere tool for the production of children and who must be prevented from having or expressing or enjoying their sexuality. We should have no tolerance at all for cultures which have such views and which act on such views by causing grievous bodily harm to young girls, not just at the time of mutilation but for the rest of their lives.
Hear, hear. The psychological damage can also be horrific.
Historically, most sex was pre-marital as most people did not actually get married. It was what wealthy people did. Throughout most of our history we have been a pretty degenerate country - lots of boozing, lots of debauched sex, lots of violence. There was a period when this was curtailed, maybe because of two world wars and, before that in the Victorian/Edwardian eras, a whole host of imperial adventures, a lot of emigration and the rise of non-conformist christianity; but since the 60s, we have been reverting to type.
To go against you Southam I think people did get married but it was a much simpler thing back then. Essentially a public declaration was all that was needed (not even religious involvement if you go way back).
The move of the church to bring marriage strictly within it's purview was a power-grab to try and control people.
Yes, I think you're probably right. It wasn't the big, formal set-to it has become. And I don't think there was a great deal of "shame" attached to not being hitched or about having kids out of wedlock.
I'm not convinced. Shakespeare's characters seem to take for granted that bastards are treacherous by nature. Even if that wasn't his opinion, it must have reflected a widespread view at the time.
At the top end of society - which Shakespeare wrote about mainly - they were certainly a complication because they could get in the way of inheritances etc. But, at the same time, many royal bastards were looked after very well. Isn't that where we get Fitzroys from?
Any Fitz-es in fact. Fitzroy, Fitzgerald, Fitzallen, ec.
Comments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1944
And all that luvly money that currently goes to gangstas buying guns,bling, wimmin and cars could go to helping to treat addicts.
We could cut these 'people' off at the ankles immediately. No more being a hero to kids on the estates.
The loss was exactly equal to zero ! If anything, since then, the duty free shops have expanded hugely.
In fcat, the next time I land I am expecting to pick up bread and milk at the airport !
we informed the majority of the families in advance of the Prime Minister’s statement in person and by telephone. SMSs were used only as an additional means of communicating with the families
http://www.malaysiaairlines.com/my/en/site/dark-site.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6161691.stm
Perhaps not.
The move of the church to bring marriage strictly within it's purview was a power-grab to try and control people.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/mar/24/ban-books-prisoners-england-wales-authors
http://authorherstorianparent.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/naughty-tudors-historical-realities-of.html
Betrayed!! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26714328
As an aside, who gets the cash from non-payment penalties? The BBC or the government?
I'm pretty sure that any Army officer who married an Indian lady would have to "send in his papers". Have a look at "The Fishing Fleet" by Anne de Courcy.
Incidentally, one lad at my school was a bastard. He got some light ribbing for it, but nothing serious.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Observer, Fitz (a bastard) is the main character in Robin Hobb's Farseer Trilogy.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/6414891/Worlds-smallest-working-model-train-set-unveiled.html
Especially as mine is an inch.
An inch from the floor.
Not half, one of the more objectionable American attitudes that were imported after the City's big bang - as if a pint or two at lunchtime or even three or four ever hurt (operators of machinery etc excepted, but they didn't indulge anyway).
With drugs nobody seems to be saying what the ill is that they want to eradicate. Is it Wayne and Waynetta killing themselves? Is it the huge amount of money, and hence power, that the drugs trade gives to criminal gangs? Is it the crime associated with drug use that fills our prisons (in the late 1990s 83% of the prisoners in Lewes Prison were drug users or in for drug associated crime)? Is it to save money in policing (in the early 1990s the USA was spending $60bn a year on counter narcotics policing - the UK figure was per-capita much the same) and let us not forget that the "failing" so called war on drugs provides a nice living to lots of coppers, civil servants, lawyers, social workers etc. etc.. What strategy one adopts depends on what one is trying to achieve.
As with booze and fags, nobody seems to want to think the problem through. Getting people to stop using tobacco has been a massive success, except nobody seems to have thought of the consequences - additional health costs (dementia is far more expensive than lung cancer for example) and pensions becoming unaffordable to name just two.
England history was so influenced by that Bastard.
I'm not a feminist (indeed, I think feminism's a bad thing, I prefer equality) but that seems utterly unacceptable. We have a de facto censorship law regarding Mohammed, the Rochdale and related incidents are well-known about, and now we seem to be allowing the barbarity of Sharia to creep into the law.
(A fine series, as is the sequel trilogy).
Edited extra bit: Amazon reckons it'll be out in August, and is called Fool's Assassin.
I mean converting to Catholicism or marrying one leads you to removed from the line of succession and if Princess Anne was older than Charles....
That said I'm no fan of Sharia Law.
Ladbrokes - Gordon (LD maj = 6,748)
LD 5/4
SNP 7/4 (from 2/1)
Lab 3/1 (from 5/2)
Con 20/1
UKIP 100/1
Note: the LAB and CON votes were nearly identical in 2010, so unclear why their 2015 prices are so different.
Catholicism is a perfectly legitimate grounds for being barred from the throne. You can't have the head of the Anglican Church consider the Pope to be infallible, or the head of state for about 17 countries feel likewise about another head of state.
And, as I'm rambling (whilst I wait for a scan to finish), the British monarchy is probably the closest thing to a successor to the Roman emperors. It would be unseemly to be subservient to a foreign prince.
[Incidentally, many thanks to the those who offered me advice and assistance beforehand. I think the computer's clear. I found an old pain.net file (from before the OS change, and it always worked fine) and opened that, and it seems to be working alright. Should mean I won't have to download anything to fiddle about with maps for Kingdom Asunder etc].
I'd argue heavily against you in your understanding of feminism.
The Malaysians appear to be getting their stuff together. Possibly because the Australians appear to have taken over ...
I find the idea of assisting people to enforce religiously mandated inequality horrific.
I hadn't heard of the new series actually, I thought she'd left that series and stuck firmly to other parts of that universe. I'm now quite excited.
In today's HS2 news, bought to you by the William and Josias Jessop Regency Engineering News Network (WJJRENN):
"HS2 will not link to Eurostar confirms minister"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26717518
I'd be happy to add other religions to the disqualification list.
You see, I love Roman Emperors and Dictators and I love the Queen, but I'm not a fan of the monarchy per se.
I'm not sure I believe in this gubbins about the Divine Right of Kings or a unelected Head of State.
None of this is true of proscribed drugs, AFAIK. Not many western societies have approved of consuming something whose sole use was to get you off your sʇıʇ and that if used in moderation did not work at all. Interesting. Have you a source for that?
Would you prefer we used the adoptive principle which saw Rome enjoy a Golden Age, until the overrated Marcus Aurelius buggered it up?
Sharia is an abomination. It has no place at all in a tolerant culture.
Imagine Brian Blessed as King!
Just think of his King's speeches on Christmas Day.
They'd get the same ratings as Doctor Who
James VI became James I of England in 1603.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_the_Crowns
Why should a British woman be treated unfavourably purely on the basis of the religion of her father or mother? It is wrong.
Interestingly, in many European countries, it is not possible to disinherit your children nor to treat them uneqally.
In addition, we should not slow down the migration of people with such views into this country either.
Hodges was right ?
What? Double standards, did you say?
It's tobacco that's the problem.
If only someone could come up with a clinically-proven device for consistent delivery of medical-grade nicotine...
:-)
Really?
Nah, if,as I sincerely hope, we go back to an Elizabethan monarchy (MkI not the MkII we currently have) best leave the choice of monarch to God. Elections based on universal suffrage seldom work above Parish Council level.
It was a comment on the acceptability of aspects of various cultures in our current society. Both Sharia and FGM are rabidly misogynistic, so it seemed an appropriate parallel. It also seemed worthy of comment that they're viewed respectively as ok and not-ok, often by the same people.
http://www.c2c-online.co.uk/Assets/uploads/images/no-smoking.png