politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Nigel Farage: the Comeback, Comeback, Comeback Kid?

ThreeQuidder said:

AlastairMeeks said:

ThreeQuidder said:

AlastairMeeks said:

ThreeQuidder said:

AlastairMeeks said:

MaxPB said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

AlastairMeeks said:

TOPPING said:

AlastairMeeks said:

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.

JosiasJessop said:

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.

http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/analysis/148865/well-continue-name-and-shame-men-who-refuse-free-ex-wives

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)

JosiasJessop said:

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.

http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/analysis/148865/well-continue-name-and-shame-men-who-refuse-free-ex-wives

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)

JosiasJessop said:

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.

http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/analysis/148865/well-continue-name-and-shame-men-who-refuse-free-ex-wives

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)

EPG said:

ThreeQuidder said:

AlastairMeeks said:

ThreeQuidder said:

AlastairMeeks said:

ThreeQuidder said:

AlastairMeeks said:

MaxPB said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

AlastairMeeks said:

TOPPING said:

AlastairMeeks said:

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.

taffys said:

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.

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

JosiasJessop said:

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.

http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/analysis/148865/well-continue-name-and-shame-men-who-refuse-free-ex-wives

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.

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

JosiasJessop said:

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.

http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/analysis/148865/well-continue-name-and-shame-men-who-refuse-free-ex-wives

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

taffys said:

''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.

taffys said:

''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.

Alistair said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

JosiasJessop said:

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.

http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/analysis/148865/well-continue-name-and-shame-men-who-refuse-free-ex-wives

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.

taffys said:

''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.

taffys said:

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.

Sean_F said:

JosiasJessop said:

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.

http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/analysis/148865/well-continue-name-and-shame-men-who-refuse-free-ex-wives

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.

rcs1000 said:

It's always been my neighbour's ass that's got me into trouble. My wife seems to equate staring with coveting.

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Sandpit said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

IanB2 said:

MaxPB said:

IanB2 said:

MattW said:

Alanbrooke said:

Cyclefree said:

Alanbrooke said:

grabcocque said:

HORSE DANCING IS NOT A SPORT FOR FUCKLE'S SAKE.

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!

Had they invented the Paralympics by the 1970s?

JosiasJessop said:

Sean_F said:

JosiasJessop said:

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.

http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/analysis/148865/well-continue-name-and-shame-men-who-refuse-free-ex-wives

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.

MTimT said:

rcs1000 said:

taffys said:

''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.

Sean_F said:

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

JosiasJessop said:

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.

http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/analysis/148865/well-continue-name-and-shame-men-who-refuse-free-ex-wives

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.

MTimT said:

Sean_F said:

Alistair said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

JosiasJessop said:

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.

http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/analysis/148865/well-continue-name-and-shame-men-who-refuse-free-ex-wives

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'

JackW said:

taffys said:

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.

Sandpit said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Sandpit said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

IanB2 said:

MaxPB said:

IanB2 said:

MattW said:

Alanbrooke said:

Cyclefree said:

Alanbrooke said:

grabcocque said:

HORSE DANCING IS NOT A SPORT FOR FUCKLE'S SAKE.

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!

Had they invented the Paralympics by the 1970s?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paralympic_Games

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 http://www.bbc.com/sport/disability-sport/37074810

rcs1000 said:

MTimT said:

Sean_F said:

Alistair said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

JosiasJessop said:

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.

http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/analysis/148865/well-continue-name-and-shame-men-who-refuse-free-ex-wives

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.

MTimT said:

Sean_F said:

Alistair said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

JosiasJessop said:

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.

http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/analysis/148865/well-continue-name-and-shame-men-who-refuse-free-ex-wives

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'

JosiasJessop said:

Sandpit said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Sandpit said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

IanB2 said:

MaxPB said:

IanB2 said:

MattW said:

Alanbrooke said:

Cyclefree said:

Alanbrooke said:

grabcocque said:

HORSE DANCING IS NOT A SPORT FOR FUCKLE'S SAKE.

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!

Had they invented the Paralympics by the 1970s?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paralympic_Games

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 http://www.bbc.com/sport/disability-sport/37074810

I'd like to think one of the many people in the world with deep pockets would cover this.

MTimT said:

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.

NickPalmer said:

MTimT said:

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.

rcs1000 said:

NickPalmer said:

MTimT said:

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.

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

MTimT said:

Sean_F said:

Alistair said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

JosiasJessop said:

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.

http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/analysis/148865/well-continue-name-and-shame-men-who-refuse-free-ex-wives

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?

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Sean_F said:

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

JosiasJessop said:

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

http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/analysis/148865/well-continue-name-and-shame-men-who-refuse-free-ex-wives

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.

NickPalmer said:

MTimT said:

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.

TOPPING said:

Cyclefree said:

TOPPING said:

Cyclefree said:

TOPPING said:

Moses_ said:

FPT

[Snipped]

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.

Mortimer said:

AlastairMeeks said:

ThreeQuidder said:

AlastairMeeks said:

ThreeQuidder said:

AlastairMeeks said:

MaxPB said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

AlastairMeeks said:

TOPPING said:

AlastairMeeks said:

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.

Sean_F said:

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.

Sean_F said:

Alistair said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

JosiasJessop said:

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.

http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/analysis/148865/well-continue-name-and-shame-men-who-refuse-free-ex-wives

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).

Cyclefree said:

Mortimer said:

JosiasJessop said:

A divorce story:

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.

AlastairMeeks said:

Sean_F said:

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.

On a thread where Leavers are playing witchfinder for people they deem insufficiently patriotic, that is satire, right?

DavidL said:

<
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.

Pulpstar said:

How short is this brazilian girl ?

The other gymnasts about a foot taller than her and they are about 4'9 themselves !

Sandpit said:

Pulpstar said:

How short is this brazilian girl ?

The other gymnasts about a foot taller than her and they are about 4'9 themselves !

This girl? 4'4"'and 68lbs, she is allegedly 16.
https://www.rio2016.com/en/athlete/flavia-saraiva

rcs1000 said:

Cyclefree said:

Mortimer said:

JosiasJessop said:

A divorce story:

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?

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Urquhart, Hoy's a top chap. Come to think of it, practically all the best F1 persons (Lee McKenzie[sp], Allan McNish, Coulthard) are Scottish too.

Still hoping Redgrave will throw Inverdale in the sea.