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.
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.
Fwiw wiki suggests that's not quite true Charles. Fitz (from French obvs) just means son of and there were names the pre-date the trend of using it to mean bastards (or have come from other places).
I wonder when the Law Society will issue "guidance on disinheriting Jews" aimed at Britain's vibrant community of Nazis.
Conservative judaism is of course not known for its support of equal roles for women.
The Law Society has issued guidelines which advise solicitors on how to write Sharia-compliant wills that also comply with English law. If clients want Sharia-compliant wills and solicitors are willing to provide them, it is surely best to ensure that they are properly drafted.
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.
What about assisting them to enforce non-religious inequality?
I'm not sure I understand your question. In the UK I can leave my property to whoever I want; I could discriminate against some of my children on any basis I chose and, provided I'm sound in mind and body, my solicitor would have to act on my instructions. The grounds on which my will could be overturned after my death are fairly limited. In Continental Europe (at least in the countries I know best e.g. Italy) it is not possible to do this.
What I find surprising is that a Law Society (which is very keen on promoting diversity) is giving guidance to its lawyers about how - in effect - to undermine or get round the very many laws we have which are designed to ensure no discrimination on the grounds of gender. It does not seem to realise what effect this could have on the principle of equality before the law and the fundamental principle not just that all are equal under the law but that all those here should have equal recourse to the law. A daughter of a Muslim man, say, may feel pressured not to challenge a will under English law because the will is somehow sharia-compliant and as a "Muslim woman" she should accept it. It's giving the "Muslim" aspect of her identity a status which overrides that of her status as a British woman and which results in her having an unequal and second class status by comparison with other British women and British men. That is unacceptable. We did not allow Catholic adoption agencies to opt out of equality laws. Why then should we allow Muslims to opt out?
I wonder when the Law Society will issue "guidance on disinheriting Jews" aimed at Britain's vibrant community of Nazis.
Certain phrases you used to hear all the time somehow stopped being said at some point, and it's unclear exactly when.
Some were obviously of their time: "Nice one, Cyril." Why did anyone ever say that to begin with, and when exactly did we stop? When did we stop buying "segs" or "blakeys" for our shoes?
Another such no-longer-heard phrase was "It's a free country, I'll say what I like." Another was "I'm entitled to my opinion".
We know why we stopped saying these things: it's because they're obviously no longer true. But when exactly was that and how was it contrived?
In the same way that some things are no longer said, there are certain words that are only ever used in quite specific contexts. "Vibrant" is one such. You read of "vibrant multicultural communities" all the time, for example, but the community in question is often flaccid with multiple generations of NEETness. Vibrant doesn't actually mean vibrant; it means Luton. A "vibrant community" is a self-segregated ghetto of first- and second-generation immigrants and is understood as a way of describing such without being obviously inflammatory.
This is why Sean's "vibrant community of Nazis" leaps out. One is only used to hearing vibrant used of Luton; oldthinkers unbellyfeel Ingsoc. Can anyone remember when they first heard "vibrant" used in this way?
FGM is a criminal offence, and should be prosecuted as such. For too long it was ignored, and I'm glad that is being (finally) righted. Anyone who's child has been so mutilated, as far as I'm concerned, is an accessory to GBH and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Regarding the wills issue, what is the status of the Law Society? Is it part of the British government?
I find myself torn: I find the idea of my taxes being used to promote inequality repellent. On the other hand, an (atheist) friend of mine's father has explicitly disinherited his daughter because she became a Catholic. Should she renounce her faith she's "back in", so to speak. Or to put it another way, people are free to dispose of their property on whatever grounds they like - I just don't like the idea of the government advising people how they might disinherit their children for religious reasons.
There are still spaces available on PBs biggest Diplomacy event of the year - The Death Match. A no holds barred, anything goes, knock 'em down drag 'em out, game where there can only be one winner (alliance wins and draws are not permitted).
Do you have what it takes? Do you think you are you the most cunning and devious person on PB? Really? Do you think you can beat beat Nick Palmer,once World Diplomacy Champion, and that most devious and subtle player, the infamous statistician, roué and mahout, Andy Cooke. Well now is the time to find out.
Go to PlayDiplomacy.com, create an account, search for and register on PB Death Match 2014 (password is 'cats&kittens'). Seven will enter but only one will leave reputation in tact.
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.
What about assisting them to enforce non-religious inequality?
I'm not sure I understand your question. In the UK I can leave my property to whoever I want; I could discriminate against some of my children on any basis I chose and, provided I'm sound in mind and body, my solicitor would have to act on my instructions. The grounds on which my will could be overturned after my death are fairly limited. In Continental Europe (at least in the countries I know best e.g. Italy) it is not possible to do this.
What I find surprising is that a Law Society (which is very keen on promoting diversity) is giving guidance to its lawyers about how - in effect - to undermine or get round the very many laws we have which are designed to ensure no discrimination on the grounds of gender. It does not seem to realise what effect this could have on the principle of equality before the law and the fundamental principle not just that all are equal under the law but that all those here should have equal recourse to the law. A daughter of a Muslim man, say, may feel pressured not to challenge a will under English law because the will is somehow sharia-compliant and as a "Muslim woman" she should accept it. It's giving the "Muslim" aspect of her identity a status which overrides that of her status as a British woman and which results in her having an unequal and second class status by comparison with other British women and British men. That is unacceptable. We did not allow Catholic adoption agencies to opt out of equality laws. Why then should we allow Muslims to opt out?
Moslems are not being allowed to opt out. The Law Society has issued guidance. Wills written as a result of the guidelines can still be challenged and if they are unlawful they will be overturned. The Law Society has no power to create new laws.
I wonder when the Law Society will issue "guidance on disinheriting Jews" aimed at Britain's vibrant community of Nazis.
Conservative judaism is of course not known for its support of equal roles for women.
Indeed - tho the misogyny of Orthodox Judaism is small beer compared to the patriarchal woman-hatred inherent in Salafism and Wahhabism, etc.
Nonetheless it is the truth - if we are finally going to kick back against the barbarities of Islam in its most unpleasant forms, then we need to be equally strict on all religions, and that might be uncomfortable for Jews.
@SeanT - This is what you get when people take their belief in God too seriously!
Sounds like Mateschitz is throwing his weight around to me. Horner's behaved like a shit over the fuel sensor issue, and this smacks of playing politics to try and get things changed to help Red Bull now they don't have a dominant car at the moment.
I wonder when the Law Society will issue "guidance on disinheriting Jews" aimed at Britain's vibrant community of Nazis.
Conservative judaism is of course not known for its support of equal roles for women.
Indeed - tho the misogyny of Orthodox Judaism is small beer compared to the patriarchal woman-hatred inherent in Salafism and Wahhabism, etc.
Nonetheless it is the truth - if we are finally going to kick back against the barbarities of Islam in its most unpleasant forms, then we need to be equally strict on all religions, and that might be uncomfortable for Jews.
Come to atheism, my friend. Only then will you know the truth and unleash your full powers...
I wonder when the Law Society will issue "guidance on disinheriting Jews" aimed at Britain's vibrant community of Nazis.
Certain phrases you used to hear all the time somehow stopped being said at some point, and it's unclear exactly when.
Some were obviously of their time: "Nice one, Cyril." Why did anyone ever say that to begin with, and when exactly did we stop? When did we stop buying "segs" or "blakeys" for our shoes?
Another such no-longer-heard phrase was "It's a free country, I'll say what I like." Another was "I'm entitled to my opinion".
We know why we stopped saying these things: it's because they're obviously no longer true. But when exactly was that and how was it contrived?
In the same way that some things are no longer said, there are certain words that are only ever used in quite specific contexts. "Vibrant" is one such. You read of "vibrant multicultural communities" all the time, for example, but the community in question is often flaccid with multiple generations of NEETness. Vibrant doesn't actually mean vibrant; it means Luton. A "vibrant community" is a self-segregated ghetto of first- and second-generation immigrants and is understood as a way of describing such without being obviously inflammatory.
This is why Sean's "vibrant community of Nazis" leaps out. One is only used to hearing vibrant used of Luton; oldthinkers unbellyfeel Ingsoc. Can anyone remember when they first heard "vibrant" used in this way?
Mr Bond, I suggest that in the same way your claim that people don't drink to get intoxicated, your language claims are a bit personal and I'd disagree with them.
Vibrant for example is the go to word to describe internet communities and I hear it most often in that context. (Actually if I stick "vibrant community" into a search engine the first uk results are King's college, east ayrshire).
I wonder when the Law Society will issue "guidance on disinheriting Jews" aimed at Britain's vibrant community of Nazis.
Conservative judaism is of course not known for its support of equal roles for women.
Indeed - tho the misogyny of Orthodox Judaism is small beer compared to the patriarchal woman-hatred inherent in Salafism and Wahhabism, etc.
Nonetheless it is the truth - if we are finally going to kick back against the barbarities of Islam in its most unpleasant forms, then we need to be equally strict on all religions, and that might be uncomfortable for Jews.
Come to atheism, my friend. Only then will you know the truth and unleash your full powers...
This may be a good time to remind Sean of his piece from last year
Weird. I recall hearing justification of banning the use of e-cigarettes, after years of asking people to switch to them, in places and taxis and the like, on the basis that it is hard for enforcement officers to tell the difference from a distance, and that anyone fined will claim all they had was an e-cigarette. Hardly seems convincing.
I wonder when the Law Society will issue "guidance on disinheriting Jews" aimed at Britain's vibrant community of Nazis.
Conservative judaism is of course not known for its support of equal roles for women.
Indeed - tho the misogyny of Orthodox Judaism is small beer compared to the patriarchal woman-hatred inherent in Salafism and Wahhabism, etc.
Nonetheless it is the truth - if we are finally going to kick back against the barbarities of Islam in its most unpleasant forms, then we need to be equally strict on all religions, and that might be uncomfortable for Jews.
Come to atheism, my friend. Only then will you know the truth and unleash your full powers...
Religion is to God, as the FA bureaucracy is to Ronnie Radford's goal for Hereford United against Newcastle United in 1972.
This just sent me down a mental rabbit hole of matching various religions to sports.
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.
What about assisting them to enforce non-religious inequality?
I'm
Moslems are not being allowed to opt out. The Law Society has issued guidance. Wills written as a result of the guidelines can still be challenged and if they are unlawful they will be overturned. The Law Society has no power to create new laws.
You're just being wilfully stupid. How would you feel if the Law Society issued guidance on how to make sure black people are disinherited, if your daughter marries one?
You would presumably find that abhorrent or idiotic or dangerous, or all three. What's the difference?
The ability of left-wingers to not see the wood for trees when it comes to reactionary Islam is quite amazing.
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.
What about assisting them to enforce non-religious inequality?
I'm
Moslems are not being allowed to opt out. The Law Society has issued guidance. Wills written as a result of the guidelines can still be challenged and if they are unlawful they will be overturned. The Law Society has no power to create new laws.
You're just being wilfully stupid. How would you feel if the Law Society issued guidance on how to make sure black people are disinherited, if your daughter marries one?
You would presumably find that abhorrent or idiotic or dangerous, or all three. What's the difference?
The Law Society is issuing guidelines for its members because it is its job to do that. The reality is that there is a demand for such guidelines because there is a demand for sharia-compliant wills. Sharia is complex and covers a multiplicity of issues - for example, it could be that a father wanted a sharia-compliant will, but also wanted to ensure that his daughters did receive an equal inheritance. Are you opposed to such provisions being enforceable because they are not properly compliant with English law? Disinheriting black people is not complex. You just do it.
I wonder when the Law Society will issue "guidance on disinheriting Jews" aimed at Britain's vibrant community of Nazis.
Conservative judaism is of course not known for its support of equal roles for women.
Indeed - tho the misogyny of Orthodox Judaism is small beer compared to the patriarchal woman-hatred inherent in Salafism and Wahhabism, etc.
Nonetheless it is the truth - if we are finally going to kick back against the barbarities of Islam in its most unpleasant forms, then we need to be equally strict on all religions, and that might be uncomfortable for Jews.
Come to atheism, my friend. Only then will you know the truth and unleash your full powers...
Religion is to God, as the FA bureaucracy is to Ronnie Radford's goal for Hereford United against Newcastle United in 1972.
This just sent me down a mental rabbit hole of matching various religions to sports.
Cricket feels methodist, baseball quite catholic.
I mean: how can anyone NOT believe in God after watching that Ronnie Radford goal? Look at the pitch, the kids, the scarves, the parkas, the gloomy winter mud.... and then that sublime, perfect, ferocious strike of the ball, helping non-league Hereford beat 1st Division Newcastle. That football is probably still going now, passing Jupiter.
Of COURSE there's a bloody God. Duh.
As a side note, there was a wonderful article a while back about watching Federer as a religious experience.
FGM is a criminal offence, and should be prosecuted as such. For too long it was ignored, and I'm glad that is being (finally) righted. Anyone who's child has been so mutilated, as far as I'm concerned, is an accessory to GBH and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Regarding the wills issue, what is the status of the Law Society? Is it part of the British government?
I find myself torn: I find the idea of my taxes being used to promote inequality repellent. On the other hand, an (atheist) friend of mine's father has explicitly disinherited his daughter because she became a Catholic. Should she renounce her faith she's "back in", so to speak. Or to put it another way, people are free to dispose of their property on whatever grounds they like - I just don't like the idea of the government advising people how they might disinherit their children for religious reasons.
If she has siblings, I hope they do the decent thing and agree to a Deed of Variance.
That's the sort of move by a miserable controlling old git that can drive a family apart for ever.
Weird. I recall hearing justification of banning the use of e-cigarettes, after years of asking people to switch to them, in places and taxis and the like, on the basis that it is hard for enforcement officers to tell the difference from a distance, and that anyone fined will claim all they had was an e-cigarette. Hardly seems convincing.
They should be banned because only weak willed wallies use them.
Weird. I recall hearing justification of banning the use of e-cigarettes, after years of asking people to switch to them, in places and taxis and the like, on the basis that it is hard for enforcement officers to tell the difference from a distance, and that anyone fined will claim all they had was an e-cigarette. Hardly seems convincing.
If the MHRA thought they could get away with it, they would ban e-cigs.
Have a read of the Tobacco Products Directive and ask yourself how e-cigs will be able to comply.
Say for the sake of argument things like this have been around a long time but started to go exponential around 2000 ish. What that means is kids who started primary school back then will just be coming into their 20s now and what that means is the percentage of adults who know the political and media class have been lying through their teeth is going to shoot up.
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.
What about assisting them to enforce non-religious inequality?
I'm
Moslems are not being allowed to opt out. The Law Society has issued guidance. Wills written as a result of the guidelines can still be challenged and if they are unlawful they will be overturned. The Law Society has no power to create new laws.
You're just being wilfully stupid. How would you feel if the Law Society issued guidance on how to make sure black people are disinherited, if your daughter marries one?
You would presumably find that abhorrent or idiotic or dangerous, or all three. What's the difference?
The ability of left-wingers to not see the wood for trees when it comes to reactionary Islam is quite amazing.
Your assumption that a sharia-compliant will is bound to be drafted according to the tenets of reactionary Islam is more than "quite amazing". It is perfectly possible that a Moslem father might want to ensure that his daughters receive a full share of his estate. For this to be done, the will would have to be drafted in a way that was compliant with both English law and sharia law.
I wonder when the Law Society will issue "guidance on disinheriting Jews" aimed at Britain's vibrant community of Nazis.
Certain phrases you used to hear all the time somehow stopped being said at some point, and it's unclear exactly when.
Some were obviously of their time: "Nice one, Cyril." Why did anyone ever say that to begin with, and when exactly did we stop? When did we stop buying "segs" or "blakeys" for our shoes?
Another such no-longer-heard phrase was "It's a free country, I'll say what I like." Another was "I'm entitled to my opinion".
We know why we stopped saying these things: it's because they're obviously no longer true. But when exactly was that and how was it contrived?
In the same way that some things are no longer said, there are certain words that are only ever used in quite specific contexts. "Vibrant" is one such. You read of "vibrant multicultural communities" all the time, for example, but the community in question is often flaccid with multiple generations of NEETness. Vibrant doesn't actually mean vibrant; it means Luton. A "vibrant community" is a self-segregated ghetto of first- and second-generation immigrants and is understood as a way of describing such without being obviously inflammatory.
This is why Sean's "vibrant community of Nazis" leaps out. One is only used to hearing vibrant used of Luton; oldthinkers unbellyfeel Ingsoc. Can anyone remember when they first heard "vibrant" used in this way?
Barking is no doubt described as a "vibrant multicultural community"
and anyone who disagrees is racist.. (even if they don't mention race )
More questions on this subject than any other bar Ukraine (but its not a big issue)
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.
What about assisting them to enforce non-religious inequality?
I'm
Moslems are not being allowed to opt out. The Law Society has issued guidance. Wills written as a result of the guidelines can still be challenged and if they are unlawful they will be overturned. The Law Society has no power to create new laws.
You're just being wilfully stupid. How would you feel if the Law Society issued guidance on how to make sure black people are disinherited, if your daughter marries one?
You would presumably find that abhorrent or idiotic or dangerous, or all three. What's the difference?
The Law Society is issuing guidelines for its members because it is its job to do that. The reality is that there is a demand for such guidelines because there is a demand for sharia-compliant wills. Sharia is complex and covers a multiplicity of issues - for example, it could be that a father wanted a sharia-compliant will, but also wanted to ensure that his daughters did receive an equal inheritance. Are you opposed to such provisions being enforceable because they are not properly compliant with English law? Disinheriting black people is not complex. You just do it.
You know, the really dangerous people are not the terrorists or the ranting imams, it's the deluded, right-on, stupid, bedwetting liberals like you, who have allowed all these horrors to grow, just so that you can kiss yourself in the mirror and feel good about your *tolerance*.
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" - Burke.
I am sorry to have raised a point that you cannot argue with.
SO: "Wills written as a result of the guidelines can still be challenged and if they are unlawful they will be overturned."
This is where the theory hits real life and why this statement is - and you're one of the intelligent posters here whom I enjoy reading despite us not always agreeing politically - daft.
Once we accept as a society that the religious aspect of a person is the one which trumps all others then we create a society where women / gays / atheists - who happen to have been born into a Muslim family - will find it difficult to challenge in practice because we have signalled, by lots of subtle and not so subtle ways (of which this is one) that their membership of the "Muslim community" is more important than anything else, as far as the rest of society is concerned.
Never underestimate how difficult it is for people to challenge their family and wider social/community circle. Never underestimate how difficult it is for a woman to do such a thing.
Rather than saying that women - all women - are treated equally and should have an expectation of equality, reinforced by all the myriad ways in which society at large reinforces and signals its views, we're saying that equality is fine and the expectation for British white women or white gays but if you're Muslim and a woman or Muslim and gay, well, ahem, it's all very difficult because of your "community/culture/religion" and ... oh dear..... is that the time, we must be going etc.
Will the Law Society be issuing guidance that solicitors should be advising the females affected by a sharia-compliant will that they should get a lawyer and seek to challenge it?
Or will we have to wait until we get the equivalent of the case where the House of Lords ruled that banks need to get wives who co-sign the house as security for a loan to their husbands to get separate and independent legal advice to protect their interests?
There are still spaces available on PBs biggest Diplomacy event of the year - The Death Match. A no holds barred, anything goes, knock 'em down drag 'em out, game where there can only be one winner (alliance wins and draws are not permitted).
Do you have what it takes? Do you think you are you the most cunning and devious person on PB? Really? Do you think you can beat beat Nick Palmer,once World Diplomacy Champion, and that most devious and subtle player, the infamous statistician, roué and mahout, Andy Cooke. Well now is the time to find out.
Go to PlayDiplomacy.com, create an account, search for and register on PB Death Match 2014 (password is 'cats&kittens'). Seven will enter but only one will leave reputation in tact.
Sounds like a spectator sport only for those whose reputation is not in tact.
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.
What about assisting them to enforce non-religious inequality?
I'm
Moslems are not being allowed to opt out. The Law Society has issued guidance. Wills written as a result of the guidelines can still be challenged and if they are unlawful they will be overturned. The Law Society has no power to create new laws.
You're just being wilfully stupid. How would you feel if the Law Society issued guidance on how to make sure black people are disinherited, if your daughter marries one?
You would presumably find that abhorrent or idiotic or dangerous, or all three. What's the difference?
The ability of left-wingers to not see the wood for trees when it comes to reactionary Islam is quite amazing.
Your assumption that a sharia-compliant will is bound to be drafted according to the tenets of reactionary Islam is more than "quite amazing". It is perfectly possible that a Moslem father might want to ensure that his daughters receive a full share of his estate. For this to be done, the will would have to be drafted in a way that was compliant with both English law and sharia law.
Theoretically possible, yes. Going to happen in practice? Not likely. People wishing to use religious law in matters like inheritance are quite obviously going to be dominated by the religious reactionaries, and you know this full well. Moderate, pluralist Muslims are clearly going to use existing English law. It's this sort of rationalization that's clearly a way to get out of the issue of the law society providing guidance on a backwards and unequal legal system.
The Law Society of England and Wales should be advising its members on how to comply with English law.
And, pace, SO: sharia law is not compliant with English law on matters of gender equality precisely because one of its tenets is that women are not equal to men. If people want to live under sharia law they should go and live in a country where that is the law of the land. In England, English law rules. Why is that such a difficult concept for the Law Society to grasp?
You'd have thought that the dimwits there might have learnt something from the fuss there was a few months back about universities seeking to enforce gender segregation on their premises. Sadly not.
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.
What about assisting them to enforce non-religious inequality?
I'm
Moslems are not being allowed to opt out. The Law Society has issued guidance. Wills written as a result of the guidelines can still be challenged and if they are unlawful they will be overturned. The Law Society has no power to create new laws.
You're just being wilfully stupid. How would you feel if the Law Society issued guidance on how to make sure black people are disinherited, if your daughter marries one?
You would presumably find that abhorrent or idiotic or dangerous, or all three. What's the difference?
The
You know, the really dangerous people are not the terrorists or the ranting imams, it's the deluded, right-on, stupid, bedwetting liberals like you, who have allowed all these horrors to grow, just so that you can kiss yourself in the mirror and feel good about your *tolerance*.
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" - Burke.
I am sorry to have raised a point that you cannot argue with.
I forgot to add "loathsome pomposity" to my list of your characteristics. Apols.
Loathsome pomposity? You've got at least half of PBers covered with that one.
SO: "Wills written as a result of the guidelines can still be challenged and if they are unlawful they will be overturned."
This is where the theory hits real life and why this statement is - and you're one of the intelligent posters here whom I enjoy reading despite us not always agreeing politically - daft.
Once we accept as a society that the religious aspect of a person is the one which trumps all others then we create a society where women / gays / atheists - who happen to have been born into a Muslim family - will find it difficult to challenge in practice because we have signalled, by lots of subtle and not so subtle ways (of which this is one) that their membership of the "Muslim community" is more important than anything else, as far as the rest of society is concerned.
Never underestimate how difficult it is for people to challenge their family and wider social/community circle. Never underestimate how difficult it is for a woman to do such a thing.
Rather than saying that women - all women - are treated equally and should have an expectation of equality, reinforced by all the myriad ways in which society at large reinforces and signals its views, we're saying that equality is fine and the expectation for British white women or white gays but if you're Muslim and a woman or Muslim and gay, well, ahem, it's all very difficult because of your "community/culture/religion" and ... oh dear..... is that the time, we must be going etc.
Will the Law Society be issuing guidance that solicitors should be advising the females affected by a sharia-compliant will that they should get a lawyer and seek to challenge it?
Or will we have to wait until we get the equivalent of the case where the House of Lords ruled that banks need to get wives who co-sign the house as security for a loan to their husbands to get separate and independent legal advice to protect their interests?
Once you decide that religious people have the right to write wills, divorce, raise finance and so on according to the tenets of their religion - as opposed to the mores of wider society - then you create a whole heap of problems. I agree with that absolutely. That's why I would prefer to see an entirely secular approach to the law. But clearly I am in a minority - society through Parliament has decided that the religious should get special treatment. As long as that is the case lawyers will be asked to draw up a multiplicity of legal agreements that comply with religious laws and do not run contrary to English law. This applies to all religions, not just Islam. And because of this lawyers will ask the Law Society to issue guidelines on how to do it properly. You cannot discriminate against whole religions in the UK. If they and their followers obey the law, they are untouchable.
Rubbish! Cricket is the CofE incarnate. Look at David Sheppard if you don't believe me, how many Methodist ministers have hit a century in test cricket, or imams or any other ordained religious type. Trouble is these days the CofE contains too many bed-wetters, last time I was at Lords I didn't see a single dog-collar.
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.
What about assisting them to enforce non-religious inequality?
I'm
Moslems are not being allowed to opt out. The Law Society has issued guidance. Wills written as a result of the guidelines can still be challenged and if they are unlawful they will be overturned. The Law Society has no power to create new laws.
You're just being wilfully stupid. How would you feel if the Law Society issued guidance on how to make sure black people are disinherited, if your daughter marries one?
You would presumably find that abhorrent or idiotic or dangerous, or all three. What's the difference?
The
You know, the really dangerous people are not the terrorists or the ranting imams, it's the deluded, right-on, stupid, bedwetting liberals like you, who have allowed all these horrors to grow, just so that you can kiss yourself in the mirror and feel good about your *tolerance*.
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" - Burke.
I am sorry to have raised a point that you cannot argue with.
I forgot to add "loathsome pomposity" to my list of your characteristics. Apols.
Loathsome pomposity? You've got at least half of PBers covered with that one.
There are still spaces available on PBs biggest Diplomacy event of the year - The Death Match. A no holds barred, anything goes, knock 'em down drag 'em out, game where there can only be one winner (alliance wins and draws are not permitted).
Do you have what it takes? Do you think you are you the most cunning and devious person on PB? Really? Do you think you can beat beat Nick Palmer,once World Diplomacy Champion, and that most devious and subtle player, the infamous statistician, roué and mahout, Andy Cooke. Well now is the time to find out.
Go to PlayDiplomacy.com, create an account, search for and register on PB Death Match 2014 (password is 'cats&kittens'). Seven will enter but only one will leave reputation in tact.
Sounds like a spectator sport only for those whose reputation is not in tact.
Pfsh, I've dived in with no real reputation to lose (so lots of cannon fodder potential).
Worth remembering that when Canada a few years back sought to introduce sharia law it was Muslim women who kicked up such a fuss that the authorities were forced to back down. Those women understood full well - unlike too many people terrified of being seen as intolerant of the intolerable - what such a change would have meant for them and that it would have been a change for the worse.
Looking again, can you explain to me how something can be Shariah compliant if it does not follow its inequitable inheritance between men and women?
Because plenty can be done before someone dies. Under Sharia law the will itself does not need to be the only part of the process of dividing up an estate.
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.
What about assisting them to enforce non-religious inequality?
I'm
Moslems are not being allowed to opt out. The Law Society has issued guidance. Wills written as a result of the guidelines can still be challenged and if they are unlawful they will be overturned. The Law Society has no power to create new laws.
You're just being wilfully stupid. How would you feel if the Law Society issued guidance on how to make sure black people are disinherited, if your daughter marries one?
You would presumably find that abhorrent or idiotic or dangerous, or all three. What's the difference?
The
You know, the really dangerous people are not the terrorists or the ranting imams, it's the deluded, right-on, stupid, bedwetting liberals like you, who have allowed all these horrors to grow, just so that you can kiss yourself in the mirror and feel good about your *tolerance*.
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" - Burke.
I am sorry to have raised a point that you cannot argue with.
I forgot to add "loathsome pomposity" to my list of your characteristics. Apols.
Rubbish! Cricket is the CofE incarnate. Look at David Sheppard if you don't believe me, how many Methodist ministers have hit a century in test cricket, or imams or any other ordained religious type. Trouble is these days the CofE contains too many bed-wetters, last time I was at Lords I didn't see a single dog-collar.
I was going to put tennis in as CofE, but you're probably right with cricket.
I should've put rugby as methodist though thinking on it.
Kermit the Frog is against Scottish independence. When asked if he thought the United Kingdom should stay together, the Muppet and Sesame Street star said: "Absolutely."
I have joined the Diplomacy game. I have never played before but I have studied game theory. Be warned!
Good luck, God bless and remember, never ever trust anyone with a first name beginning with A.
P.S. If you really haven't played before then really do read this before the game starts, its very old now but as a beginners guide I don't think there is anything to beat it:
SO: "society through Parliament has decided that the religious should get special treatment."
Where? Catholics weren't given special treatment over adoption agencies. They could not opt out of the law saying that there should be no discrimination on the grounds of sexuality. Why should Muslims be allowed to opt out of the laws on gender equality?
There is a clash here between the tenets of sharia law and English law and I am clear that English law should prevail. Sharia law simply shouldn't be given the time of day. And that applies to marriage,divorce and the rest of it. What are we going to have - lots of little community Bantustans all living side by side - separate but equal? This way madness lies for a society.
If you search under there you can see any game. If you register on the site then I believe you can click the order history button on any game and see all the moves (although of course not the secret negotiations going on).
UKIP have certainly pushed the EU up the agenda, by forcing Cameron to agree to an EU referendum, however they may also have taken enough Tory 2010 votes to make a Tory majority all but impossible in 2015 and make another Tory-LD coalition, rather than a Tory majority, the best Cameron can hope for
SO: "society through Parliament has decided that the religious should get special treatment."
Where? Catholics weren't given special treatment over adoption agencies. They could not opt out of the law saying that there should be no discrimination on the grounds of sexuality. Why should Muslims be allowed to opt out of the laws on gender equality?
There is a clash here between the tenets of sharia law and English law and I am clear that English law should prevail. Sharia law simply shouldn't be given the time of day. And that applies to marriage,divorce and the rest of it. What are we going to have - lots of little community Bantustans all living side by side - separate but equal? This way madness lies for a society.
What laws? You've always been able to divide your will any way you like, gender equality laws don't apply to wills.
The Law Society is a professional association, giving guidance to its members about how to service what is presumably a particular market. You can certainly raise ethical or moral questions about it, but I don't see the legal bearing on it.
Likewise in terms of arbitration it's long been the case that if both parties agree they can have it settled by a 3rd party (Jewish Beth din courts etc) subject to challenge in the courts etc.
For that matter are titles/estates/aristocratic thingies/etc still entailed down the male line?
Could the Tories' improved polling cause trouble within the coalition? One of the reasons I suspect the Lib Dems have been so disciplined until now is that things have been bad for the Tories aswell. If the Tory polling improves and the Lib Dem polling doesn't, might that not drive some of their grassroots over the edge? The Greens got only 2 MEPs at the last Euro elections and the Lib Dems can't be guaranteed to beat the vote share the Greens got in 2009. Are they prepared for the disappointment?
To see how it works and to see if one might be very good at it?
Mr. Eagles,
To quote from Sharps's introduction to his book,
"In a changing world, some things do not change. It may be fashionable to decry the simple Virtues, but we still like to find them in our friends. Loyalty, honesty, frankness, gratitude, chivalry, magnanimity - these are the hallmarks of the good friend, the good husband and father, the nice guy we all hope our daughters will marry.
In the amoral world of Diplomacy, however, they are the hallmarks of the born loser. If a fallen enemy reaches out a hand for assistance, the wise man lops it off. If a friend does you a good turn when you’re down, wait until he’s down, then beat him to death. If an ally asks for your help in planning the next season’s moves, give it freely and copiously, then do the reverse of what you agreed and let him take the counter-attack. Try to surround yourself with people who trust you, then let them down; find an ally who will gladly die for you and see that he does just that.
In short, Diplomacy is not a nice game..."
You are a lawyer; of course you are going to be good at Diplomacy, it will come as naturally to you as breathing.
You can go to PlayDiplomcy.com and watch games (the current Diplomacy 2014 Mk2 is there for everyone to enjoy) but without access to the communication that is gong on between the players it is not terribly interesting. As I keep saying Diplomacy is not some sort of chess, success depends on negotiation.
SO: "society through Parliament has decided that the religious should get special treatment."
Where? Catholics weren't given special treatment over adoption agencies. They could not opt out of the law saying that there should be no discrimination on the grounds of sexuality. Why should Muslims be allowed to opt out of the laws on gender equality?
There is a clash here between the tenets of sharia law and English law and I am clear that English law should prevail. Sharia law simply shouldn't be given the time of day. And that applies to marriage,divorce and the rest of it. What are we going to have - lots of little community Bantustans all living side by side - separate but equal? This way madness lies for a society.
Moslems are not allowed to opt out of laws on gender equality. Those laws do not cover inheritance. It's not just Moslems that are permitted to favour male heirs in their wills.
Kermit the Frog is against Scottish independence. When asked if he thought the United Kingdom should stay together, the Muppet and Sesame Street star said: "Absolutely."
I have joined the Diplomacy game. I have never played before but I have studied game theory. Be warned!
Good luck, God bless and remember, never ever trust anyone with a first name beginning with A.
P.S. If you really haven't played before then really do read this before the game starts, its very old now but as a beginners guide I don't think there is anything to beat it:
Once you receive your country assignment, I'd strongly recommend popping over to that site and clicking on your assigned country for a handy list of country-specific strategy articles. That's what I did before my first game and it came in bloody handy when my back started sprouting daggers.
(P.S. Never trust anyone with a camelid anywhere in their user name ...)
SO: "society through Parliament has decided that the religious should get special treatment."
Where? Catholics weren't given special treatment over adoption agencies. They could not opt out of the law saying that there should be no discrimination on the grounds of sexuality. Why should Muslims be allowed to opt out of the laws on gender equality?
There is a clash here between the tenets of sharia law and English law and I am clear that English law should prevail. Sharia law simply shouldn't be given the time of day. And that applies to marriage,divorce and the rest of it. What are we going to have - lots of little community Bantustans all living side by side - separate but equal? This way madness lies for a society.
There are a variety of laws that allow for conscientious objection. That's not really the issue here, though.
English law isn't clashing with Sharia law, in this instance. People (like Robert Smithson's friend's father) can dispose of their property as they see fit. They can be as bigoted as they like; it's their property. I prefer our model of testamentary freedom to the continental model of forced heirship.
But, while it may be lawful to give daughters less than sons, or to disinherit apostates, I don't regard it as desirable. For that reason, I don't believe the Law Society should be given this guidance.
@Sean_F - "But, while it may be lawful to give daughters less than sons, or to disinherit apostates, I don't regard it as desirable. For that reason, I don't believe the Law Society should be given this guidance"
The Law Society guidance will make it much easier for solicitors to advise on how their clients can remain sharia-compliant while not, in practice, giving daughters less than sons or disinheriting apostates.
Kermit the Frog is against Scottish independence. When asked if he thought the United Kingdom should stay together, the Muppet and Sesame Street star said: "Absolutely."
SO: "society through Parliament has decided that the religious should get special treatment."
What laws? You've always been able to divide your will any way you like, gender equality laws don't apply to wills.
The Law Society is a professional association, giving guidance to its members about how to service what is presumably a particular market. You can certainly raise ethical or moral questions about it, but I don't see the legal bearing on it.
Likewise in terms of arbitration it's long been the case that if both parties agree they can have it settled by a 3rd party (Jewish Beth din courts etc) subject to challenge in the courts etc.
For that matter are titles/estates/aristocratic thingies/etc still entailed down the male line?
It will be interesting to see whether someone could challenge a will which disinherited, say, a son because he was gay using the laws which forbid such discrimination. I can see difficulties: inheritance is not a service or, indeed, a right. But the more you start permitting different legal systems to exist the greater the chances of having such clashes and of having to determine which law trumps which. English law has always done this of course. But for very good reasons the state has - for a very long time - reserved to itself alone certain areas e.g. criminal / family law etc for obvious reasons. The difficulty - and it is a very great one in my view - with allowing deeply patriarchal and mysogynistic legal systems to hold sway within parts of our citizens is that it undermines the moves our society and its laws have made towards guaranteeing equal rights and protection for those who were severely disadvantaged in the past. (Marriage under sharia law, for instance, is not valid as a matter of English law and can leave women and their children in a very vulnerable position.)
If we allow sharia law to gain a foothold we will have two classes of British women, treated differently because of their religion. That is not just a moral or ethical issue; it is also a legal issue because we have - rightly IMO - passed laws to give women equal rights. I do not view with any equanimity moves to reverse that for any group in our society.
And the Law Society is surely hoist on its own diversity self-righteousness. It recently refused to allow a group which wanted to discuss Christian concepts of marriage to hold a meeting on its premises because this did not fit with its commitment to diversity and equality but is prepared to advise lawyers on how to comply with a legal system which a few years ago was declared by the European Court to be be incompatible .with the ECHR
Miss Cyclefree, the point you raise is also mentioned by Cranmer (regarding the cancellation of an event because a group involved was against gay marriage).
SO: "society through Parliament has decided that the religious should get special treatment."
Where? Catholics weren't given special treatment over adoption agencies. They could not opt out of the law saying that there should be no discrimination on the grounds of sexuality. Why should Muslims be allowed to opt out of the laws on gender equality?
There is a clash here between the tenets of sharia law and English law and I am clear that English law should prevail. Sharia law simply shouldn't be given the time of day. And that applies to marriage,divorce and the rest of it. What are we going to have - lots of little community Bantustans all living side by side - separate but equal? This way madness lies for a society.
What laws? You've always been able to divide your will any way you like, gender equality laws don't apply to wills.
The Law Society is a professional association, giving guidance to its members about how to service what is presumably a particular market. You can certainly raise ethical or moral questions about it, but I don't see the legal bearing on it.
Likewise in terms of arbitration it's long been the case that if both parties agree they can have it settled by a 3rd party (Jewish Beth din courts etc) subject to challenge in the courts etc.
For that matter are titles/estates/aristocratic thingies/etc still entailed down the male line?
Re discussion passim - this is predicated (as Miss C makes clear, of course, but the DT in article does not in its headline) on English + Welsh law. It may be of interest to remark that Scots law does not permit outright disinheritance. However it is complicated by the heritable/moveable distinction thanks to Scotland retaining feudal land tenure [edit: thanks to William the Illegitimate, ultimately] until a decade or two back.
Kind of hoping for labour back to 5% or 6% lead tonight in the 2 polls expected so the usual redsters can froth with relief all over PB.... always nice to see some release for them.
SO and others: I'm well aware that you can leave your property to whoever you like for whatever reason you want. I said so right at the start.
But I do not think it at all desirable - to put it mildly - that we should encourage, approve of or turn a blind eye to the introduction of a deeply misognystic and religiously based legal system to family matters given that this will likely result in women (and others) being worse off than their fellow British female citizens. Sharia law - like all legal systems - says something about the way those who comply with it - view the world. It is a view which I find abhorrent and I find it deeply troubling that our reaction to its spread is to miss the point or somehow think it doesn't matter because it only applies to certain communities.
There's a lot of knowledge about the finer points of will making but not a lot of understanding going on.
A will is a contract: Ignorance is no defence in [English] law. If the Mohammedan wish to behave in a cultish backwardness regading inheritance and death - and I well remember some bearded **** jumping up-and-down on my fathers coffin - then let them stew in their social squalor.
Just make sure they leave the rest of us alone....
Kermit the Frog is against Scottish independence. When asked if he thought the United Kingdom should stay together, the Muppet and Sesame Street star said: "Absolutely."
Perhaps Stuart Dickson could prepare for us a comparison between the Holyrood results in 2007 and the Westminster results in 2010. Just so that less knowledgeable readers can judge how comparable those elections are.
SO: "society through Parliament has decided that the religious should get special treatment."
What laws? You've always been able to divide your will any way you like, gender equality laws don't apply to wills.
The Law Society is a professional association, giving guidance to its members about how to service what is presumably a particular market. You can certainly raise ethical or moral questions about it, but I don't see the legal bearing on it.
Likewise in terms of arbitration it's long been the case that if both parties agree they can have it settled by a 3rd party (Jewish Beth din courts etc) subject to challenge in the courts etc.
For that matter are titles/estates/aristocratic thingies/etc still entailed down the male line?
I know this sharia thing is about English law and has no relevance to Scotland. However on the subject of titles etc, how a title, coat of arms etc passes depends entirely on what the Letters Patent from the reigning monarch at the time of grant say. Generally Scottish titles pre 1707 can pass through the female line in the absence of a son, in England few can. Almost no GB titles (1707-1800) can pass through to a female and similarly very few UK titles !800 onwards) can pass to a female. In Scotland we abolished Entails in 1914 but property can be willed to anyone of choice.
In 1963 on the death of the 5th Duke of Sutherland, the English, GB and UK titles passed to the nearest male relative the Earl of Ellesmere who instantly became 6th Duke of Sutherland. He also inherited the Bridgewater wealth. The Scottish titles and estates passed to the 5th Duke's niece, Elizabeth the 24th Countess of Sutherland. The 6th Duke died a few years ago and the whole lot shunted over to another distant male cousin whose 2 sons only have 3 daughters each at present.
Julian Lord Fellowes wife Emma would have inherited the title Earl Kitchener had she been male. The Queen has however accorded her the status of the daughter of an Earl.
Once the royal succession is finally concluded allowing the eldest child of the monarch to inherit regardless of sex, the next thing will be to amend by statute the rules of succession to all titles and dignities. My coat of arms which appears as my avatar will pass on my death to my eldest son if I have one, failing which a daughter and then to my nearest male relative, a 3rd cousin 3 times removed in Australia!
SO: "society through Parliament has decided that the religious should get special treatment."
What
It will be interesting to see whether someone could challenge a will which disinherited, say, a son because he was gay using the laws which forbid such discrimination. I can see difficulties: inheritance is not a service or, indeed, a right. But the more you start permitting different legal systems to exist the greater the chances of having such clashes and of having to determine which law trumps which. English law has always done this of course. But for very good reasons the state has - for a very long time - reserved to itself alone certain areas e.g. criminal / family law etc for obvious reasons. The difficulty - and it is a very great one in my view - with allowing deeply patriarchal and mysogynistic legal systems to hold sway within parts of our citizens is that it undermines the moves our society and its laws have made towards guaranteeing equal rights and protection for those who were severely disadvantaged in the past. (Marriage under sharia law, for instance, is not valid as a matter of English law and can leave women and their children in a very vulnerable position.)
If we allow sharia law to gain a foothold we will have two classes of British women, treated differently because of their religion. That is not just a moral or ethical issue; it is also a legal issue because we have - rightly IMO - passed laws to give women equal rights. I do not view with any equanimity moves to reverse that for any group in our society.
And the Law Society is surely hoist on its own diversity self-righteousness. It recently refused to allow a group which wanted to discuss Christian concepts of marriage to hold a meeting on its premises because this did not fit with its commitment to diversity and equality but is prepared to advise lawyers on how to comply with a legal system which a few years ago was declared by the European Court to be be incompatible .with the ECHR
Anti-discrimination legislation doesn't apply to wills, but courts have long struck out clauses that are against public policy. If I were to say "I leave my residuary estate to X, Y, and Z, unless any of them should turn out to be gay" the likelihood is it would be struck out.
But, the wording matters. If I said "I leave my residuary estate to such of X, Y, and Z as shall marry in accordance with the tenets of the Church of England" then the clause will be upheld, even if it were to have the same result.
The Law Society itself is dominated by the radical left. They would see no contradiction in cancelling a booking from an organisation opposed to gay marriage and advising on Sharia.
SO: "society through Parliament has decided that the religious should get special treatment."
For that matter are titles/estates/aristocratic thingies/etc still entailed down the male line?
It will be interesting to see whether someone could challenge a will which disinherited, say, a son because he was gay using the laws which forbid such discrimination. I can see difficulties: inheritance is not a service or, indeed, a right. But the more you start permitting different legal systems to exist the greater the chances of having such clashes and of having to determine which law trumps which. English law has always done this of course. But for very good reasons the state has - for a very long time - reserved to itself alone certain areas e.g. criminal / family law etc for obvious reasons. The difficulty - and it is a very great one in my view - with allowing deeply patriarchal and mysogynistic legal systems to hold sway within parts of our citizens is that it undermines the moves our society and its laws have made towards guaranteeing equal rights and protection for those who were severely disadvantaged in the past. (Marriage under sharia law, for instance, is not valid as a matter of English law and can leave women and their children in a very vulnerable position.)
If we allow sharia law to gain a foothold we will have two classes of British women, treated differently because of their religion. That is not just a moral or ethical issue; it is also a legal issue because we have - rightly IMO - passed laws to give women equal rights. I do not view with any equanimity moves to reverse that for any group in our society.
And the Law Society is surely hoist on its own diversity self-righteousness. It recently refused to allow a group which wanted to discuss Christian concepts of marriage to hold a meeting on its premises because this did not fit with its commitment to diversity and equality but is prepared to advise lawyers on how to comply with a legal system which a few years ago was declared by the European Court to be be incompatible .with the ECHR
In terms of civil law we already do this Cyclefree. The right of people to seek their own arbitration has gone on for centuries. I know I keep bringing up the Jewish Beth din courts but they are such a relevant example (and in some cases deeply patriarchal and misogynistic).
It is not that we are starting to permit this, it is that we have always permitted this.
I doubt anyone else will be affected, but apparently Battlestar Galactica (being shown on Pick) is now on at 11.15pm rather than 9pm. That's via Twitter, though they could've advertised it. Changing times without warning's a bit shit.
Perhaps Stuart Dickson could prepare for us a comparison between the Holyrood results in 2007 and the Westminster results in 2010. Just so that less knowledgeable readers can judge how comparable those elections are.
I did a piece on PB2 long time ago on that but the contrast between GE2010 and Holyrood2011 is extreme. Basically the Nats won virtually every constituency seat in 2011.
A will is a contract: Ignorance is no defence in [English] law. If the Mohammedan wish to behave in a cultish backwardness regading inheritance and death - and I well remember some bearded **** jumping up-and-down on my fathers coffin - then let them stew in their social squalor.
Just make sure they leave the rest of us alone....
A will is NOT a contract, and the principle that ignorance is no defence applies neither to inheritance nor to contract law.
Are you sure a bearded **** jumped up and down on your late father's coffin? If so, do you know why?
Kind of hoping for labour back to 5% or 6% lead tonight in the 2 polls expected so the usual redsters can froth with relief all over PB.... always nice to see some release for them.
no hints yet on either of tonight's polls except the "weirdness" factor of Ed Miliband in YouGov poll but not sure if it is a feature of tonight's poll.
Surprising given how well the Tories have been polling that pb is fixated with Sharia law. No expert on the law am I, but if people willingly agree to settle disputes by private arbitration, how can you stop them. One thing I don't get though is how such decisions can be made binding? Do the Beth din courts have statutory powers or not?
no hints yet on either of tonight's polls except the "weirdness" factor of Ed Miliband in YouGov poll but not sure if it is a feature of tonight's poll.
Ladbrokes - Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross (LD maj = 4,826)
LD 2/5 Lab 3/1 SNP 6/1 Con 100/1 UKIP 100/1
Hmmm... Baxter rates this as an SNP Gain:
SNP 42.5% chance LD 22.8% Lab 22.0% Con 11.8%
That 6/1 looks flippin tasty when one considers that the SNP won this seat with a whopping 7,458 majority in 2011.
The noble Viscount is a very popular MP and the seat has been in and out of the Sinclair family's hands for generations. Word on the street is that Labour are favourite to take it. If John Thurso decides to retire, Labour will take it. If he fights on he may just hang on. He will have to do it though without tactical Tory voters. We just don't do tactical voting.
Surprising given how well the Tories have been polling that pb is fixated with Sharia law. No expert on the law am I, but if people willingly agree to settle disputes by private arbitration, how can you stop them. One thing I don't get though is how such decisions can be made binding? Do the Beth din courts have statutory powers or not?
They aren't binding, but they are taken into account (iirc). Either party that's unhappy with the decision can appeal but the presumption is in favour of the mutually agreed arbitrator's decision unless something pretty flagrant's gone on.
Kind of hoping for labour back to 5% or 6% lead tonight in the 2 polls expected so the usual redsters can froth with relief all over PB.... always nice to see some release for them.
Frit, are we ?
Given I'm near 5k down on a stockmarket punt with the funds for a house extension that the Mrs has no knowledge of, I'd say a Labour poll lead is the last of my worries...
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/26711403
*innocent face*
Fwiw wiki suggests that's not quite true Charles. Fitz (from French obvs) just means son of and there were names the pre-date the trend of using it to mean bastards (or have come from other places).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitzpatrick_(name)
What I find surprising is that a Law Society (which is very keen on promoting diversity) is giving guidance to its lawyers about how - in effect - to undermine or get round the very many laws we have which are designed to ensure no discrimination on the grounds of gender. It does not seem to realise what effect this could have on the principle of equality before the law and the fundamental principle not just that all are equal under the law but that all those here should have equal recourse to the law. A daughter of a Muslim man, say, may feel pressured not to challenge a will under English law because the will is somehow sharia-compliant and as a "Muslim woman" she should accept it. It's giving the "Muslim" aspect of her identity a status which overrides that of her status as a British woman and which results in her having an unequal and second class status by comparison with other British women and British men. That is unacceptable. We did not allow Catholic adoption agencies to opt out of equality laws. Why then should we allow Muslims to opt out?
Some were obviously of their time: "Nice one, Cyril." Why did anyone ever say that to begin with, and when exactly did we stop? When did we stop buying "segs" or "blakeys" for our shoes?
Another such no-longer-heard phrase was "It's a free country, I'll say what I like." Another was "I'm entitled to my opinion".
We know why we stopped saying these things: it's because they're obviously no longer true. But when exactly was that and how was it contrived?
In the same way that some things are no longer said, there are certain words that are only ever used in quite specific contexts. "Vibrant" is one such. You read of "vibrant multicultural communities" all the time, for example, but the community in question is often flaccid with multiple generations of NEETness. Vibrant doesn't actually mean vibrant; it means Luton. A "vibrant community" is a self-segregated ghetto of first- and second-generation immigrants and is understood as a way of describing such without being obviously inflammatory.
This is why Sean's "vibrant community of Nazis" leaps out. One is only used to hearing vibrant used of Luton; oldthinkers unbellyfeel Ingsoc. Can anyone remember when they first heard "vibrant" used in this way?
Regarding the wills issue, what is the status of the Law Society? Is it part of the British government?
I find myself torn: I find the idea of my taxes being used to promote inequality repellent. On the other hand, an (atheist) friend of mine's father has explicitly disinherited his daughter because she became a Catholic. Should she renounce her faith she's "back in", so to speak. Or to put it another way, people are free to dispose of their property on whatever grounds they like - I just don't like the idea of the government advising people how they might disinherit their children for religious reasons.
There are still spaces available on PBs biggest Diplomacy event of the year - The Death Match. A no holds barred, anything goes, knock 'em down drag 'em out, game where there can only be one winner (alliance wins and draws are not permitted).
Do you have what it takes? Do you think you are you the most cunning and devious person on PB? Really? Do you think you can beat beat Nick Palmer,once World Diplomacy Champion, and that most devious and subtle player, the infamous statistician, roué and mahout, Andy Cooke. Well now is the time to find out.
Go to PlayDiplomacy.com, create an account, search for and register on PB Death Match 2014 (password is 'cats&kittens'). Seven will enter but only one will leave reputation in tact.
Result - Gordon, May 2007, SNP Gain from LD, on a swing of 10.7%
SNP (Alex Salmond) 14,650
LD (Nora Radcliffe) 12,588
Con 5,348
Lab 2,276
oth 501
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula-one/26721387
Sounds like Mateschitz is throwing his weight around to me. Horner's behaved like a shit over the fuel sensor issue, and this smacks of playing politics to try and get things changed to help Red Bull now they don't have a dominant car at the moment.
Vibrant for example is the go to word to describe internet communities and I hear it most often in that context. (Actually if I stick "vibrant community" into a search engine the first uk results are King's college, east ayrshire).
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100231060/are-atheists-mentally-ill/
New Ladbrokes market - Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (LD Maj = 5,675)
LD 4/6
Con 11/10
SNP 66/1
Lab 100/1
UKIP 100/1
If the Scottish Tories didn't have such an infamously crap GOTV machine then they would be odds-on FAV for this seat.
Cricket feels methodist, baseball quite catholic.
That's the sort of move by a miserable controlling old git that can drive a family apart for ever.
Toughen up!
No, it's not.
Have a read of the Tobacco Products Directive and ask yourself how e-cigs will be able to comply.
The thing people need to remember when discussing Ukip's chances is reality is different from the PC version of reality you see on the telly.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26698890
Say for the sake of argument things like this have been around a long time but started to go exponential around 2000 ish. What that means is kids who started primary school back then will just be coming into their 20s now and what that means is the percentage of adults who know the political and media class have been lying through their teeth is going to shoot up.
http://www.thelawyer.com/secular-lawyers-threaten-action-over-law-society-sharia-wills-guide/3018087.article
and anyone who disagrees is racist.. (even if they don't mention race )
More questions on this subject than any other bar Ukraine (but its not a big issue)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rK3JAL3hKRo
This is where the theory hits real life and why this statement is - and you're one of the intelligent posters here whom I enjoy reading despite us not always agreeing politically - daft.
Once we accept as a society that the religious aspect of a person is the one which trumps all others then we create a society where women / gays / atheists - who happen to have been born into a Muslim family - will find it difficult to challenge in practice because we have signalled, by lots of subtle and not so subtle ways (of which this is one) that their membership of the "Muslim community" is more important than anything else, as far as the rest of society is concerned.
Never underestimate how difficult it is for people to challenge their family and wider social/community circle. Never underestimate how difficult it is for a woman to do such a thing.
Rather than saying that women - all women - are treated equally and should have an expectation of equality, reinforced by all the myriad ways in which society at large reinforces and signals its views, we're saying that equality is fine and the expectation for British white women or white gays but if you're Muslim and a woman or Muslim and gay, well, ahem, it's all very difficult because of your "community/culture/religion" and ... oh dear..... is that the time, we must be going etc.
Will the Law Society be issuing guidance that solicitors should be advising the females affected by a sharia-compliant will that they should get a lawyer and seek to challenge it?
Or will we have to wait until we get the equivalent of the case where the House of Lords ruled that banks need to get wives who co-sign the house as security for a loan to their husbands to get separate and independent legal advice to protect their interests?
And, pace, SO: sharia law is not compliant with English law on matters of gender equality precisely because one of its tenets is that women are not equal to men. If people want to live under sharia law they should go and live in a country where that is the law of the land. In England, English law rules. Why is that such a difficult concept for the Law Society to grasp?
You'd have thought that the dimwits there might have learnt something from the fuss there was a few months back about universities seeking to enforce gender segregation on their premises. Sadly not.
Looking again, can you explain to me how something can be Shariah compliant if it does not follow its inequitable inheritance between men and women?
The first phone poll since Osborne's budget, ComRes for the Indy, out at 10pm.
Rubbish! Cricket is the CofE incarnate. Look at David Sheppard if you don't believe me, how many Methodist ministers have hit a century in test cricket, or imams or any other ordained religious type. Trouble is these days the CofE contains too many bed-wetters, last time I was at Lords I didn't see a single dog-collar.
The crazy even money for the conservatives and 2-1 for the Lib Dems has gone.
Hope everyone LUMPED on !
I should've put rugby as methodist though thinking on it.
Kermit the Frog is against Scottish independence. When asked if he thought the United Kingdom should stay together, the Muppet and Sesame Street star said: "Absolutely."
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/03/24/scottish-independence-kermit_n_5021379.html
To see how it works and to see if one might be very good at it?
P.S. If you really haven't played before then really do read this before the game starts, its very old now but as a beginners guide I don't think there is anything to beat it:
http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/god.htm
Where? Catholics weren't given special treatment over adoption agencies. They could not opt out of the law saying that there should be no discrimination on the grounds of sexuality. Why should Muslims be allowed to opt out of the laws on gender equality?
There is a clash here between the tenets of sharia law and English law and I am clear that English law should prevail. Sharia law simply shouldn't be given the time of day. And that applies to marriage,divorce and the rest of it. What are we going to have - lots of little community Bantustans all living side by side - separate but equal? This way madness lies for a society.
If you search under there you can see any game. If you register on the site then I believe you can click the order history button on any game and see all the moves (although of course not the secret negotiations going on).
Thanks.
The Law Society is a professional association, giving guidance to its members about how to service what is presumably a particular market. You can certainly raise ethical or moral questions about it, but I don't see the legal bearing on it.
Likewise in terms of arbitration it's long been the case that if both parties agree they can have it settled by a 3rd party (Jewish Beth din courts etc) subject to challenge in the courts etc.
For that matter are titles/estates/aristocratic thingies/etc still entailed down the male line?
To quote from Sharps's introduction to his book,
"In a changing world, some things do not change. It may be fashionable to decry the simple Virtues, but we still like to find them in our friends. Loyalty, honesty, frankness, gratitude, chivalry, magnanimity - these are the hallmarks of the good friend, the good husband and father, the nice guy we all hope our daughters will marry.
In the amoral world of Diplomacy, however, they are the hallmarks of the born loser. If a fallen enemy reaches out a hand for assistance, the wise man lops it off. If a friend does you a good turn when you’re down, wait until he’s down, then beat him to death. If an ally asks for your help in planning the next season’s moves, give it freely and copiously, then do the reverse of what you agreed and let him take the counter-attack. Try to surround yourself with people who trust you, then let them down; find an ally who will gladly die for you and see that he does just that.
In short, Diplomacy is not a nice game..."
You are a lawyer; of course you are going to be good at Diplomacy, it will come as naturally to you as breathing.
You can go to PlayDiplomcy.com and watch games (the current Diplomacy 2014 Mk2 is there for everyone to enjoy) but without access to the communication that is gong on between the players it is not terribly interesting. As I keep saying Diplomacy is not some sort of chess, success depends on negotiation.
Once you receive your country assignment, I'd strongly recommend popping over to that site and clicking on your assigned country for a handy list of country-specific strategy articles. That's what I did before my first game and it came in bloody handy when my back started sprouting daggers.
(P.S. Never trust anyone with a camelid anywhere in their user name ...)
English law isn't clashing with Sharia law, in this instance. People (like Robert Smithson's friend's father) can dispose of their property as they see fit. They can be as bigoted as they like; it's their property. I prefer our model of testamentary freedom to the continental model of forced heirship.
But, while it may be lawful to give daughters less than sons, or to disinherit apostates, I don't regard it as desirable. For that reason, I don't believe the Law Society should be given this guidance.
It was said I would make a great diplomat, because I have all the subtlety of a brick through a window.
Or "Keep Calm and Flay your Enemies."
The Law Society guidance will make it much easier for solicitors to advise on how their clients can remain sharia-compliant while not, in practice, giving daughters less than sons or disinheriting apostates.
I'm sure our own Waldorf and Statler will have some acerbic comment to make too.
If we allow sharia law to gain a foothold we will have two classes of British women, treated differently because of their religion. That is not just a moral or ethical issue; it is also a legal issue because we have - rightly IMO - passed laws to give women equal rights. I do not view with any equanimity moves to reverse that for any group in our society.
And the Law Society is surely hoist on its own diversity self-righteousness. It recently refused to allow a group which wanted to discuss Christian concepts of marriage to hold a meeting on its premises because this did not fit with its commitment to diversity and equality but is prepared to advise lawyers on how to comply with a legal system which a few years ago was declared by the European Court to be be incompatible .with the ECHR
LD 2/5
Lab 3/1
SNP 6/1
Con 100/1
UKIP 100/1
Hmmm... Baxter rates this as an SNP Gain:
SNP 42.5% chance
LD 22.8%
Lab 22.0%
Con 11.8%
That 6/1 looks flippin tasty when one considers that the SNP won this seat with a whopping 7,458 majority in 2011.
Is that for the 2015 General Election?
On @AgendaITV tonight with @LauraTenison, @Baddiel & @SarahVine - discussed the budget, tuition fees, paternity leave & musicals.
Good to see he's now in to panel shows - Question Time next? presumably he covered off Bullingdon, Gove and Eton if he was talking about the Budget?
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/12/05115128/51285
LD 1/3
PC 2/1
Lab 50/1
Con 100/1
But I do not think it at all desirable - to put it mildly - that we should encourage, approve of or turn a blind eye to the introduction of a deeply misognystic and religiously based legal system to family matters given that this will likely result in women (and others) being worse off than their fellow British female citizens. Sharia law - like all legal systems - says something about the way those who comply with it - view the world. It is a view which I find abhorrent and I find it deeply troubling that our reaction to its spread is to miss the point or somehow think it doesn't matter because it only applies to certain communities.
There's a lot of knowledge about the finer points of will making but not a lot of understanding going on.
Just make sure they leave the rest of us alone....
In 1963 on the death of the 5th Duke of Sutherland, the English, GB and UK titles passed to the nearest male relative the Earl of Ellesmere who instantly became 6th Duke of Sutherland. He also inherited the Bridgewater wealth. The Scottish titles and estates passed to the 5th Duke's niece, Elizabeth the 24th Countess of Sutherland. The 6th Duke died a few years ago and the whole lot shunted over to another distant male cousin whose 2 sons only have 3 daughters each at present.
Julian Lord Fellowes wife Emma would have inherited the title Earl Kitchener had she been male. The Queen has however accorded her the status of the daughter of an Earl.
Once the royal succession is finally concluded allowing the eldest child of the monarch to inherit regardless of sex, the next thing will be to amend by statute the rules of succession to all titles and dignities. My coat of arms which appears as my avatar will pass on my death to my eldest son if I have one, failing which a daughter and then to my nearest male relative, a 3rd cousin 3 times removed in Australia!
Anti-discrimination legislation doesn't apply to wills, but courts have long struck out clauses that are against public policy. If I were to say "I leave my residuary estate to X, Y, and Z, unless any of them should turn out to be gay" the likelihood is it would be struck out.
But, the wording matters. If I said "I leave my residuary estate to such of X, Y, and Z as shall marry in accordance with the tenets of the Church of England" then the clause will be upheld, even if it were to have the same result.
The Law Society itself is dominated by the radical left. They would see no contradiction in cancelling a booking from an organisation opposed to gay marriage and advising on Sharia.
In terms of civil law we already do this Cyclefree. The right of people to seek their own arbitration has gone on for centuries. I know I keep bringing up the Jewish Beth din courts but they are such a relevant example (and in some cases deeply patriarchal and misogynistic).
It is not that we are starting to permit this, it is that we have always permitted this.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7233040.stm
Are you sure a bearded **** jumped up and down on your late father's coffin? If so, do you know why?
I therefore suspect that we are looking at Lab leads - and probably higher than 1%.