Without nationality creating teams you would get what happens in football, with teams made up of whoever can spend to get the best. Would the anti nationalistic naysayers like that? I didn't think it was their style.
Those who don't like particular sports are not obliged to watch them. I haven't yet watched a minute of the Olympics. I don't begrudge those who enjoy them their pleasure.
You won't have seen, therefore, that to mark the last Olympics where we are members of the EU they have created an "EU" team, of which we are part, instead of competing as GB. We're doing very well, btw.
The one thing I think is very silly about the Olympics is the concept of competing under flags (of any kind). Why can't we celebrate the success of athletes wherever they come from?
That form of nationalism has led directly to state-sponsored drugs cheats. I'm sure we would still have drugs cheats but I very much doubt that the problem would be anything like as bad.
Nonsense. Cycling had team sponsored doping. There is suggest that it in a number of sports it is based around training groups, rather than countries.
Indeed, it was Team Armstrong that pushed the doping envelope in recent times and that wasn't based on nationality. Meeks is just bitter. As I wrote earlier today, Team GB have been part of Brexit.
Dear God, I write specifically that I am entirely happy for people to enjoy something I have no interest in and I get abused. I offer a completely innocuous view on a tangential subject and get told that I'm bitter about Brexit.
You are disparaging the idea of country. Again.
You need serious remedial reading lessons.
"The one thing I think is very silly about the Olympics is the concept of competing under flags"
Why is that disparaging the idea of country?
The fact you have to ask shows that you just don't get it, won't get it, can't get it, and explains why you lost in June.
There are so many animals the world would rather have dancing than horses.
Gorilla Dancing Vole Dancing Shark Dancing
It isn't dancing, in origin. It is a boring but necessary military discipline: if you want to parade your cavalry in neat lines the riders need to be able to nudge their horses sideways, backwards etc to get exactly into position. ("Dressage" = as in the command "by the right, dress!) Admittedly things have got a bit out of hand since then.
T''he fact you have to ask shows that you just don't get it, won't get it, can't get it, and explains why you lost in June. ''
I don;t think the Brexit and patriotism are necessarily exactly the same.
For me its about democratic control. I'm tired of people we can't vote out making decisions that very significantly affect our lives either now or in the future.
Marc Caputo reports on the burgeoning hispanic vote in Florida - up to 15.4% from 13.9 in 2012. New overall registrations run to 436K of which only 24% are non minority white. Significant figures as Trump is polling historically badly in the latter demographic :
I always find it slightly odd when people (rightly) complain about the evils of sharia law, and fail to mention the Beth Din.
The problem is this: the moment you have 'religious' laws some people will prefer them to the state's laws, and use them as an alternative, whist trying to make them the same. This puts a great deal of power in the hands of a few people (almost always men) who, whilst versed in religious law, may know little about the laws of the land.
In the case of state laws there is always the right of appeal; judges who make terrible decisions can have judgements overturned or even removed from their role. If I want a divorce, I can get eventually get one. If I want to get married, not special considerations are placed on me that would not be placed on my neighbour.
It is terrible that in this day and age a woman is placed in a position where she cannot get 'divorced' from her husband just because her husband does not want to divorce. It's ludicrous that the Jewish community see the only solution to this is to place adverts shaming the husbands.
So simply: get rid of both sharia courts and the Beth Din.
(There are problems with this when couples are married in other countries, and the obvious problems when people are insane enough to self-impose restrictions through religion)
Why can't the woman just apply for divorce through the regular courts?
I thought religious courts were basically glorified tribunals and onky worked if both parties agree to use them.
Neither's cricket, but the rest of us put up with it
It's as much a sport as hurling hammers around the place. And it has music.
We really ought to combine it with other sports: synchronized underwater horse dressage where the riders have to vault over the "horse" with a pole before getting on the horse. That sort of thing......
If we could teach horses to ride bikes we'd win every gold going for ever.....
Oh I dont mind the dressage in the least, but cricket should be banned.
Horse dancing is impressive. And it is a real sport - Xenophon, William Cavendish and Bolsover Castle say so.
Spaghetti Western theme music, or Harrison Birtwhistle, should be mandatory.
And lets bring in those Belgian 6 day cycle races.
Dressage is a pitiful pathetic spectacle and certainly no sport.
It is now that we have a gold!
You might as well propose factory farming as a sport and give the gold to whoever's troupe of chickens produces the most eggs in a day. At least there is some merit in producing a lot of eggs.
Monty Python came up with some interesting Olympic Sports in the Silly Olympics (I think this would cause Outrage if a TV show did it today):
ttps://youtube.com/watch?v=UI8CWptOEm8
That's absolutely brilliant, not sure it would get past the TV PC police nowadays though!
You only have to listen to Justin Rose to hear what competing for Great Britain means. While I'm not keen on golf, tennis and soccer being in the Olympics, I think it's great that the likes of Murray and Rose embrace it for what it is.
Those who don't like particular sports are not obliged to watch them. I haven't yet watched a minute of the Olympics. I don't begrudge those who enjoy them their pleasure.
You won't have seen, therefore, that to mark the last Olympics where we are members of the EU they have created an "EU" team, of which we are part, instead of competing as GB. We're doing very well, btw.
The one thing I think is very silly about the Olympics is the concept of competing under flags (of any kind). Why can't we celebrate the Indeed, it was Team Armstrong that pushed the doping envelope in recent times and that wasn't based on nationality. Meeks is just bitter. As I wrote earlier today, Team GB have been part of Brexit.
Dear God, I write specifically that I am entirely happy for people to enjoy something I have no interest in and I get abused. I offer a completely innocuous view on a tangential subject and get told that I'm bitter about Brexit.
You are disparaging the idea of country. Again.
You need serious remedial reading lessons.
"The one thing I think is very silly about the Olympics is the concept of competing under flags"
Why is that disparaging the idea of country?
The fact you have to ask shows that you just don't get it, won't get it, can't get it, and explains why you lost in June.
He probably winces at the sight of a st.George flag and union Jack. I love the way the regressive liberals think (not necessarily Meeks) Scottish Nationalism = nice progressive English nationalism =nasty little Englanders I don't like any sort of nationalism in politics too much because it blames everything on the other and it always invokes a grievance I just wish the left were consistent. They blame the Tories for running a negative campaign at the GE but I didn't hear much crisism of how the SNP do the exact same thing just dress it differently.
Let me be clear I'm not saying Meeks does that but the like if Owen Jones etc yes.
I always find it slightly odd when people (rightly) complain about the evils of sharia law, and fail to mention the Beth Din.
The problem is this: the moment you have 'religious' laws some people will prefer them to the state's laws, and use them as an alternative, whist trying to make them the same. This puts a great deal of power in the hands of a few people (almost always men) who, whilst versed in religious law, may know little about the laws of the land.
In the case of state laws there is always the right of appeal; judges who make terrible decisions can have judgements overturned or even removed from their role. If I want a divorce, I can get eventually get one. If I want to get married, not special considerations are placed on me that would not be placed on my neighbour.
It is terrible that in this day and age a woman is placed in a position where she cannot get 'divorced' from her husband just because her husband does not want to divorce. It's ludicrous that the Jewish community see the only solution to this is to place adverts shaming the husbands.
So simply: get rid of both sharia courts and the Beth Din.
(There are problems with this when couples are married in other countries, and the obvious problems when people are insane enough to self-impose restrictions through religion)
That wouldn't solve the problem that these Jewish women face. They would still be married in the eyes of their community. If one considers oneself bound by a moral law, the secular doesn't alter that.
I always find it slightly odd when people (rightly) complain about the evils of sharia law, and fail to mention the Beth Din.
The problem is this: the moment you have 'religious' laws some people will prefer them to the state's laws, and use them as an alternative, whist trying to make them the same. This puts a great deal of power in the hands of a few people (almost always men) who, whilst versed in religious law, may know little about the laws of the land.
In the case of state laws there is always the right of appeal; judges who make terrible decisions can have judgements overturned or even removed from their role. If I want a divorce, I can get eventually get one. If I want to get married, not special considerations are placed on me that would not be placed on my neighbour.
It is terrible that in this day and age a woman is placed in a position where she cannot get 'divorced' from her husband just because her husband does not want to divorce. It's ludicrous that the Jewish community see the only solution to this is to place adverts shaming the husbands.
So simply: get rid of both sharia courts and the Beth Din.
(There are problems with this when couples are married in other countries, and the obvious problems when people are insane enough to self-impose restrictions through religion)
We only have state laws due to religious laws. Most of UK common law is derived from the 10 commandments
I always find it slightly odd when people (rightly) complain about the evils of sharia law, and fail to mention the Beth Din.
The problem is this: the moment you have 'religious' laws some people will prefer them to the state's laws, and use them as an alternative, whist trying to make them the same. This puts a great deal of power in the hands of a few people (almost always men) who, whilst versed in religious law, may know little about the laws of the land.
In the case of state laws there is always the right of appeal; judges who make terrible decisions can have judgements overturned or even removed from their role. If I want a divorce, I can get eventually get one. If I want to get married, not special considerations are placed on me that would not be placed on my neighbour.
It is terrible that in this day and age a woman is placed in a position where she cannot get 'divorced' from her husband just because her husband does not want to divorce. It's ludicrous that the Jewish community see the only solution to this is to place adverts shaming the husbands.
So simply: get rid of both sharia courts and the Beth Din.
(There are problems with this when couples are married in other countries, and the obvious problems when people are insane enough to self-impose restrictions through religion)
Why can't the woman just apply for divorce through the regular courts?
I thought religious courts were basically glorified tribunals and onky worked if both parties agree to use them.
Like with Sharia (or indeed betting wrt ABAS), both parties enter into a (marriage) contract which agrees to submit to binding arbitration from a non-state court.
As Charles says, there are troubling aspects to this. But we do need to apply the rules equally: if we limit the role of non-state courts (and we have actually encouraged them to free up the legal system), then that has to apply to both the Beth Din and Sharia.
Those who don't like particular sports are not obliged to watch them. I haven't yet watched a minute of the Olympics. I don't begrudge those who enjoy them their pleasure.
You won't have seen, therefore, that to mark the last Olympics where we are members of the EU they have created an "EU" team, of which we are part, instead of competing as GB. We're doing very well, btw.
The one thing I think is very silly about the Olympics is the concept of competing under flags (of any kind). Why can't we celebrate the success of athletes wherever they come from?
That form of nationalism has led directly to state-sponsored drugs cheats. I'm sure we would still have drugs cheats but I very much doubt that the problem would be anything like as bad.
Nonsense. Cycling had team sponsored doping. There is suggest that it in a number of sports it is based around training groups, rather than countries.
Indeed, it was Team Armstrong that pushed the doping envelope in recent times and that wasn't based on nationality. Meeks is just bitter. As I wrote earlier today, Team GB have been part of Brexit.
Dear God, I write specifically that I am entirely happy for people to enjoy something I have no interest in and I get abused. I offer a completely innocuous view on a tangential subject and get told that I'm bitter about Brexit.
You are disparaging the idea of country. Again.
You need serious remedial reading lessons.
"The one thing I think is very silly about the Olympics is the concept of competing under flags"
Why is that disparaging the idea of country?
The fact you have to ask shows that you just don't get it, won't get it, can't get it, and explains why you lost in June.
Nation, nation above all.
Yep. (Tribe/Kith & Kin might be nearer the mark).
That is why many people dont regard places like Australia as foreign but do regard places like France as foreign and are outraged if they have the right to meddle in this countries affairs via the EU.
Those who don't like particular sports are not obliged to watch them. I haven't yet watched a minute of the Olympics. I don't begrudge those who enjoy them their pleasure.
You won't have seen, therefore, that to mark the last Olympics where we are members of the EU they have created an "EU" team, of which we are part, instead of competing as GB. We're doing very well, btw.
The one thing I think is very silly about the Olympics is the concept of competing under flags (of any kind). Why can't we celebrate the success of athletes wherever they come from?
That form of nationalism has led directly to state-sponsored drugs cheats. I'm sure we would still have drugs cheats but I very much doubt that the problem would be anything like as bad.
Nonsense. Cycling had team sponsored doping. There is suggest that it in a number of sports it is based around training groups, rather than countries.
Indeed, it was Team Armstrong that pushed the doping envelope in recent times and that wasn't based on nationality. Meeks is just bitter. As I wrote earlier today, Team GB have been part of Brexit.
Dear God, I write specifically that I am entirely happy for people to enjoy something I have no interest in and I get abused. I offer a completely innocuous view on a tangential subject and get told that I'm bitter about Brexit.
You are disparaging the idea of country. Again.
You need serious remedial reading lessons.
"The one thing I think is very silly about the Olympics is the concept of competing under flags"
Why is that disparaging the idea of country?
The fact you have to ask shows that you just don't get it, won't get it, can't get it, and explains why you lost in June.
Surely it is to be expected that a Europhile is confused about the importance of nation states.
T''he fact you have to ask shows that you just don't get it, won't get it, can't get it, and explains why you lost in June. ''
I don;t think the Brexit and patriotism are necessarily exactly the same.
For me its about democratic control. I'm tired of people we can't vote out making decisions that very significantly affect our lives either now or in the future.
Its about limiting the Democratic control to those in our own Demos as well
''Marc Caputo reports on the burgeoning hispanic vote in Florida - up to 15.4% from 13.9 in 2012. New overall registrations run to 436K of which only 24% are non minority white. Significant figures as Trump is polling historically badly in the latter demographic :''
The Trump can;t win, no way' meme is eerily similar to the ' twenty thousand reasons leave are gonna get stuffed' we had before Brexit.
The numbers simply weren't there for Brexit either. Except they were.
What they really need is for someone like John Harris to actually go to latino communities and ask them some straight questions. Are Latinos really that pro immigration? do they really want America to become more like latin America? Or are they in America for something different?
I suspect America's liberal elite is terrified of the answers.
I always find it slightly odd when people (rightly) complain about the evils of sharia law, and fail to mention the Beth Din.
The problem is this: the moment you have 'religious' laws some people will prefer them to the state's laws, and use them as an alternative, whist trying to make them the same. This puts a great deal of power in the hands of a few people (almost always men) who, whilst versed in religious law, may know little about the laws of the land.
In the case of state laws there is always the right of appeal; judges who make terrible decisions can have judgements overturned or even removed from their role. If I want a divorce, I can get eventually get one. If I want to get married, not special considerations are placed on me that would not be placed on my neighbour.
It is terrible that in this day and age a woman is placed in a position where she cannot get 'divorced' from her husband just because her husband does not want to divorce. It's ludicrous that the Jewish community see the only solution to this is to place adverts shaming the husbands.
So simply: get rid of both sharia courts and the Beth Din.
(There are problems with this when couples are married in other countries, and the obvious problems when people are insane enough to self-impose restrictions through religion)
Why can't the woman just apply for divorce through the regular courts?
I thought religious courts were basically glorified tribunals and onky worked if both parties agree to use them.
Like with Sharia (or indeed betting wrt ABAS), both parties enter into a (marriage) contract which agrees to submit to binding arbitration from a non-state court.
As Charles says, there are troubling aspects to this. But we do need to apply the rules equally: if we limit the role of non-state courts (and we have actually encouraged them to free up the legal system), then that has to apply to both the Beth Din and Sharia.
It's not legally possible to oust the jurisdiction of the secular Courts in family law cases. Any contractual provision to that effect would be void.
I always find it slightly odd when people (rightly) complain about the evils of sharia law, and fail to mention the Beth Din. ...
So simply: get rid of both sharia courts and the Beth Din.
Even more simple allow these systems to exist provided that (a) all participants have certain minimum rights; and (b) all participants have the absolute right to appeal to the UK legal system. That's the model that works well for canon law, for example.
I always find it slightly odd when people (rightly) complain about the evils of sharia law, and fail to mention the Beth Din.
The problem is this: the moment you have 'religious' laws some people will prefer them to the state's laws, and use them as an alternative, whist trying to make them the same. This puts a great deal of power in the hands of a few people (almost always men) who, whilst versed in religious law, may know little about the laws of the land.
In the case of state laws there is always the right of appeal; judges who make terrible decisions can have judgements overturned or even removed from their role. If I want a divorce, I can get eventually get one. If I want to get married, not special considerations are placed on me that would not be placed on my neighbour.
It is terrible that in this day and age a woman is placed in a position where she cannot get 'divorced' from her husband just because her husband does not want to divorce. It's ludicrous that the Jewish community see the only solution to this is to place adverts shaming the husbands.
So simply: get rid of both sharia courts and the Beth Din.
(There are problems with this when couples are married in other countries, and the obvious problems when people are insane enough to self-impose restrictions through religion)
We only have state laws due to religious laws. Most of UK common law is derived from the 10 commandments
Yes, firm common law principle to not worship any other gods or create graven images.
''Marc Caputo reports on the burgeoning hispanic vote in Florida - up to 15.4% from 13.9 in 2012. New overall registrations run to 436K of which only 24% are non minority white. Significant figures as Trump is polling historically badly in the latter demographic :''
The Trump can;t win, no way' meme is eerily similar to the ' twenty thousand reasons leave are gonna get stuffed' we had before Brexit.
The numbers simply weren't there for Brexit either. Except they were.
What they really need is for someone like John Harris to actually go to latino communities and ask them some straight questions. Are Latinos really that pro immigration? do they really want America to become more like latin America? Or are they in America for something different?
I suspect America's liberal elite is terrified of the answers.
The polling was split 50/50 between remain and leave leads. Trump has had 0 leads in the last 25 polls or so.
People really need to stop trying to draw parallels where there are none.
I always find it slightly odd when people (rightly) complain about the evils of sharia law, and fail to mention the Beth Din.
The problem is this: the moment you have 'religious' laws some people will prefer them to the state's laws, and use them as an alternative, whist trying to make them the same. This puts a great deal of power in the hands of a few people (almost always men) who, whilst versed in religious law, may know little about the laws of the land.
In the case of state laws there is always the right of appeal; judges who make terrible decisions can have judgements overturned or even removed from their role. If I want a divorce, I can get eventually get one. If I want to get married, not special considerations are placed on me that would not be placed on my neighbour.
It is terrible that in this day and age a woman is placed in a position where she cannot get 'divorced' from her husband just because her husband does not want to divorce. It's ludicrous that the Jewish community see the only solution to this is to place adverts shaming the husbands.
So simply: get rid of both sharia courts and the Beth Din.
(There are problems with this when couples are married in other countries, and the obvious problems when people are insane enough to self-impose restrictions through religion)
We only have state laws due to religious laws. Most of UK common law is derived from the 10 commandments
Yes, firm common law principle to not worship any other gods or create graven images.
It's always been my neighbour's ass that's got me into trouble. My wife seems to equate staring with coveting.
''Marc Caputo reports on the burgeoning hispanic vote in Florida - up to 15.4% from 13.9 in 2012. New overall registrations run to 436K of which only 24% are non minority white. Significant figures as Trump is polling historically badly in the latter demographic :''
The Trump can;t win, no way' meme is eerily similar to the ' twenty thousand reasons leave are gonna get stuffed' we had before Brexit.
The numbers simply weren't there for Brexit either. Except they were.
What they really need is for someone like John Harris to actually go to latino communities and ask them some straight questions. Are Latinos really that pro immigration? do they really want America to become more like latin America? Or are they in America for something different?
I suspect America's liberal elite is terrified of the answers.
Do you remember how they solemnly told us how Commonwealth immigrants would to a man vote remain rather than support nasty immigrant hating brexiters and then got the shock of their lines when they voted Brexit.
Trump not wanting more immigrants vs US version of Harriet Harman is only going to go one way with legal immigrants who can vote and tend to be far more small c conservative religious than white liberal democrats.
I remember an elderly black African lady I knew who had been here for decades describing recent African immigrants. "They are W*GS".
I always find it slightly odd when people (rightly) complain about the evils of sharia law, and fail to mention the Beth Din.
The problem is this: the moment you have 'religious' laws some people will prefer them to the state's laws, and use them as an alternative, whist trying to make them the same. This puts a great deal of power in the hands of a few people (almost always men) who, whilst versed in religious law, may know little about the laws of the land.
In the case of state laws there is always the right of appeal; judges who make terrible decisions can have judgements overturned or even removed from their role. If I want a divorce, I can get eventually get one. If I want to get married, not special considerations are placed on me that would not be placed on my neighbour.
It is terrible that in this day and age a woman is placed in a position where she cannot get 'divorced' from her husband just because her husband does not want to divorce. It's ludicrous that the Jewish community see the only solution to this is to place adverts shaming the husbands.
So simply: get rid of both sharia courts and the Beth Din.
(There are problems with this when couples are married in other countries, and the obvious problems when people are insane enough to self-impose restrictions through religion)
We only have state laws due to religious laws. Most of UK common law is derived from the 10 commandments
Yes, firm common law principle to not worship any other gods or create graven images.
The common law of negligence is based on the principle Love Your Neighbour as Yourself (Donoghue v Stevenson).
I always find it slightly odd when people (rightly) complain about the evils of sharia law, and fail to mention the Beth Din.
The problem is this: the moment you have 'religious' laws some people will prefer them to the state's laws, and use them as an alternative, whist trying to make them the same. This puts a great deal of power in the hands of a few people (almost always men) who, whilst versed in religious law, may know little about the laws of the land.
In the case of state laws there is always the right of appeal; judges who make terrible decisions can have judgements overturned or even removed from their role. If I want a divorce, I can get eventually get one. If I want to get married, not special considerations are placed on me that would not be placed on my neighbour.
It is terrible that in this day and age a woman is placed in a position where she cannot get 'divorced' from her husband just because her husband does not want to divorce. It's ludicrous that the Jewish community see the only solution to this is to place adverts shaming the husbands.
So simply: get rid of both sharia courts and the Beth Din.
(There are problems with this when couples are married in other countries, and the obvious problems when people are insane enough to self-impose restrictions through religion)
We only have state laws due to religious laws. Most of UK common law is derived from the 10 commandments
Yes, firm common law principle to not worship any other gods or create graven images.
It's always been my neighbour's ass that's got me into trouble. My wife seems to equate staring with coveting.
''Marc Caputo reports on the burgeoning hispanic vote in Florida - up to 15.4% from 13.9 in 2012. New overall registrations run to 436K of which only 24% are non minority white. Significant figures as Trump is polling historically badly in the latter demographic :''
The Trump can;t win, no way' meme is eerily similar to the ' twenty thousand reasons leave are gonna get stuffed' we had before Brexit.
The numbers simply weren't there for Brexit either. Except they were.
What they really need is for someone like John Harris to actually go to latino communities and ask them some straight questions. Are Latinos really that pro immigration? do they really want America to become more like latin America? Or are they in America for something different?
I suspect America's liberal elite is terrified of the answers.
I think if Trump had stuck with the anti-immigration rhetoric, he would have been fine. When he suggested that Mexican immigrants were rapists, and that a Judge of Latino descent couldn't be on his case that he crossed a big fat line.
Imagine this: a politician in the UK said that he didn't think a black judge should be on a case he was in; do you think this would go down well with the black population of the UK?
I always find it slightly odd when people (rightly) complain about the evils of sharia law, and fail to mention the Beth Din.
The problem is this: the moment you have 'religious' laws some people will prefer them to the state's laws, and use them as an alternative, whist trying to make them the same. This puts a great deal of power in the hands of a few people (almost always men) who, whilst versed in religious law, may know little about the laws of the land.
In the case of state laws there is always the right of appeal; judges who make terrible decisions can have judgements overturned or even removed from their role. If I want a divorce, I can get eventually get one. If I want to get married, not special considerations are placed on me that would not be placed on my neighbour.
It is terrible that in this day and age a woman is placed in a position where she cannot get 'divorced' from her husband just because her husband does not want to divorce. It's ludicrous that the Jewish community see the only solution to this is to place adverts shaming the husbands.
So simply: get rid of both sharia courts and the Beth Din.
(There are problems with this when couples are married in other countries, and the obvious problems when people are insane enough to self-impose restrictions through religion)
We only have state laws due to religious laws. Most of UK common law is derived from the 10 commandments
Yes, firm common law principle to not worship any other gods or create graven images.
The common law of negligence is based on the principle Love Your Neighbour as Yourself (Donoghue v Stevenson).
The Trump can;t win, no way' meme is eerily similar to the ' twenty thousand reasons leave are gonna get stuffed' we had before Brexit.
The numbers simply weren't there for Brexit either. Except they were.
What they really need is for someone like John Harris to actually go to latino communities and ask them some straight questions. Are Latinos really that pro immigration? do they really want America to become more like latin America? Or are they in America for something different?
I suspect America's liberal elite is terrified of the answers.
The polls and pundits aren't saying that Trump can't win but that his chances presently are marginal. A view shared by many in the RNC who are actively considering pulling the financial plug on Trump unless he can turn his dire position around.
Hispanic communities have been heavily polled this election and their responses are significantly worse than for McCain and Romney in which they were extremely accurate in 08/12.
I always find it slightly odd when people (rightly) complain about the evils of sharia law, and fail to mention the Beth Din.
The problem is this: the moment you have 'religious' laws some people will prefer them to the state's laws, and use them as an alternative, whist trying to make them the same. This puts a great deal of power in the hands of a few people (almost always men) who, whilst versed in religious law, may know little about the laws of the land.
In the case of state laws there is always the right of appeal; judges who make terrible decisions can have judgements overturned or even removed from their role. If I want a divorce, I can get eventually get one. If I want to get married, not special considerations are placed on me that would not be placed on my neighbour.
It is terrible that in this day and age a woman is placed in a position where she cannot get 'divorced' from her husband just because her husband does not want to divorce. It's ludicrous that the Jewish community see the only solution to this is to place adverts shaming the husbands.
So simply: get rid of both sharia courts and the Beth Din.
(There are problems with this when couples are married in other countries, and the obvious problems when people are insane enough to self-impose restrictions through religion)
We only have state laws due to religious laws. Most of UK common law is derived from the 10 commandments
Yes, firm common law principle to not worship any other gods or create graven images.
The common law of negligence is based on the principle Love Your Neighbour as Yourself (Donoghue v Stevenson).
Which doesn't actually work because saso-masochists would thus be encouraged to make others miserable.
The correct maxim to use is to "Be excellent to each other" the Bill and Ted Rule.
I always find it slightly odd when people (rightly) complain about the evils of sharia law, and fail to mention the Beth Din.
The problem is this: the moment you have 'religious' laws some people will prefer them to the state's laws, and use them as an alternative, whist trying to make them the same. This puts a great deal of power in the hands of a few people (almost always men) who, whilst versed in religious law, may know little about the laws of the land.
In the case of state laws there is always the right of appeal; judges who make terrible decisions can have judgements overturned or even removed from their role. If I want a divorce, I can get eventually get one. If I want to get married, not special considerations are placed on me that would not be placed on my neighbour.
It is terrible that in this day and age a woman is placed in a position where she cannot get 'divorced' from her husband just because her husband does not want to divorce. It's ludicrous that the Jewish community see the only solution to this is to place adverts shaming the husbands.
So simply: get rid of both sharia courts and the Beth Din.
(There are problems with this when couples are married in other countries, and the obvious problems when people are insane enough to self-impose restrictions through religion)
That wouldn't solve the problem that these Jewish women face. They would still be married in the eyes of their community. If one considers oneself bound by a moral law, the secular doesn't alter that.
Indeed. But it's made worse by the fact that some (I think MethodistQuaker and Jewish) figures can automatically register marriages, conferring state legitimacy on the marriage.
''Marc Caputo reports on the burgeoning hispanic vote in Florida - up to 15.4% from 13.9 in 2012. New overall registrations run to 436K of which only 24% are non minority white. Significant figures as Trump is polling historically badly in the latter demographic :''
The Trump can;t win, no way' meme is eerily similar to the ' twenty thousand reasons leave are gonna get stuffed' we had before Brexit.
The numbers simply weren't there for Brexit either. Except they were.
What they really need is for someone like John Harris to actually go to latino communities and ask them some straight questions. Are Latinos really that pro immigration? do they really want America to become more like latin America? Or are they in America for something different?
I suspect America's liberal elite is terrified of the answers.
I think if Trump had stuck with the anti-immigration rhetoric, he would have been fine. When he suggested that Mexican immigrants were rapists, and that a Judge of Latino descent couldn't be on his case that he crossed a big fat line.
Imagine this: a politician in the UK said that he didn't think a black judge should be on a case he was in; do you think this would go down well with the black population of the UK?
I don't even think it was the rapist line that did him in - it was the judge comment.
Often voting is more about what people aspire to than about what actually is or can be. That judge comment kills all aspiration Latinos could have under Trump to being accepted and making it.
I always find it slightly odd when people (rightly) complain about the evils of sharia law, and fail to mention the Beth Din.
The problem is this: the moment you have 'religious' laws some people will prefer them to the state's laws, and use them as an alternative, whist trying to make them the same. This puts a great deal of power in the hands of a few people (almost always men) who, whilst versed in religious law, may know little about the laws of the land.
In the case of state laws there is always the right of appeal; judges who make terrible decisions can have judgements overturned or even removed from their role. If I want a divorce, I can get eventually get one. If I want to get married, not special considerations are placed on me that would not be placed on my neighbour.
It is terrible that in this day and age a woman is placed in a position where she cannot get 'divorced' from her husband just because her husband does not want to divorce. It's ludicrous that the Jewish community see the only solution to this is to place adverts shaming the husbands.
So simply: get rid of both sharia courts and the Beth Din.
(There are problems with this when couples are married in other countries, and the obvious problems when people are insane enough to self-impose restrictions through religion)
We only have state laws due to religious laws. Most of UK common law is derived from the 10 commandments
Yes, firm common law principle to not worship any other gods or create graven images.
It's always been my neighbour's ass that's got me into trouble. My wife seems to equate staring with coveting.
Neither's cricket, but the rest of us put up with it
It's as much a sport as hurling hammers around the place. And it has music.
We really ought to combine it with other sports: synchronized underwater horse dressage where the riders have to vault over the "horse" with a pole before getting on the horse. That sort of thing......
If we could teach horses to ride bikes we'd win every gold going for ever.....
Oh I dont mind the dressage in the least, but cricket should be banned.
Horse dancing is impressive. And it is a real sport - Xenophon, William Cavendish and Bolsover Castle say so.
Spaghetti Western theme music, or Harrison Birtwhistle, should be mandatory.
And lets bring in those Belgian 6 day cycle races.
Dressage is a pitiful pathetic spectacle and certainly no sport.
It is now that we have a gold!
You might as well propose factory farming as a sport and give the gold to whoever's troupe of chickens produces the most eggs in a day. At least there is some merit in producing a lot of eggs.
Monty Python came up with some interesting Olympic Sports in the Silly Olympics (I think this would cause Outrage if a TV show did it today):
ttps://youtube.com/watch?v=UI8CWptOEm8
That's absolutely brilliant, not sure it would get past the TV PC police nowadays though!
Very interesting history, starting in 1948 as a separate event for disabled British war veterans, and gradually expanded until in 1988 they started running it consecutively with the Olympics in the same city and with the same facilities. The pinnacle was in 2012 in London with huge attendances, I fear they won't be like that in Rio next month.
I always find it slightly odd when people (rightly) complain about the evils of sharia law, and fail to mention the Beth Din.
The problem is this: the moment you have 'religious' laws some people will prefer them to the state's laws, and use them as an alternative, whist trying to make them the same. This puts a great deal of power in the hands of a few people (almost always men) who, whilst versed in religious law, may know little about the laws of the land.
In the case of state laws there is always the right of appeal; judges who make terrible decisions can have judgements overturned or even removed from their role. If I want a divorce, I can get eventually get one. If I want to get married, not special considerations are placed on me that would not be placed on my neighbour.
It is terrible that in this day and age a woman is placed in a position where she cannot get 'divorced' from her husband just because her husband does not want to divorce. It's ludicrous that the Jewish community see the only solution to this is to place adverts shaming the husbands.
So simply: get rid of both sharia courts and the Beth Din.
(There are problems with this when couples are married in other countries, and the obvious problems when people are insane enough to self-impose restrictions through religion)
We only have state laws due to religious laws. Most of UK common law is derived from the 10 commandments
Yes, firm common law principle to not worship any other gods or create graven images.
The common law of negligence is based on the principle Love Your Neighbour as Yourself (Donoghue v Stevenson).
Also known as the Golden Rule.
For sure, a lot of Mosaic law is not unique to Judaism and Christianity. Roman civil law often arrived at similar conclusions.
I always find it slightly odd when people (rightly) complain about the evils of sharia law, and fail to mention the Beth Din.
The problem is this: the moment you have 'religious' laws some people will prefer them to the state's laws, and use them as an alternative, whist trying to make them the same. This puts a great deal of power in the hands of a few people (almost always men) who, whilst versed in religious law, may know little about the laws of the land.
In the case of state laws there is always the right of appeal; judges who make terrible decisions can have judgements overturned or even removed from their role. If I want a divorce, I can get eventually get one. If I want to get married, not special considerations are placed on me that would not be placed on my neighbour.
It is terrible that in this day and age a woman is placed in a position where she cannot get 'divorced' from her husband just because her husband does not want to divorce. It's ludicrous that the Jewish community see the only solution to this is to place adverts shaming the husbands.
So simply: get rid of both sharia courts and the Beth Din.
(There are problems with this when couples are married in other countries, and the obvious problems when people are insane enough to self-impose restrictions through religion)
That wouldn't solve the problem that these Jewish women face. They would still be married in the eyes of their community. If one considers oneself bound by a moral law, the secular doesn't alter that.
Indeed. But it's made worse by the fact that some (I think MethodistQuaker and Jewish) figures can automatically register marriages, conferring state legitimacy on the marriage.
Edit: it's Quaker, not Methodist.
You still need to give 28 days notice to the local registry office though for Quaker and Jewish marriage which requires signatures from both parties I thought.
I always find it slightly odd when people (rightly) complain about the evils of sharia law, and fail to mention the Beth Din.
The problem is this: the moment you have 'religious' laws some people will prefer them to the state's laws, and use them as an alternative, whist trying to make them the same. This puts a great deal of power in the hands of a few people (almost always men) who, whilst versed in religious law, may know little about the laws of the land.
In the case of state laws there is always the right of appeal; judges who make terrible decisions can have judgements overturned or even removed from their role. If I want a divorce, I can get eventually get one. If I want to get married, not special considerations are placed on me that would not be placed on my neighbour.
It is terrible that in this day and age a woman is placed in a position where she cannot get 'divorced' from her husband just because her husband does not want to divorce. It's ludicrous that the Jewish community see the only solution to this is to place adverts shaming the husbands.
So simply: get rid of both sharia courts and the Beth Din.
(There are problems with this when couples are married in other countries, and the obvious problems when people are insane enough to self-impose restrictions through religion)
We only have state laws due to religious laws. Most of UK common law is derived from the 10 commandments
Yes, firm common law principle to not worship any other gods or create graven images.
The common law of negligence is based on the principle Love Your Neighbour as Yourself (Donoghue v Stevenson).
The Golden Rule found in virtually every religion's texts or sayings.
In case you're wondering, in Islam it is Hadith 13, Abu Hamzah Anas bin Malik, Literally 'Love for your brother what you love for yourself'
''Marc Caputo reports on the burgeoning hispanic vote in Florida - up to 15.4% from 13.9 in 2012. New overall registrations run to 436K of which only 24% are non minority white. Significant figures as Trump is polling historically badly in the latter demographic :''
The Trump can;t win, no way' meme is eerily similar to the ' twenty thousand reasons leave are gonna get stuffed' we had before Brexit.
The numbers simply weren't there for Brexit either. Except they were.
What they really need is for someone like John Harris to actually go to latino communities and ask them some straight questions. Are Latinos really that pro immigration? do they really want America to become more like latin America? Or are they in America for something different?
I suspect America's liberal elite is terrified of the answers.
I think if Trump had stuck with the anti-immigration rhetoric, he would have been fine. When he suggested that Mexican immigrants were rapists, and that a Judge of Latino descent couldn't be on his case that he crossed a big fat line.
Imagine this: a politician in the UK said that he didn't think a black judge should be on a case he was in; do you think this would go down well with the black population of the UK?
I don't even think it was the rapist line that did him in - it was the judge comment.
Often voting is more about what people aspire to than about what actually is or can be. That judge comment kills all aspiration Latinos could have under Trump to being accepted and making it.
I agree with this 100%. The only reason for working class people to vote for the centre right apart from in times of war is for social mobility, he is sending a message you know what I don't really care about you're self improvement into professional roles and acceptance in the establishment.
I always find it slightly odd when people (rightly) complain about the evils of sharia law, and fail to mention the Beth Din.
The problem is this: the moment you have 'religious' laws some people will prefer them to the state's laws, and use them as an alternative, whist trying to make them the same. This puts a great deal of power in the hands of a few people (almost always men) who, whilst versed in religious law, may know little about the laws of the land.
In the case of state laws there is always the right of appeal; judges who make terrible decisions can have judgements overturned or even removed from their role. If I want a divorce, I can get eventually get one. If I want to get married, not special considerations are placed on me that would not be placed on my neighbour.
It is terrible that in this day and age a woman is placed in a position where she cannot get 'divorced' from her husband just because her husband does not want to divorce. It's ludicrous that the Jewish community see the only solution to this is to place adverts shaming the husbands.
So simply: get rid of both sharia courts and the Beth Din.
(There are problems with this when couples are married in other countries, and the obvious problems when people are insane enough to self-impose restrictions through religion)
We only have state laws due to religious laws. Most of UK common law is derived from the 10 commandments
Yes, firm common law principle to not worship any other gods or create graven images.
The common law of negligence is based on the principle Love Your Neighbour as Yourself (Donoghue v Stevenson).
Also known as the Golden Rule.
For sure, a lot of Mosaic law is not unique to Judaism and Christianity. Roman civil law often arrived at similar conclusions.
It's almost like people worked out don't steal and don't kill all by themselves.
''Marc Caputo reports on the burgeoning hispanic vote in Florida - up to 15.4% from 13.9 in 2012. New overall registrations run to 436K of which only 24% are non minority white. Significant figures as Trump is polling historically badly in the latter demographic :''
The Trump can;t win, no way' meme is eerily similar to the ' twenty thousand reasons leave are gonna get stuffed' we had before Brexit.
The numbers simply weren't there for Brexit either. Except they were.
What they really need is for someone like John Harris to actually go to latino communities and ask them some straight questions. Are Latinos really that pro immigration? do they really want America to become more like latin America? Or are they in America for something different?
I suspect America's liberal elite is terrified of the answers.
I think if Trump had stuck with the anti-immigration rhetoric, he would have been fine. When he suggested that Mexican immigrants were rapists, and that a Judge of Latino descent couldn't be on his case that he crossed a big fat line.
Imagine this: a politician in the UK said that he didn't think a black judge should be on a case he was in; do you think this would go down well with the black population of the UK?
I don't even think it was the rapist line that did him in - it was the judge comment.
Often voting is more about what people aspire to than about what actually is or can be. That judge comment kills all aspiration Latinos could have under Trump to being accepted and making it.
I always find it slightly odd when people (rightly) complain about the evils of sharia law, and fail to mention the Beth Din.
The problem is this: the moment you have 'religious' laws some people will prefer them to the state's laws, and use them as an alternative, whist trying to make them the same. This puts a great deal of power in the hands of a few people (almost always men) who, whilst versed in religious law, may know little about the laws of the land.
In the case of state laws there is always the right of appeal; judges who make terrible decisions can have judgements overturned or even removed from their role. If I want a divorce, I can get eventually get one. If I want to get married, not special considerations are placed on me that would not be placed on my neighbour.
It is terrible that in this day and age a woman is placed in a position where she cannot get 'divorced' from her husband just because her husband does not want to divorce. It's ludicrous that the Jewish community see the only solution to this is to place adverts shaming the husbands.
So simply: get rid of both sharia courts and the Beth Din.
(There are problems with this when couples are married in other countries, and the obvious problems when people are insane enough to self-impose restrictions through religion)
Why can't the woman just apply for divorce through the regular courts?
I thought religious courts were basically glorified tribunals and onky worked if both parties agree to use them.
Like with Sharia (or indeed betting wrt ABAS), both parties enter into a (marriage) contract which agrees to submit to binding arbitration from a non-state court.
As Charles says, there are troubling aspects to this. But we do need to apply the rules equally: if we limit the role of non-state courts (and we have actually encouraged them to free up the legal system), then that has to apply to both the Beth Din and Sharia.
It's not legally possible to oust the jurisdiction of the secular Courts in family law cases. Any contractual provision to that effect would be void.
A family court would not be able to force a community to accept someone and allow them to take part in religious services if they had been banished for eg getting a secular Divorce.
The Trump can;t win, no way' meme is eerily similar to the ' twenty thousand reasons leave are gonna get stuffed' we had before Brexit.
The numbers simply weren't there for Brexit either. Except they were.
What they really need is for someone like John Harris to actually go to latino communities and ask them some straight questions. Are Latinos really that pro immigration? do they really want America to become more like latin America? Or are they in America for something different?
I suspect America's liberal elite is terrified of the answers.
The polls and pundits aren't saying that Trump can't win but that his chances presently are marginal. A view shared by many in the RNC who are actively considering pulling the financial plug on Trump unless he can turn his dire position around.
Hispanic communities have been heavily polled this election and their responses are significantly worse than for McCain and Romney in which they were extremely accurate in 08/12.
what about 2004, granted there has been a lot of demographic change since then but I would like to know how accurate they were with Hispanic voters the last time a republican won.
I always find it slightly odd when people (rightly) complain about the evils of sharia law, and fail to mention the Beth Din.
The problem is this: the moment you have 'religious' laws some people will prefer them to the state's laws, and use them as an alternative, whist trying to make them the same. This puts a great deal of power in the hands of a few people (almost always men) who, whilst versed in religious law, may know little about the laws of the land.
In the case of state laws there is always the right of appeal; judges who make terrible decisions can have judgements overturned or even removed from their role. If I want a divorce, I can get eventually get one. If I want to get married, not special considerations are placed on me that would not be placed on my neighbour.
It is terrible that in this day and age a woman is placed in a position where she cannot get 'divorced' from her husband just because her husband does not want to divorce. It's ludicrous that the Jewish community see the only solution to this is to place adverts shaming the husbands.
So simply: get rid of both sharia courts and the Beth Din.
(There are problems with this when couples are married in other countries, and the obvious problems when people are insane enough to self-impose restrictions through religion)
We only have state laws due to religious laws. Most of UK common law is derived from the 10 commandments
Yes, firm common law principle to not worship any other gods or create graven images.
The common law of negligence is based on the principle Love Your Neighbour as Yourself (Donoghue v Stevenson).
The Golden Rule found in virtually every religion's texts or sayings.
In case you're wondering, in Islam it is Hadith 13, Abu Hamzah Anas bin Malik, Literally 'Love for your brother what you love for yourself'
So, religions are more likely to spread if they contain the good neighbour rule. Interesting.
I always find it slightly odd when people (rightly) complain about the evils of sharia law, and fail to mention the Beth Din.
The problem is this: the moment you have 'religious' laws some people will prefer them to the state's laws, and use them as an alternative, whist trying to make them the same. This puts a great deal of power in the hands of a few people (almost always men) who, whilst versed in religious law, may know little about the laws of the land.
In the case of state laws there is always the right of appeal; judges who make terrible decisions can have judgements overturned or even removed from their role. If I want a divorce, I can get eventually get one. If I want to get married, not special considerations are placed on me that would not be placed on my neighbour.
It is terrible that in this day and age a woman is placed in a position where she cannot get 'divorced' from her husband just because her husband does not want to divorce. It's ludicrous that the Jewish community see the only solution to this is to place adverts shaming the husbands.
So simply: get rid of both sharia courts and the Beth Din.
(There are problems with this when couples are married in other countries, and the obvious problems when people are insane enough to self-impose restrictions through religion)
That wouldn't solve the problem that these Jewish women face. They would still be married in the eyes of their community. If one considers oneself bound by a moral law, the secular doesn't alter that.
Indeed. But it's made worse by the fact that some (I think MethodistQuaker and Jewish) figures can automatically register marriages, conferring state legitimacy on the marriage.
An acquaintance had been regularly attending the same CofE church from birth, excluding her time at university. She got baptised and married in the church (not on the same day!), and a relative was an organist (*). She had a wide circle of friends from the church. After a few years her marriage broke irrecoverably down, and eventually they got divorced.
What did the vicar, who she had known for more than a decade, do? The Sunday after her divorce was finalised (or whatever the term is), he gave a heated sermon on the evils of divorce. There was no compassion, no understanding.
The result: neither she, nor her family, have stepped foot in that church again. She has lost a couple of so-called friends.
Religion can be brilliant; it can give great help in times of need. It can also be utterly terrible.
The Trump can;t win, no way' meme is eerily similar to the ' twenty thousand reasons leave are gonna get stuffed' we had before Brexit.
The numbers simply weren't there for Brexit either. Except they were.
What they really need is for someone like John Harris to actually go to latino communities and ask them some straight questions. Are Latinos really that pro immigration? do they really want America to become more like latin America? Or are they in America for something different?
I suspect America's liberal elite is terrified of the answers.
The polls and pundits aren't saying that Trump can't win but that his chances presently are marginal. A view shared by many in the RNC who are actively considering pulling the financial plug on Trump unless he can turn his dire position around.
Hispanic communities have been heavily polled this election and their responses are significantly worse than for McCain and Romney in which they were extremely accurate in 08/12.
But will they actually vote for Hilary or sit on their hands?
Those who don't like particular sports are not obliged to watch them. I haven't yet watched a minute of the Olympics. I don't begrudge those who enjoy them their pleasure.
You won't have seen, therefore, that to mark the last Olympics where we are members of the EU they have created an "EU" team, of which we are part, instead of competing as GB. We're doing very well, btw.
The one thing I think is very silly about the Olympics is the concept of competing under flags (of any kind). Why can't we celebrate the success of athletes wherever they come from?
That form of nationalism has led directly to state-sponsored drugs cheats. I'm sure we would still have drugs cheats but I very much doubt that the problem would be anything like as bad.
Nonsense. Cycling had team sponsored doping. There is suggest that it in a number of sports it is based around training groups, rather than countries.
Indeed, it was Team Armstrong that pushed the doping envelope in recent times and that wasn't based on nationality. Meeks is just bitter. As I wrote earlier today, Team GB have been part of Brexit.
Dear God, I write specifically that I am entirely happy for people to enjoy something I have no interest in and I get abused. I offer a completely innocuous view on a tangential subject and get told that I'm bitter about Brexit.
You are disparaging the idea of country. Again.
You need serious remedial reading lessons.
"The one thing I think is very silly about the Olympics is the concept of competing under flags"
Why is that disparaging the idea of country? I am disparaging the idea of celebrating sporting prowess along nationalist lines. Surely absolute sporting achievement is of more interest than the accident of their birth? Usain Bolt's achievements will be remembered for generations. Tom Daley's, I suspect, will not.
The things I love about the United Kingdom are nothing to do with athletes. I have cherished its openness, its tolerance of other views, its good humour, its phlegmatic undogmatic character. All of those things are in retreat now. Perhaps the United Kingdom is in retreat as well with them.
Actually, for most people Brexit has revealed all of those features in spades. I am dead impressed with the way my previously most vehement Remoaner mates have listened to the democratic will of the people.
Neither's cricket, but the rest of us put up with it
It's as much a sport as hurling hammers around the place. And it has music.
We really ought to combine it with other sports: synchronized underwater horse dressage where the riders have to vault over the "horse" with a pole before getting on the horse. That sort of thing......
If we could teach horses to ride bikes we'd win every gold going for ever.....
Oh I dont mind the dressage in the least, but cricket should be banned.
Horse dancing is impressive. And it is a real sport - Xenophon, William Cavendish and Bolsover Castle say so.
Spaghetti Western theme music, or Harrison Birtwhistle, should be mandatory.
And lets bring in those Belgian 6 day cycle races.
Dressage is a pitiful pathetic spectacle and certainly no sport.
It is now that we have a gold!
You might as well propose factory farming as a sport and give the gold to whoever's troupe of chickens produces the most eggs in a day. At least there is some merit in producing a lot of eggs.
Monty Python came up with some interesting Olympic Sports in the Silly Olympics (I think this would cause Outrage if a TV show did it today):
ttps://youtube.com/watch?v=UI8CWptOEm8
That's absolutely brilliant, not sure it would get past the TV PC police nowadays though!
Very interesting history, starting in 1948 as a separate event for disabled British war veterans, and gradually expanded until in 1988 they started running it consecutively with the Olympics in the same city and with the same facilities. The pinnacle was in 2012 in London with huge attendances, I fear they won't be like that in Rio next month.
An acquaintance had been regularly attending the same CofE church from birth, excluding her time at university. She got baptised and married in the church (not on the same day!), and a relative was an organist (*). She had a wide circle of friends from the church. After a few years her marriage broke irrecoverably down, and eventually they got divorced.
What did the vicar, who she had known for more than a decade, do? The Sunday after her divorce was finalised (or whatever the term is), he gave a heated sermon on the evils of divorce. There was no compassion, no understanding.
The result: neither she, nor her family, have stepped foot in that church again. She has lost a couple of so-called friends.
Religion can be brilliant; it can give great help in times of need. It can also be utterly terrible.
(*) Linking to another recent PB conversation.
That is really sad. And terribly hypocritical given the history of the Anglicanism.
I always find it slightly odd when people (rightly) complain about the evils of sharia law, and fail to mention the Beth Din.
The problem is this: the moment you have 'religious' laws some people will prefer them to the state's laws, and use them as an alternative, whist trying to make them the same. This puts a great deal of power in the hands of a few people (almost always men) who, whilst versed in religious law, may know little about the laws of the land.
In the case of state laws there is always the right of appeal; judges who make terrible decisions can have judgements overturned or even removed from their role. If I want a divorce, I can get eventually get one. If I want to get married, not special considerations are placed on me that would not be placed on my neighbour.
It is terrible that in this day and age a woman is placed in a position where she cannot get 'divorced' from her husband just because her husband does not want to divorce. It's ludicrous that the Jewish community see the only solution to this is to place adverts shaming the husbands.
So simply: get rid of both sharia courts and the Beth Din.
(There are problems with this when couples are married in other countries, and the obvious problems when people are insane enough to self-impose restrictions through religion)
We only have state laws due to religious laws. Most of UK common law is derived from the 10 commandments
Yes, firm common law principle to not worship any other gods or create graven images.
The common law of negligence is based on the principle Love Your Neighbour as Yourself (Donoghue v Stevenson).
The Golden Rule found in virtually every religion's texts or sayings.
In case you're wondering, in Islam it is Hadith 13, Abu Hamzah Anas bin Malik, Literally 'Love for your brother what you love for yourself'
So, religions are more likely to spread if they contain the good neighbour rule. Interesting.
I presume you've read Axelrod's work on cooperation. The basic reciprocal forgiving (tit for tat) algorithm is so simple but so strong.
I always find it slightly odd when people (rightly) complain about the evils of sharia law, and fail to mention the Beth Din.
The problem is this: the moment you have 'religious' laws some people will prefer them to the state's laws, and use them as an alternative, whist trying to make them the same. This puts a great deal of power in the hands of a few people (almost always men) who, whilst versed in religious law, may know little about the laws of the land.
In the case of state laws there is always the right of appeal; judges who make terrible decisions can have judgements overturned or even removed from their role. If I want a divorce, I can get eventually get one. If I want to get married, not special considerations are placed on me that would not be placed on my neighbour.
It is terrible that in this day and age a woman is placed in a position where she cannot get 'divorced' from her husband just because her husband does not want to divorce. It's ludicrous that the Jewish community see the only solution to this is to place adverts shaming the husbands.
So simply: get rid of both sharia courts and the Beth Din.
(There are problems with this when couples are married in other countries, and the obvious problems when people are insane enough to self-impose restrictions through religion)
We only have state laws due to religious laws. Most of UK common law is derived from the 10 commandments
Yes, firm common law principle to not worship any other gods or create graven images.
The common law of negligence is based on the principle Love Your Neighbour as Yourself (Donoghue v Stevenson).
Also known as the Golden Rule.
For sure, a lot of Mosaic law is not unique to Judaism and Christianity. Roman civil law often arrived at similar conclusions.
I always find it slightly odd when people (rightly) complain about the evils of sharia law, and fail to mention the Beth Din.
The problem is this: the moment you have 'religious' laws some people will prefer them to the state's laws, and use them as an alternative, whist trying to make them the same. This puts a great deal of power in the hands of a few people (almost always men) who, whilst versed in religious law, may know little about the laws of the land.
In the case of state laws there is always the right of appeal; judges who make terrible decisions can have judgements overturned or even removed from their role. If I want a divorce, I can get eventually get one. If I want to get married, not special considerations are placed on me that would not be placed on my neighbour.
It is terrible that in this day and age a woman is placed in a position where she cannot get 'divorced' from her husband just because her husband does not want to divorce. It's ludicrous that the Jewish community see the only solution to this is to place adverts shaming the husbands.
So simply: get rid of both sharia courts and the Beth Din.
(There are problems with this when couples are married in other countries, and the obvious problems when people are insane enough to self-impose restrictions through religion)
We only have state laws due to religious laws. Most of UK common law is derived from the 10 commandments
Yes, firm common law principle to not worship any other gods or create graven images.
The common law of negligence is based on the principle Love Your Neighbour as Yourself (Donoghue v Stevenson).
The Golden Rule found in virtually every religion's texts or sayings.
In case you're wondering, in Islam it is Hadith 13, Abu Hamzah Anas bin Malik, Literally 'Love for your brother what you love for yourself'
Neither's cricket, but the rest of us put up with it
Oh I dont mind the dressage in the least, but cricket should be banned.
Horse dancing is impressive. And it is a real sport - Xenophon, William Cavendish and Bolsover Castle say so.
Spaghetti Western theme music, or Harrison Birtwhistle, should be mandatory.
And lets bring in those Belgian 6 day cycle races.
Dressage is a pitiful pathetic spectacle and certainly no sport.
It is now that we have a gold!
You might as well propose factory farming as a sport and give the gold to whoever's troupe of chickens produces the most eggs in a day. At least there is some merit in producing a lot of eggs.
Monty Python came up with some interesting Olympic Sports in the Silly Olympics (I think this would cause Outrage if a TV show did it today):
ttps://youtube.com/watch?v=UI8CWptOEm8
That's absolutely brilliant, not sure it would get past the TV PC police nowadays though!
Very interesting history, starting in 1948 as a separate event for disabled British war veterans, and gradually expanded until in 1988 they started running it consecutively with the Olympics in the same city and with the same facilities. The pinnacle was in 2012 in London with huge attendances, I fear they won't be like that in Rio next month.
I'd like to think one of the many people in the world with deep pockets would cover this.
Hopefully the plight of the Paralympians will generate enough publicity that the Brazilian government put their hand in their pocket, that they're out of cash three weeks before the Games start suggests that ticket sales have been non-existant.
But yes, hopefully someone will be able to step up to the plate, would be small change for the likes of the Gates Foundation.
I always find it slightly odd when people (rightly) complain about the evils of sharia law, and fail to mention the Beth Din.
The problem is this: the moment you have 'religious' laws some people will prefer them to the state's laws, and use them as an alternative, whist trying to make them the same. This puts a great deal of power in the hands of a few people (almost always men) who, whilst versed in religious law, may know little about the laws of the land.
In the case of state laws there is always the right of appeal; judges who make terrible decisions can have judgements overturned or even removed from their role. If I want a divorce, I can get eventually get one. If I want to get married, not special considerations are placed on me that would not be placed on my neighbour.
It is terrible that in this day and age a woman is placed in a position where she cannot get 'divorced' from her husband just because her husband does not want to divorce. It's ludicrous that the Jewish community see the only solution to this is to place adverts shaming the husbands.
So simply: get rid of both sharia courts and the Beth Din.
(There are problems with this when couples are married in other countries, and the obvious problems when people are insane enough to self-impose restrictions through religion)
We only have state laws due to religious laws. Most of UK common law is derived from the 10 commandments
Yes, firm common law principle to not worship any other gods or create graven images.
The common law of negligence is based on the principle Love Your Neighbour as Yourself (Donoghue v Stevenson).
The Golden Rule found in virtually every religion's texts or sayings.
In case you're wondering, in Islam it is Hadith 13, Abu Hamzah Anas bin Malik, Literally 'Love for your brother what you love for yourself'
I don't even think it was the rapist line that did him in - it was the judge comment.
Often voting is more about what people aspire to than about what actually is or can be. That judge comment kills all aspiration Latinos could have under Trump to being accepted and making it.
Yes, that's a subtle and good point.
It's remarkable how Trump seems to be seeking out Republicans to piss off. I talked to one in the US (friend of a friend), a twice-wounded veteran, NRA enthusiast with lots of guns at home. He was going to vote Trump until Trump said he'd always fancied having a Purple Heart (which you only get if you're wounded or dead). Now he wouldn't touch him with a bargepole - he's not sure if Trump is an idiot who doesn't know how you get it, or a fantasist who actually likes the ideas of being wounded.
That said, considering all the enemies he's making, Trump is doing well to be still remotely in contention.
I don't even think it was the rapist line that did him in - it was the judge comment.
Often voting is more about what people aspire to than about what actually is or can be. That judge comment kills all aspiration Latinos could have under Trump to being accepted and making it.
Yes, that's a subtle and good point.
It's remarkable how Trump seems to be seeking out Republicans to piss off. I talked to one in the US (friend of a friend), a twice-wounded veteran, NRA enthusiast with lots of guns at home. He was going to vote Trump until Trump said he'd always fancied having a Purple Heart (which you only get if you're wounded or dead). Now he wouldn't touch him with a bargepole - he's not sure if Trump is an idiot who doesn't know how you get it, or a fantasist who actually likes the ideas of being wounded.
That said, considering all the enemies he's making, Trump is doing well to be still remotely in contention.
If it was any other Democrat (excepting perhaps Sanders), Trump would have been dead and buried.
I always find it slightly odd when people (rightly) complain about the evils of sharia law, and fail to mention the Beth Din.
The problem is this: the moment you have 'religious' laws some people will prefer them to the state's laws, and use them as an alternative, whist trying to make them the same. This puts a great deal of power in the hands of a few people (almost always men) who, whilst versed in religious law, may know little about the laws of the land.
In the case of state laws there is always the right of appeal; judges who make terrible decisions can have judgements overturned or even removed from their role. If I want a divorce, I can get eventually get one. If I want to get married, not special considerations are placed on me that would not be placed on my neighbour.
It is terrible that in this day and age a woman is placed in a position where she cannot get 'divorced' from her husband just because her husband does not want to divorce. It's ludicrous that the Jewish community see the only solution to this is to place adverts shaming the husbands.
So simply: get rid of both sharia courts and the Beth Din.
(There are problems with this when couples are married in other countries, and the obvious problems when people are insane enough to self-impose restrictions through religion)
We only have state laws due to religious laws. Most of UK common law is derived from the 10 commandments
Yes, firm common law principle to not worship any other gods or create graven images.
The common law of negligence is based on the principle Love Your Neighbour as Yourself (Donoghue v Stevenson).
The Golden Rule found in virtually every religion's texts or sayings.
In case you're wondering, in Islam it is Hadith 13, Abu Hamzah Anas bin Malik, Literally 'Love for your brother what you love for yourself'
from the prophet Isa perhaps? .......
Did the prophet ISA say "though shalt not pay tax on thine interest"?
Mr. Urquhart, best bit of the Olympics was how chuffed Bryony Page was with her silver, although the very friendly chat between Cavendish and Hoy [starting with Cavendish asking for Hoy's autograph] was pretty close.
One gets the feeling those two could do some really good cycling programmes together, though obviously Cavendish is still competing at the moment.
I always find it slightly odd when people (rightly) complain about the evils of sharia law, and fail to mention the Beth Din.
The problem is this: the moment you have 'religious' laws some people will prefer them to the state's laws, and use them as an alternative, whist trying to make them the same. This puts a great deal of power in the hands of a few people (almost always men) who, whilst versed in religious law, may know little about the laws of the land.
In the case of state laws there is always the right of appeal; judges who make terrible decisions can have judgements overturned or even removed from their role. If I want a divorce, I can get eventually get one. If I want to get married, not special considerations are placed on me that would not be placed on my neighbour.
It is terrible that in this day and age a woman is placed in a position where she cannot get 'divorced' from her husband just because her husband does not want to divorce. It's ludicrous that the Jewish community see the only solution to this is to place adverts shaming the husbands.
So simply: get rid of both sharia courts and the Beth Din.
(There are problems with this when couples are married in other countries, and the obvious problems when people are insane enough to self-impose restrictions through religion)
We only have state laws due to religious laws. Most of UK common law is derived from the 10 commandments
Yes, firm common law principle to not worship any other gods or create graven images.
The common law of negligence is based on the principle Love Your Neighbour as Yourself (Donoghue v Stevenson).
The Golden Rule found in virtually every religion's texts or sayings.
In case you're wondering, in Islam it is Hadith 13, Abu Hamzah Anas bin Malik, Literally 'Love for your brother what you love for yourself'
from the prophet Isa perhaps? .......
Did the prophet ISA say "though shalt not pay tax on thine interest"?
Do you think the current rise of Islam is related to the zero interest rate policies of central banks worldwide?
I don't even think it was the rapist line that did him in - it was the judge comment.
Often voting is more about what people aspire to than about what actually is or can be. That judge comment kills all aspiration Latinos could have under Trump to being accepted and making it.
Yes, that's a subtle and good point.
It's remarkable how Trump seems to be seeking out Republicans to piss off. I talked to one in the US (friend of a friend), a twice-wounded veteran, NRA enthusiast with lots of guns at home. He was going to vote Trump until Trump said he'd always fancied having a Purple Heart (which you only get if you're wounded or dead). Now he wouldn't touch him with a bargepole - he's not sure if Trump is an idiot who doesn't know how you get it, or a fantasist who actually likes the ideas of being wounded.
That said, considering all the enemies he's making, Trump is doing well to be still remotely in contention.
If it was any other Democrat (excepting perhaps Sanders), Trump would have been dead and buried.
I don't even think it was the rapist line that did him in - it was the judge comment.
Often voting is more about what people aspire to than about what actually is or can be. That judge comment kills all aspiration Latinos could have under Trump to being accepted and making it.
Yes, that's a subtle and good point.
It's remarkable how Trump seems to be seeking out Republicans to piss off. I talked to one in the US (friend of a friend), a twice-wounded veteran, NRA enthusiast with lots of guns at home. He was going to vote Trump until Trump said he'd always fancied having a Purple Heart (which you only get if you're wounded or dead). Now he wouldn't touch him with a bargepole - he's not sure if Trump is an idiot who doesn't know how you get it, or a fantasist who actually likes the ideas of being wounded.
That said, considering all the enemies he's making, Trump is doing well to be still remotely in contention.
If it was any other Democrat (excepting perhaps Sanders), Trump would have been dead and buried.
How on Earth, with over 200m potential candidates, did the USA end up with these two to choose from?
Anyone know of any spreads on the turnout? If Obama in 2008 only got it up to 58% there's a good chance that fewer than half will even to bother to vote at all for Tweedledum or Tweedledee.
I always find it slightly odd when people (rightly) complain about the evils of sharia law, and fail to mention the Beth Din.
The problem is this: the moment you have 'religious' laws some people will prefer them to the state's laws, and use them as an alternative, whist trying to make them the same. This puts a great deal of power in the hands of a few people (almost always men) who, whilst versed in religious law, may know little about the laws of the land.
In the case of state laws there is always the right of appeal; judges who make terrible decisions can have judgements overturned or even removed from their role. If I want a divorce, I can get eventually get one. If I want to get married, not special considerations are placed on me that would not be placed on my neighbour.
It is terrible that in this day and age a woman is placed in a position where she cannot get 'divorced' from her husband just because her husband does not want to divorce. It's ludicrous that the Jewish community see the only solution to this is to place adverts shaming the husbands.
So simply: get rid of both sharia courts and the Beth Din.
(There are problems with this when couples are married in other countries, and the obvious problems when people are insane enough to self-impose restrictions through religion)
We only have state laws due to religious laws. Most of UK common law is derived from the 10 commandments
Yes, firm common law principle to not worship any other gods or create graven images.
The common law of negligence is based on the principle Love Your Neighbour as Yourself (Donoghue v Stevenson).
The Golden Rule found in virtually every religion's texts or sayings.
In case you're wondering, in Islam it is Hadith 13, Abu Hamzah Anas bin Malik, Literally 'Love for your brother what you love for yourself'
from the prophet Isa perhaps? .......
Did the prophet ISA say "though shalt not pay tax on thine interest"?
Do you think the current rise of Islam is related to the zero interest rate policies of central banks worldwide?
If it's something we can lay at the door of Mark Carney, then I'm all in favour.
Mr. Urquhart, best bit of the Olympics was how chuffed Bryony Page was with her silver, although the very friendly chat between Cavendish and Hoy [starting with Cavendish asking for Hoy's autograph] was pretty close.
One gets the feeling those two could do some really good cycling programmes together, though obviously Cavendish is still competing at the moment.
Hoy has been star of the coverage for me. Michael Johnson is a class act as well.
I always find it slightly odd when people (rightly) complain about the evils of sharia law, and fail to mention the Beth Din.
The problem is this: the moment you have 'religious' laws some people will prefer them to the state's laws, and use them as an alternative, whist trying to make them the same. This puts a great deal of power in the hands of a few people (almost always men) who, whilst versed in religious law, may know little about the laws of the land.
In the case of state laws there is always the right of appeal; judges who make terrible decisions can have judgements overturned or even removed from their role. If I want a divorce, I can get eventually get one. If I want to get married, not special considerations are placed on me that would not be placed on my neighbour.
It is terrible that in this day and age a woman is placed in a position where she cannot get 'divorced' from her husband just because her husband does not want to divorce. It's ludicrous
So simply: get rid of both sharia courts and the Beth Din.
(There are problems with this when couples are married in other countries, and the obvious problems when people are insane enough to self-impose restrictions through religion)
Why can't the woman just apply for divorce through the regular courts?
I thought religious courts were basically glorified tribunals and onky worked if both parties agree to use them.
Like with Sharia (or indeed betting wrt ABAS), both parties enter into a (marriage) contract which agrees to submit to binding arbitration from a non-state court.
As Charles says, there are troubling aspects to this. But we do need to apply the rules equally: if we limit the role of non-state courts (and we have actually encouraged them to free up the legal system), then that has to apply to both the Beth Din and Sharia.
It's not legally possible to oust the jurisdiction of the secular Courts in family law cases. Any contractual provision to that effect would be void.
A family court would not be able to force a community to accept someone and allow them to take part in religious services if they had been banished for eg getting a secular Divorce.
Here, we're getting to the nub of the issue. Being devoutly religious is counter-cultural, in most modern Western societies. But, it's still quite a big counter-culture, involving millions of people in a country as big as the UK. No secular law can force members of a religious community to accept people who transgress the laws that that community holds dear.
I always find it slightly odd when people (rightly) complain about the evils of sharia law, and fail to mention the Beth Din.
The problem is this: the moment you have 'religious' laws some people will prefer them to the state's laws, and use them as an alternative, whist trying to make them the same. This puts a great deal of power in the hands of a few people (almost always men) who, whilst versed in religious law, may know little about the laws of the land.
In the case of state laws there is always the right of appeal; judges who make terrible decisions can have judgements overturned or even removed from their role. If I want a divorce, I can get eventually get one. If I want to get married, not special considerations are placed on me that would not be placed on my neighbour.
It is terrible that in this day and age a woman is placed in a position where she cannot get 'divorced' from her husband just because her husband does not want to divorce. It's ludicrous that the Jewish community see the only solution to this is to place adverts shaming the husbands.
So simply: get rid of both sharia courts and the Beth Din.
(There are problems with this when couples are married in other countries, and the obvious problems when people are insane enough to self-impose restrictions through religion)
We only have state laws due to religious laws. Most of UK common law is derived from the 10 commandments
Yes, firm common law principle to not worship any other gods or create graven images.
The common law of negligence is based on the principle Love Your Neighbour as Yourself (Donoghue v Stevenson).
The Golden Rule found in virtually every religion's texts or sayings.
In case you're wondering, in Islam it is Hadith 13, Abu Hamzah Anas bin Malik, Literally 'Love for your brother what you love for yourself'
from the prophet Isa perhaps? .......
Did the prophet ISA say "though shalt not pay tax on thine interest"?
I don't even think it was the rapist line that did him in - it was the judge comment.
Often voting is more about what people aspire to than about what actually is or can be. That judge comment kills all aspiration Latinos could have under Trump to being accepted and making it.
Yes, that's a subtle and good point.
It's remarkable how Trump seems to be seeking out Republicans to piss off. I talked to one in the US (friend of a friend), a twice-wounded veteran, NRA enthusiast with lots of guns at home. He was going to vote Trump until Trump said he'd always fancied having a Purple Heart (which you only get if you're wounded or dead). Now he wouldn't touch him with a bargepole - he's not sure if Trump is an idiot who doesn't know how you get it, or a fantasist who actually likes the ideas of being wounded.
That said, considering all the enemies he's making, Trump is doing well to be still remotely in contention.
Nick, you are right. It is remarkable how close it is, given how determined Trump appears to be to lose it big by pissing off everyone.
Any more than it should depend on a person's sex or ethnic origin or any other characteristic. We have been far too cringing before an attempt to impose the patriarchal/religious norms of very different societies on English citizens. Why should a girl's rights depend on whether her granny was born in Pakistan rather than Woking?
Yes the women thing is critical. It is a failing (IMO) of those cultures. I am no cultural relativist but at the same time, if it is a cultural attribute then assuming the woman didn't come to the UK for emancipation, the fact that it continues here is not something we can do anything about. We can legislate, indeed do legislate against discrimination but if we have immigrants who import this aspect of their culture to the UK then I'm not sure what we can do.
Must dash, v irritating so my reply more garbled than usual; not taking the time to say what I want more succinctly.
Will try to pick it all up later this evening apologies.
I strongly disagree with this. We can and should do something about this. If people come to this country then the very least we have a right to expect is that they adapt their behaviour and cultural norms to those obtaining in the country in which they have chosen to live. Furthermore, we have a right to expect that the daughters and grand-daughters and great-grand-daughters, who are not immigrants, but British citizens, should be free to enjoy the rights of British citizens and not have those constrained or removed simply because of who their ancestors were.
This is what integration means. When in Rome etc..... It should be unacceptable for people in this country, born in this country, whose parents were born in this country, to still be living here as if they were still in Waziristan or wherever.
The Trump can;t win, no way' meme is eerily similar to the ' twenty thousand reasons leave are gonna get stuffed' we had before Brexit.
The numbers simply weren't there for Brexit either. Except they were.
What they really need is for someone like John Harris to actually go to latino communities and ask them some straight questions. Are Latinos really that pro immigration? do they really want America to become more like latin America? Or are they in America for something different?
I suspect America's liberal elite is terrified of the answers.
The polls and pundits aren't saying that Trump can't win but that his chances presently are marginal. A view shared by many in the RNC who are actively considering pulling the financial plug on Trump unless he can turn his dire position around.
Hispanic communities have been heavily polled this election and their responses are significantly worse than for McCain and Romney in which they were extremely accurate in 08/12.
what about 2004, granted there has been a lot of demographic change since then but I would like to know how accurate they were with Hispanic voters the last time a republican won.
Nate Siler mea culpa: "We could emphasize that track record; the methods of data journalism have been highly successful at forecasting elections. That includes quite a bit of success this year. The FiveThirtyEight “polls-only” model has correctly predicted the winner in 52 of 57 (91 percent) primaries and caucuses so far in 2016, and our related “polls-plus” model has gone 51-for-57 (89 percent). Furthermore, the forecasts have been well-calibrated, meaning that upsets have occurred about as often as they’re supposed to but not more often.
But I don’t think this defense is complete — at least if we’re talking about FiveThirtyEight’s Trump forecasts. We didn’t just get unlucky: We made a big mistake, along with a couple of marginal ones.
The big mistake is a curious one for a website that focuses on statistics. Unlike virtually every other forecast we publish at FiveThirtyEight — including the primary and caucus projections I just mentioned — our early estimates of Trump’s chances weren’t based on a statistical model. Instead, they were what we “subjective odds” — which is to say, educated guesses. In other words, we were basically acting like pundits, but attaching numbers to our estimates.3 And we succumbed to some of the same biases that pundits often suffer, such as not changing our minds quickly enough in the face of new evidence. Without a model as a fortification, we found ourselves rambling around the countryside like all the other pundit-barbarians, randomly setting fire to things." http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-i-acted-like-a-pundit-and-screwed-up-on-donald-trump/
Those who don't like particular sports are not obliged to watch them. I haven't yet watched a minute of the Olympics. I don't begrudge those who enjoy them their pleasure.
You won't have seen, therefore, that to mark the last Olympics where we are members of the EU they have created an "EU" team, of which we are part, instead of competing as GB. We're doing very well, btw.
That form of nationalism has led directly to state-sponsored drugs cheats. I'm sure we would still have drugs cheats but I very much doubt that the problem would be anything like as bad.
Nonsense. Cycling had team sponsored doping. There is suggest that it in a number of sports it is based around training groups, rather than countries.
Indeed, it was Team Armstrong that pushed the doping envelope in recent times and that wasn't based on nationality. Meeks is just bitter. As I wrote earlier today, Team GB have been part of Brexit.
Dear God, I write specifically that I am entirely happy for people to enjoy something I have no interest in and I get abused. I offer a completely innocuous view on a tangential subject and get told that I'm bitter about Brexit.
You are disparaging the idea of country. Again.
You need serious remedial reading lessons.
"The one thing I think is very silly about the Olympics is the concept of competing under flags"
Why is that disparaging the idea of country? I am disparaging the idea of celebrating sporting prowess along nationalist lines. Surely absolute sporting achievement is of more interest than the accident of their birth? Usain Bolt's achievements will be remembered for generations. Tom Daley's, I suspect, will not.
The things I love about the United Kingdom are nothing to do with athletes. I have cherished its openness, its tolerance of other views, its good humour, its phlegmatic undogmatic character. All of those things are in retreat now. Perhaps the United Kingdom is in retreat as well with them.
Actually, for most people Brexit has revealed all of those features in spades. I am dead impressed with the way my previously most vehement Remoaner mates have listened to the democratic will of the people.
So far as I can tell, the anger that did at times run high during the campaign, has largely dissipated, and people are taking Brexit in their stride.
An acquaintance had been regularly attending the same CofE church from birth, excluding her time at university. She got baptised and married in the church (not on the same day!), and a relative was an organist (*). She had a wide circle of friends from the church. After a few years her marriage broke irrecoverably down, and eventually they got divorced.
What did the vicar, who she had known for more than a decade, do? The Sunday after her divorce was finalised (or whatever the term is), he gave a heated sermon on the evils of divorce. There was no compassion, no understanding.
The result: neither she, nor her family, have stepped foot in that church again. She has lost a couple of so-called friends.
Religion can be brilliant; it can give great help in times of need. It can also be utterly terrible.
(*) Linking to another recent PB conversation.
That is really sad. And terribly hypocritical given the history of the Anglicanism.
Very sad. And an example of someone not understanding the essential message of Christianity.
I always find it slightly odd when people (rightly) complain about the evils of sharia law, and fail to mention the Beth Din.
The problem is this: the moment you have 'religious' laws some people will prefer them to the state's laws, and use them as an alternative, whist trying to make them the same. This puts a great deal of power in the hands of a few people (almost always men) who, whilst versed in religious law, may know little about the laws of the land.
In the case of state laws there is always the right of appeal; judges who make terrible decisions can have judgements overturned or even removed from their role. If I want a divorce, I can get eventually get one. If I want to get married, not special considerations are placed on me that would not be placed on my neighbour.
It is terrible that in this day and age a woman is placed in a position where she cannot get 'divorced' from her husband just because her husband does not want to divorce. It's ludicrous that the Jewish community see the only solution to this is to place adverts shaming the husbands.
So simply: get rid of both sharia courts and the Beth Din.
(There are problems with this when couples are married in other countries, and the obvious problems when people are insane enough to self-impose restrictions through religion)
We only have state laws due to religious laws. Most of UK common law is derived from the 10 commandments
Yes, firm common law principle to not worship any other gods or create graven images.
The common law of negligence is based on the principle Love Your Neighbour as Yourself (Donoghue v Stevenson).
Not really. The common law principle is do not harm your neighbour. Those that walked on the other side fully met their Donaghue-v- Stephenson duties.
I always find it slightly odd when people (rightly) complain about the evils of sharia law, and fail to mention the Beth Din.
The problem is this: the moment you have 'religious' laws some people will prefer them to the state's laws, and use them as an alternative, whist trying to make them the same. This puts a great deal of power in the hands of a few people (almost always men) who, whilst versed in religious law, may know little about the laws of the land.
In the case of state laws there is always the right of appeal; judges who make terrible decisions can have judgements overturned or even removed from their role. If I want a divorce, I can get eventually get one. If I want to get married, not special considerations are placed on me that would not be placed on my neighbour.
It is terrible that in this day and age a woman is placed in a position where she cannot get 'divorced' from her husband just because her husband does not want to divorce. It's ludicrous that the Jewish community see the only solution to this is to place adverts shaming the husbands.
So simply: get rid of both sharia courts and the Beth Din.
(There are problems with this when couples are married in other countries, and the obvious problems when people are insane enough to self-impose restrictions through religion)
We only have state laws due to religious laws. Most of UK common law is derived from the 10 commandments
Yes, firm common law principle to not worship any other gods or create graven images.
The common law of negligence is based on the principle Love Your Neighbour as Yourself (Donoghue v Stevenson).
The Golden Rule found in virtually every religion's texts or sayings.
In case you're wondering, in Islam it is Hadith 13, Abu Hamzah Anas bin Malik, Literally 'Love for your brother what you love for yourself'
So, religions are more likely to spread if they contain the good neighbour rule. Interesting.
Reduced the risk of a new individual joining an established community (vs. Join us and be a second class citizen)
An acquaintance had been regularly attending the same CofE church from birth, excluding her time at university. She got baptised and married in the church (not on the same day!), and a relative was an organist (*). She had a wide circle of friends from the church. After a few years her marriage broke irrecoverably down, and eventually they got divorced.
What did the vicar, who she had known for more than a decade, do? The Sunday after her divorce was finalised (or whatever the term is), he gave a heated sermon on the evils of divorce. There was no compassion, no understanding.
The result: neither she, nor her family, have stepped foot in that church again. She has lost a couple of so-called friends.
Religion can be brilliant; it can give great help in times of need. It can also be utterly terrible.
(*) Linking to another recent PB conversation.
That is really sad. And terribly hypocritical given the history of the Anglicanism.
Very sad. And an example of someone not understanding the essential message of Christianity.
You can only have a divorce if you're also head of the church?
I always find it slightly odd when people (rightly) complain about the evils of sharia law, and fail to mention the Beth Din. ...
So simply: get rid of both sharia courts and the Beth Din.
Even more simple allow these systems to exist provided that (a) all participants have certain minimum rights; and (b) all participants have the absolute right to appeal to the UK legal system. That's the model that works well for canon law, for example.
Those minimum rights must however be the rights which English law would afford them.
I don't know about Beth Din but sharia law does not give women the rights they would have under English law so I don't see in practice how your suggestion would work.
< Not really. The common law principle is do not harm your neighbour. Those that walked on the other side fully met their Donaghue-v- Stephenson duties.
The Lord Justice Atkins explains all in his house of Lords judgement:
"At present I content myself with pointing out that in English law there must be, and is, some general conception of relations giving rise to a duty of care, of which the particular cases found in the books are but instances. The liability for negligence, whether you style it such or treat it as in other systems as a species of "culpa," is no doubt based upon a general public sentiment of moral wrongdoing for which the offender must pay. But acts or omissions which any moral code would censure cannot, in a practical world, be treated so as to give a right to every person injured by them to demand relief. In this way rules of law arise which limit the range of complainants and the extent of their remedy. The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer's question, Who is my neighbour? receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be – persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question."
There are so many animals the world would rather have dancing than horses.
Gorilla Dancing Vole Dancing Shark Dancing
It isn't dancing, in origin. It is a boring but necessary military discipline: if you want to parade your cavalry in neat lines the riders need to be able to nudge their horses sideways, backwards etc to get exactly into position. ("Dressage" = as in the command "by the right, dress!) Admittedly things have got a bit out of hand since then.
Actually, most of the dressage moves have their origins on the battlefield rather than on the parade ground. Same for Eventing, which in French used to be called Militaire.
An acquaintance had been regularly attending the same CofE church from birth, excluding her time at university. She got baptised and married in the church (not on the same day!), and a relative was an organist (*). She had a wide circle of friends from the church. After a few years her marriage broke irrecoverably down, and eventually they got divorced.
What did the vicar, who she had known for more than a decade, do? The Sunday after her divorce was finalised (or whatever the term is), he gave a heated sermon on the evils of divorce. There was no compassion, no understanding.
The result: neither she, nor her family, have stepped foot in that church again. She has lost a couple of so-called friends.
Religion can be brilliant; it can give great help in times of need. It can also be utterly terrible.
(*) Linking to another recent PB conversation.
That is really sad. And terribly hypocritical given the history of the Anglicanism.
Very sad. And an example of someone not understanding the essential message of Christianity.
On the plus side she is not wasting her time in church listening to someone deluded.
An acquaintance had been regularly attending the same CofE church from birth, excluding her time at university. She got baptised and married in the church (not on the same day!), and a relative was an organist (*). She had a wide circle of friends from the church. After a few years her marriage broke irrecoverably down, and eventually they got divorced.
What did the vicar, who she had known for more than a decade, do? The Sunday after her divorce was finalised (or whatever the term is), he gave a heated sermon on the evils of divorce. There was no compassion, no understanding.
The result: neither she, nor her family, have stepped foot in that church again. She has lost a couple of so-called friends.
Religion can be brilliant; it can give great help in times of need. It can also be utterly terrible.
(*) Linking to another recent PB conversation.
So some times things are good and some times they are bad ?
Is there a point to that ?
My vicar is divorced and remarried in my church with the support of the congregation. So what ?
An acquaintance had been regularly attending the same CofE church from birth, excluding her time at university. She got baptised and married in the church (not on the same day!), and a relative was an organist (*). She had a wide circle of friends from the church. After a few years her marriage broke irrecoverably down, and eventually they got divorced.
What did the vicar, who she had known for more than a decade, do? The Sunday after her divorce was finalised (or whatever the term is), he gave a heated sermon on the evils of divorce. There was no compassion, no understanding.
The result: neither she, nor her family, have stepped foot in that church again. She has lost a couple of so-called friends.
Religion can be brilliant; it can give great help in times of need. It can also be utterly terrible.
(*) Linking to another recent PB conversation.
That is really sad. And terribly hypocritical given the history of the Anglicanism.
Very sad. And an example of someone not understanding the essential message of Christianity.
You can only have a divorce if you're also head of the church?
Do you know Henry VIII had actually secured Papal permission for Princess Mary to marry his illegitimate son, Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Richmond? Were it not for Fitzroy's sudden death, an incestuous marriage would have saved England for Rome.
I always find it slightly odd when people (rightly) complain about the evils of sharia law, and fail to mention the Beth Din. ...
So simply: get rid of both sharia courts and the Beth Din.
Even more simple allow these systems to exist provided that (a) all participants have certain minimum rights; and (b) all participants have the absolute right to appeal to the UK legal system. That's the model that works well for canon law, for example.
Those minimum rights must however be the rights which English law would afford them.
I don't know about Beth Din but sharia law does not give women the rights they would have under English law so I don't see in practice how your suggestion would work.
It's saying that if they don't then they are not recognised as courts by the UK system.
If for instance women get a comparable financial settlement, decisions on children are made comparably etc I don't care if they want an old man with a beard or and old man with a wig to make the decision.
< Not really. The common law principle is do not harm your neighbour. Those that walked on the other side fully met their Donaghue-v- Stephenson duties.
The Lord Justice Atkins explains all in his house of Lords judgement:
"At present I content myself with pointing out that in English law there must be, and is, some general conception of relations giving rise to a duty of care, of which the particular cases found in the books are but instances. The liability for negligence, whether you style it such or treat it as in other systems as a species of "culpa," is no doubt based upon a general public sentiment of moral wrongdoing for which the offender must pay. But acts or omissions which any moral code would censure cannot, in a practical world, be treated so as to give a right to every person injured by them to demand relief. In this way rules of law arise which limit the range of complainants and the extent of their remedy. The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer's question, Who is my neighbour? receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be – persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question."
But it is actions. If you see someone drowning and do nothing you may have been immoral but you have not breached your legal obligations. Religion seeks to hold people to a different and higher standard.
Comments
'Imagine the outrage if the Lib Dems won a majority on <40% of the vote and overturned the referendum result.'
No worries,as with their pledge to scrap tuition fees the Lib Dems would find an excuse to renege on their promise.
I don;t think the Brexit and patriotism are necessarily exactly the same.
For me its about democratic control. I'm tired of people we can't vote out making decisions that very significantly affect our lives either now or in the future.
http://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2016/08/increase-in-minority-voters-poses-problem-for-trump-in-florida-104717
I thought religious courts were basically glorified tribunals and onky worked if both parties agree to use them.
Clinton 43 .. Trump 24
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/latest-poll-shows-clinton-inslee-leading-in-washington/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=RSS_all
As Charles says, there are troubling aspects to this. But we do need to apply the rules equally: if we limit the role of non-state courts (and we have actually encouraged them to free up the legal system), then that has to apply to both the Beth Din and Sharia.
That is why many people dont regard places like Australia as foreign but do regard places like France as foreign and are outraged if they have the right to meddle in this countries affairs via the EU.
The Trump can;t win, no way' meme is eerily similar to the ' twenty thousand reasons leave are gonna get stuffed' we had before Brexit.
The numbers simply weren't there for Brexit either. Except they were.
What they really need is for someone like John Harris to actually go to latino communities and ask them some straight questions. Are Latinos really that pro immigration? do they really want America to become more like latin America? Or are they in America for something different?
I suspect America's liberal elite is terrified of the answers.
People really need to stop trying to draw parallels where there are none.
Trump not wanting more immigrants vs US version of Harriet Harman is only going to go one way with legal immigrants who can vote and tend to be far more small c conservative religious than white liberal democrats.
I remember an elderly black African lady I knew who had been here for decades describing recent African immigrants. "They are W*GS".
By W*GS she meant African chavs.
Farage = Marius?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaius_Marius
Imagine this: a politician in the UK said that he didn't think a black judge should be on a case he was in; do you think this would go down well with the black population of the UK?
Hispanic communities have been heavily polled this election and their responses are significantly worse than for McCain and Romney in which they were extremely accurate in 08/12.
The correct maxim to use is to "Be excellent to each other" the Bill and Ted Rule.
Edit: it's Quaker, not Methodist.
Often voting is more about what people aspire to than about what actually is or can be. That judge comment kills all aspiration Latinos could have under Trump to being accepted and making it.
Very interesting history, starting in 1948 as a separate event for disabled British war veterans, and gradually expanded until in 1988 they started running it consecutively with the Olympics in the same city and with the same facilities. The pinnacle was in 2012 in London with huge attendances, I fear they won't be like that in Rio next month.
Edit: Oh crap
In case you're wondering, in Islam it is Hadith 13, Abu Hamzah Anas bin Malik, Literally 'Love for your brother what you love for yourself'
An acquaintance had been regularly attending the same CofE church from birth, excluding her time at university. She got baptised and married in the church (not on the same day!), and a relative was an organist (*). She had a wide circle of friends from the church. After a few years her marriage broke irrecoverably down, and eventually they got divorced.
What did the vicar, who she had known for more than a decade, do? The Sunday after her divorce was finalised (or whatever the term is), he gave a heated sermon on the evils of divorce. There was no compassion, no understanding.
The result: neither she, nor her family, have stepped foot in that church again. She has lost a couple of so-called friends.
Religion can be brilliant; it can give great help in times of need. It can also be utterly terrible.
(*) Linking to another recent PB conversation.
The other gymnasts about a foot taller than her and they are about 4'9 themselves !
But yes, hopefully someone will be able to step up to the plate, would be small change for the likes of the Gates Foundation.
It's remarkable how Trump seems to be seeking out Republicans to piss off. I talked to one in the US (friend of a friend), a twice-wounded veteran, NRA enthusiast with lots of guns at home. He was going to vote Trump until Trump said he'd always fancied having a Purple Heart (which you only get if you're wounded or dead). Now he wouldn't touch him with a bargepole - he's not sure if Trump is an idiot who doesn't know how you get it, or a fantasist who actually likes the ideas of being wounded.
That said, considering all the enemies he's making, Trump is doing well to be still remotely in contention.
One gets the feeling those two could do some really good cycling programmes together, though obviously Cavendish is still competing at the moment.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo
Anyone know of any spreads on the turnout? If Obama in 2008 only got it up to 58% there's a good chance that fewer than half will even to bother to vote at all for Tweedledum or Tweedledee.
Still hoping Redgrave will throw Inverdale in the sea.
This is what integration means. When in Rome etc..... It should be unacceptable for people in this country, born in this country, whose parents were born in this country, to still be living here as if they were still in Waziristan or wherever.
"We could emphasize that track record; the methods of data journalism have been highly successful at forecasting elections. That includes quite a bit of success this year. The FiveThirtyEight “polls-only” model has correctly predicted the winner in 52 of 57 (91 percent) primaries and caucuses so far in 2016, and our related “polls-plus” model has gone 51-for-57 (89 percent). Furthermore, the forecasts have been well-calibrated, meaning that upsets have occurred about as often as they’re supposed to but not more often.
But I don’t think this defense is complete — at least if we’re talking about FiveThirtyEight’s Trump forecasts. We didn’t just get unlucky: We made a big mistake, along with a couple of marginal ones.
The big mistake is a curious one for a website that focuses on statistics. Unlike virtually every other forecast we publish at FiveThirtyEight — including the primary and caucus projections I just mentioned — our early estimates of Trump’s chances weren’t based on a statistical model. Instead, they were what we “subjective odds” — which is to say, educated guesses. In other words, we were basically acting like pundits, but attaching numbers to our estimates.3 And we succumbed to some of the same biases that pundits often suffer, such as not changing our minds quickly enough in the face of new evidence. Without a model as a fortification, we found ourselves rambling around the countryside like all the other pundit-barbarians, randomly setting fire to things."
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-i-acted-like-a-pundit-and-screwed-up-on-donald-trump/
I don't know about Beth Din but sharia law does not give women the rights they would have under English law so I don't see in practice how your suggestion would work.
Nevertheless, we do need to choose - and relatively quickly - what our preferred Brexit destination is.
"At present I content myself with pointing out that in English law there must be, and is, some general conception of relations giving rise to a duty of care, of which the particular cases found in the books are but instances. The liability for negligence, whether you style it such or treat it as in other systems as a species of "culpa," is no doubt based upon a general public sentiment of moral wrongdoing for which the offender must pay. But acts or omissions which any moral code would censure cannot, in a practical world, be treated so as to give a right to every person injured by them to demand relief. In this way rules of law arise which limit the range of complainants and the extent of their remedy. The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer's question, Who is my neighbour? receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be – persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question."
https://www.rio2016.com/en/athlete/flavia-saraiva
Is there a point to that ?
My vicar is divorced and remarried in my church with the support of the congregation. So what ?
If for instance women get a comparable financial settlement, decisions on children are made comparably etc I don't care if they want an old man with a beard or and old man with a wig to make the decision.