You aren't suggesting they have done an "inverse Nigeria" are you?
Not at all, but I don't imagine a guy caught in her room would be able to convince the policeman or the judge!
The minimum age for the competition is I think 16, after the gymnasts were getting younger and younger - but she looks like a primary school girl, can't be older than about 11.
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.
Agreed. I think the vast majority on all sides accept the Brexit will happen and that it is the democratic will of the people.
Nevertheless, we do need to choose - and relatively quickly - what our preferred Brexit destination is.
I think what has helped is that the majority of remainers didnt have much love for the EU but feared the consequences of leaving. Now it will happen it is not a big step to accept it.
The relatively speaking tiny group who were actually EU enthusiasts, who actually believe in the european project (and this group overlaps heavily with modern liberals who dislike the concept of the nation state, hereditsry monarchs etc. ) are appalled but now utterly powerless as there is not a whits chance of the UK electorate post Brexit voting to actually join.
Tony Benn put it best:
Britain’s continuing membership of the Community would mean the end of Britain as a completely self-governing nation and the end of our democratically elected parliament as the supreme law-making body in the United Kingdom.
I am writing, not to argue a case, but to explain — as best I can — what effect British membership of the Common Market has had upon the constitutional relationship between a member of Parliament and his constituents. The Parliamentary democracy we have developed and established in Britain is based, not upon the sovereignty of Parliament, but upon the sovereignty of the People, who, by exercising their vote lend their sovereign powers to Members of Parliament, to use on their behalf, for the duration of a single Parliament only — Powers that must be returned intact to the electorate to whom they belong, to lend again to the Members of Parliament they elect in each subsequent general election. Five basic democratic rights derive from this relationship, and each of them is fundamentally altered by Britain’s membership of the European Community,....
This huge Commission building in Brussels, in the shape of a cross, is absolutely un-British. I felt as if I were going as a slave to Rome; the whole relationship was wrong. Here was I, an elected man who could be removed, doing a job, and here were these people with more power than I had and no accountability to anybody...My visit confirmed in a practical way all my suspicions that this would be the decapitation of British democracy without any countervailing advantage, and the British people, quite rightly, wouldn't accept it. There is no real benefit for Britain.
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.
The reality is that sharia courts do not do what you want them to do. They exist because largely men in the Muslim community want to maintain their control over women and families in ways which simply would not be permitted by the English courts. They are not in addition to English law. They are instead of it. It is - or should be - intolerable that we permit English citizens to be deprived of their rights simply because of their religion. There is a very real problem of pressure on and abuse of women in the Muslim community and English law and English society simply should not be standing by and ignoring it just because they're Muslim and so not really English and it's their culture and all the other moral/cultural relativist guff that goes with the refusal to challenge those who reject English law and norms.
Take 3 girls, all born here, all British citizens. One has a granny born in Naples. One has a granny born in Ulverston. One has a granny born in Lahore. All should have the same rights under English law and should in practice - not just in theory - be able to exercise those rights freely. Their respective religions or lack of should be irrelevant.
And Tony Benn on Liberal Democrats (then known as Social Democrats):
I think the SDP really is a very right-wing party. In a funny way it’s more right-wing than Mrs. Thatcher because Mrs. Thatcher is an old-fashioned liberal, if you know what I mean, she believes in market forces and small government. But my knowledge and experience of the SDP is that they believe in a centralised system, they believe in a federal Europe in which we would only be a province under Brussels, they believe in retaining the American bases, they want a statutory pay policy so they would govern the wages of everybody without proper negotiation. I think they’re a very hard right party and I think the Labour Party which has now got a decent policy as a result of all the work we’ve done is going to pick up a lot of support this year.
< 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.
Derived from and Identical to are not the same thing.
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.
Marrying your half sister?
He would have been popular in some northern cities for that...
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.
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.
Very little has happened yet except the pound has weakened.
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.
The reality is that sharia courts do not do what you want them to do. They exist because largely men in the Muslim community want to maintain their control over women and families in ways which simply would not be permitted by the English courts. They are not in addition to English law. They are instead of it. It is - or should be - intolerable that we permit English citizens to be deprived of their rights simply because of their religion. There is a very real problem of pressure on and abuse of women in the Muslim community and English law and English society simply should not be standing by and ignoring it just because they're Muslim and so not really English and it's their culture and all the other moral/cultural relativist guff that goes with the refusal to challenge those who reject English law and norms.
Take 3 girls, all born here, all British citizens. One has a granny born in Naples. One has a granny born in Ulverston. One has a granny born in Lahore. All should have the same rights under English law and should in practice - not just in theory - be able to exercise those rights freely. Their respective religions or lack of should be irrelevant.
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.
Marrying your half sister?
He would have been popular in some northern cities for that...
Incest is a sin for the common people, but one of the perks of being royal or noble.
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 did not. They failed to teach that to me when I was 11 and studying the Tudors
< 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.
Derived from and Identical to are not the same thing.
Exactly. Those that claim that Donaghue brought the golden rule into our law are simply wrong.
Anyone else reading Michael P Deacon's twitter thread? He is at a Momentum event with Saint Corbyn, the quotes he is sticking up from attendees and speeches are amazing.
And Tony Benn on Liberal Democrats (then known as Social Democrats):
I think the SDP really is a very right-wing party. In a funny way it’s more right-wing than Mrs. Thatcher because Mrs. Thatcher is an old-fashioned liberal, if you know what I mean, she believes in market forces and small government. But my knowledge and experience of the SDP is that they believe in a centralised system, they believe in a federal Europe in which we would only be a province under Brussels, they believe in retaining the American bases, they want a statutory pay policy so they would govern the wages of everybody without proper negotiation. I think they’re a very hard right party and I think the Labour Party which has now got a decent policy as a result of all the work we’ve done is going to pick up a lot of support this year.
I think the statutory pay policy was 1983 only! (And that was also Labour Party policy 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. ...
So simply: get rid of both sharia courts and the Beth Din.
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.
The reality is that sharia courts do not do what you want them to do. They exist because largely men in the Muslim community want to maintain their control over women and families in ways which simply would not be permitted by the English courts. They are not in addition to English law. They are instead of it. It is - or should be - intolerable that we permit English citizens to be deprived of their rights simply because of their religion. There is a very real problem of pressure on and abuse of women in the Muslim community and English law and English society simply should not be standing by and ignoring it just because they're Muslim and so not really English and it's their culture and all the other moral/cultural relativist guff that goes with the refusal to challenge those who reject English law and norms.
Take 3 girls, all born here, all British citizens. One has a granny born in Naples. One has a granny born in Ulverston. One has a granny born in Lahore. All should have the same rights under English law and should in practice - not just in theory - be able to exercise those rights freely. Their respective religions or lack of should be irrelevant.
This should not be a controversial point.
They do have the same rights just as everyone has the right to eat at tbe Ritz every day.
However in one case exercising those rights will result in banishment by her family.
There is nothing the state can do about that unless it passes such draconian laws that the result is untold misery for its citizens.
In the case of Islam the only way you could do it is either mass expulsion or setting up an Islam of England sect controlled by parliament which all muslims in England must worship exclusively at and reject any other with hugely draconian penalties if they do.
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.
Marrying your half sister?
He would have been popular in some northern cities for that...
Incest is a sin for the common people, but one of the perks of being royal or noble.
Anyone else reading Michael P Deacon's twitter thread? He is at a Momentum event with Saint Corbyn, the quotes he is sticking up from attendees and speeches are amazing.
No, but please post some of the juicier ones for those of us not on Twitter.
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 ?
There are several points, one of which is that religious priests / vicars/ imams etc are endowed with authority within a segment of society. That authority can be misused and, as some people politely mentioned below, the authority figure can even act contrary to the tenets of that religion leaving the aggrieved with very little recourse to justice. This can, and does, cause immense pain to many people.
Any power or authority can be misused, whether the authority is based in civil life or religious. It is therefore important that there is the opportunity for wrongs to be corrected. That is generally the case in civil life: most systems have, or at least should have, ways of appealing.
The lack of ways to appeal against such religious authority figures, and the historic way that churches have covered up transgressions, means that all religion needs to be kept a healthy distance away from the law, whatever the historic connections between that law and a particular church.
Anyone else reading Michael P Deacon's twitter thread? He is at a Momentum event with Saint Corbyn, the quotes he is sticking up from attendees and speeches are amazing.
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.
The reality is that sharia courts do not do what you want them to do. They exist because largely men in the Muslim community want to maintain their control over women and families in ways which simply would not be permitted by the English courts. They are not in addition to English law. They are instead of it. It is - or should be - intolerable that we permit English citizens to be deprived of their rights simply because of their religion. There is a very real problem of pressure on and abuse of women in the Muslim community and English law and English society simply should not be standing by and ignoring it just because they're Muslim and so not really English and it's their culture and all the other moral/cultural relativist guff that goes with the refusal to challenge those who reject English law and norms.
Take 3 girls, all born here, all British citizens. One has a granny born in Naples. One has a granny born in Ulverston. One has a granny born in Lahore. All should have the same rights under English law and should in practice - not just in theory - be able to exercise those rights freely. Their respective religions or lack of should be irrelevant.
This should not be a controversial point.
And we agree. I'm just looking for an objective standard to determine whether a court should be recognised it not. I have little doubt Sharia wouldn't qualify but don't know enough about Beth Din to judge
And Tony Benn on Liberal Democrats (then known as Social Democrats):
I think the SDP really is a very right-wing party. In a funny way it’s more right-wing than Mrs. Thatcher because Mrs. Thatcher is an old-fashioned liberal, if you know what I mean, she believes in market forces and small government. But my knowledge and experience of the SDP is that they believe in a centralised system, they believe in a federal Europe in which we would only be a province under Brussels, they believe in retaining the American bases, they want a statutory pay policy so they would govern the wages of everybody without proper negotiation. I think they’re a very hard right party and I think the Labour Party which has now got a decent policy as a result of all the work we’ve done is going to pick up a lot of support this year.
I think the statutory pay policy was 1983 only! (And that was also Labour Party policy as well.)
Correct. At a time when inflation was the biggest issue in public finances. Benn was hardly an impartial judge in these matters.
Anyone else reading Michael P Deacon's twitter thread? He is at a Momentum event with Saint Corbyn, the quotes he is sticking up from attendees and speeches are amazing.
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.
Marrying your half sister?
He would have been popular in some northern cities for that...
Incest is a sin for the common people, but one of the perks of being royal or noble.
Wasn't it actively encouraged by the Pharaohs?
And Seleucids, Hapsburgs, Wittlesbachs, and Borgias.
Sorry, just catching up. Re the Horse Dancing (aka Dressage) does anyone know of the horses actually enjoy it? I know horses that love hunting and racing and generally working in partnership with people (as do sheep dogs) but I have never been sure about dressage. It seems so unnatural.
My father was always of the opinion that Norfolk was the hotbed for incest. Are there any other Counties who can be claimed to be as incestuous?
It's normal for Norfolk.
My step-father-in-law told me of this council estate in Durham which got demolished by the local council, and the inhabitants dispersed to other council estates, when they discovered that lots of girls were getting pregnant by fathers and brothers.
Sorry, just catching up. Re the Horse Dancing (aka Dressage) does anyone know of the horses actually enjoy it? I know horses that love hunting and racing and generally working in partnership with people (as do sheep dogs) but I have never been sure about dressage. It seems so unnatural.
Horses enjoy sweet FA. To get horses ready to be ridden by humans they are mentally broken. Any horse with a human on it's back has been driven mad.
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.
The reality is that sharia courts do not do what you want them to do. They exist because largely men in the Muslim community want to maintain their control over women and families in ways which simply would not be permitted by the English courts. They are not in addition to English law. They are instead of it. It is - or should be - intolerable that we permit English citizens to be deprived of their rights simply because of their religion. There is a very real problem of pressure on and abuse of women in the Muslim community and English law and English society simply should not be standing by and ignoring it just because they're Muslim and so not really English and it's their culture and all the other moral/cultural relativist guff that goes with the refusal to challenge those who reject English law and norms.
Take 3 girls, all born here, all British citizens. One has a granny born in Naples. One has a granny born in Ulverston. One has a granny born in Lahore. All should have the same rights under English law and should in practice - not just in theory - be able to exercise those rights freely. Their respective religions or lack of should be irrelevant.
This should not be a controversial point.
And we agree. I'm just looking for an objective standard to determine whether a court should be recognised it not. I have little doubt Sharia wouldn't qualify but don't know enough about Beth Din to judge
Not surprisingly when a bill - the Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill - was introduced to achieve exactly what you and I want, a lot of Islamic groups opposed it. They preferred to have informal and unregulated so-called "tribunals" passing so-called judgments which give men powers and rights they would not have under the law of the land.
''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...
Prior to EUrefday, we had these pointers to a LEAVE win
* Previous referendum polls in the UK (ScotIndy, AV) had horrendously large errors, far bigger than General Election polls. The size of the REMAIN leads were well within the larger error bands * Similar polls in other countries (Casino_Royale correctly identified Ireland 2008) had indicated the possibility of a narrow prediction wrongly predicting the winner * Postal vote sampling and internal party canvassing revealed early on that Labour voters were not turning out for REMAIN, and were in fact for LEAVE
Do these things pertain for POTUS2016? I don't know how accurate US POTUS polls normally are, and there are precedents for a close prediction being wrong and the Christian Right turning out en masse for a Republican candidate (2004 being the obvious one). But as for the internal canvassing predicting a Republican surge...where is it? (unsarcastic question: if it exists, please please tell me!).
I won't be in a position to place a bet until I've cranked the numbers, and that won't be until late Sept (I am insanely busy!). So don't hold my feet to the fire on this.
My father was always of the opinion that Norfolk was the hotbed for incest. Are there any other Counties who can be claimed to be as incestuous?
It's normal for Norfolk.
My step-father-in-law told me of this council estate in Durham which got demolished by the local council, and the inhabitants dispersed to other council estates, when they discovered that lots of girls were getting pregnant by fathers and brothers.
In the 80s and early 90s it was not unusual to see NFF on medical records. Stood for normal for Fife. Incest was quite common there too, especially in the old fishing villages in the Neuk of Fife.
To those annoyed with the BBC channel switching, it's much worse elsewhere. I'm looking at six different channels, which randomly switch commentary between languages, cut away from unfinished events to studio segments or other events - and none of them are showing the cycling!
Sorry, just catching up. Re the Horse Dancing (aka Dressage) does anyone know of the horses actually enjoy it? I know horses that love hunting and racing and generally working in partnership with people (as do sheep dogs) but I have never been sure about dressage. It seems so unnatural.
My daughter is very good at both eventing and dressage. She enjoys the thrill of cross country, but finds the intellectual challenge of dressage compelling.
To score well, a dressage horse has to be incredibly strong - think of the gymnasts who do the rings and the control of power they have to display - that is dressage. But it is not just controlled power that is scored, but also submission of the horse to rider and harmony of rider and horse.
That is impossible to achieve unless the horse has an incredibly strong bond with the rider.
Personally, I have never seen a dressage horse obviously thrilled to go into a dressage ring in the same way as a horse cannot wait to get going on cross country. And I do know that dressage horses love being allowed to do 'silly' games, such as jumping and barrel racing. But I have to think that at some level they have to enjoy dressage big time, otherwise they simply would form that amazing bond with the rider or submit.
PS And the key modern dressage movements are movement wild horses naturally do to impress in the wild. Collection into a frame (head into the neck and high, neck flexed) makes the horse look big to competitor and suitor alike. Impulsion (the high energy in the slow gaits like tempis and piaf) and exaggerated gaits (like the extended trot and the piaf) are also natural show off moves.
The reality is that sharia courts do not do what you want them to do. They exist because largely men in the Muslim community want to maintain their control over women and families in ways which simply would not be permitted by the English courts. They are not in addition to English law. They are instead of it. It is - or should be - intolerable that we permit English citizens to be deprived of their rights simply because of their religion. There is a very real problem of pressure on and abuse of women in the Muslim community and English law and English society simply should not be standing by and ignoring it just because they're Muslim and so not really English and it's their culture and all the other moral/cultural relativist guff that goes with the refusal to challenge those who reject English law and norms.
Take 3 girls, all born here, all British citizens. One has a granny born in Naples. One has a granny born in Ulverston. One has a granny born in Lahore. All should have the same rights under English law and should in practice - not just in theory - be able to exercise those rights freely. Their respective religions or lack of should be irrelevant.
This should not be a controversial point.
They do have the same rights just as everyone has the right to eat at tbe Ritz every day.
However in one case exercising those rights will result in banishment by her family.
There is nothing the state can do about that unless it passes such draconian laws that the result is untold misery for its citizens.
In the case of Islam the only way you could do it is either mass expulsion or setting up an Islam of England sect controlled by parliament which all muslims in England must worship exclusively at and reject any other with hugely draconian penalties if they do.
We tried something like that in 1536 to 1840.
You stop sharia courts operating. You stop turning a blind eye to them. You make sure that girls in school are taught about their rights. Your make sure that they are not educated in schools funded by foreign governments or their bodies who have views at odds with English laws. You prosecute - pour encourager les autres - those who mistreat girls who choose to live like British citizens. There are many ways in which you can change attitudes and make clear that certain behaviours are not acceptable. We have done it with racism and homophobia. We can and should do it in relation to religiously/culturally inspired behaviour we find wrong.
Sorry, just catching up. Re the Horse Dancing (aka Dressage) does anyone know of the horses actually enjoy it? I know horses that love hunting and racing and generally working in partnership with people (as do sheep dogs) but I have never been sure about dressage. It seems so unnatural.
Horses enjoy sweet FA. To get horses ready to be ridden by humans they are mentally broken. Any horse with a human on it's back has been driven mad.
I used to ride regularaly.
You obviously were an appalling rider and a worse horseman.
As I understand it, there's no recognition of the court of any type outside the official ones. Anyone may seek a settlement outside of the law from any court, arbiter, or pb poster they like. They are only bound by these courts as far as they have volunteered to be bound by them (de jure, de facto is of course more complicated) but their legal rights to apply to the official courts.
It's been a traditional point of freedom, whereby if two parties wish to have it settled outside the courts they can.
That's the theory, in practice the conservative ends of judaism and islam both tend to be very restrictive of women (not that they are alone anong religions in that).
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.
The reality is that sharia courts do not do what you want them to do. They exist because largely men in the Muslim community want to maintain their control over women and families in ways which simply would not be permitted by the English courts. They are not in addition to English law. They are instead of it. It is - or should be - intolerable that we permit English citizens to be deprived of their rights simply because of their religion. There is a very real problem of pressure on and abuse of women in the Muslim community and English law and English society simply should not be standing by and ignoring it just because they're Muslim and so not really English and it's their culture and all the other moral/cultural relativist guff that goes with the refusal to challenge those who reject English law and norms.
Take 3 girls, all born here, all British citizens. One has a granny born in Naples. One has a granny born in Ulverston. One has a granny born in Lahore. All should have the same rights under English law and should in practice - not just in theory - be able to exercise those rights freely. Their respective religions or lack of should be irrelevant.
Sorry, just catching up. Re the Horse Dancing (aka Dressage) does anyone know of the horses actually enjoy it? I know horses that love hunting and racing and generally working in partnership with people (as do sheep dogs) but I have never been sure about dressage. It seems so unnatural.
My daughter is very good at both eventing and dressage. She enjoys the thrill of cross country, but finds the intellectual challenge of dressage compelling.
To score well, a dressage horse has to be incredibly strong - think of the gymnasts who do the rings and the control of power they have to display - that is dressage. But it is not just controlled power that is scored, but also submission of the horse to rider and harmony of rider and horse.
That is impossible to achieve unless the horse has an incredibly strong bond with the rider.
Personally, I have never seen a dressage horse obviously thrilled to go into a dressage ring in the same way as a horse cannot wait to get going on cross country. And I do know that dressage horses love being allowed to do 'silly' games, such as jumping and barrel racing. But I have to think that at some level they have to enjoy dressage big time, otherwise they simply would form that amazing bond with the rider or submit.
PS And the key modern dressage movements are movement wild horses naturally do to impress in the wild. Collection into a frame (head into the neck and high, neck flexed) makes the horse look big to competitor and suitor alike. Impulsion (the high energy in the slow gaits like tempis and piaf) and exaggerated gaits (like the extended trot and the piaf) are also natural show off moves.
My father was always of the opinion that Norfolk was the hotbed for incest. Are there any other Counties who can be claimed to be as incestuous?
It's normal for Norfolk.
My step-father-in-law told me of this council estate in Durham which got demolished by the local council, and the inhabitants dispersed to other council estates, when they discovered that lots of girls were getting pregnant by fathers and brothers.
Probably the capitols of cousanguity would be the West Midlands and West Midlands, but closer incest is a bit rarer. If you talk to psychiatric patients about it is really quite common though.
It is more than a sexual dynamic, like a lot of sexual crime there is a power and control element to it. Victims are often surprisingly ambivalent to it, at least until it becomes more distant in time and they gain some perspective.
As I understand it, there's no recognition of the court of any type outside the official ones. Anyone may seek a settlement outside of the law from any court, arbiter, or pb poster they like. They are only bound by these courts as far as they have volunteered to be bound by them (de jure, de facto is of course more complicated) but their legal rights to apply to the official courts.
It's been a traditional point of freedom, whereby if two parties wish to have it settled outside the courts they can.
That's the theory, in practice the conservative ends of judaism and islam both tend to be very restrictive of women (not that they are alone anong religions in that).
According to Wiki (yes, I know):
In a similar way to Jewish Beth Din courts, sharia tribunals can make verdicts in cases involving financial and property issues which, under the Arbitration Act 1996, are enforceable by county courts or the high court.
The reality is that sharia courts do not do what you want them to do. They exist because largely men in the Muslim community want to maintain their control over women and families in ways which simply would not be permitted by the English courts. They are not in addition to English law. They are instead of it. It is - or should be - intolerable that we permit English citizens to be deprived of their rights simply because of their religion. There is a very real problem of pressure on and abuse of women in the Muslim community and l/cultural relativist guff that goes with the refusal to challenge those who reject English law and This should not be a controversial point.
They do have the same rights just as everyone has the right to eat at tbe Ritz every day.
However in one case exercising those rights will result in banishment by her family.
There is nothing the state can do about that unless it passes such draconian laws that the result is untold misery for its citizens.
In the case of Islam the only way you could do it is either mass expulsion or setting up an Islam of England sect controlled by parliament which all muslims in England must worship exclusively at and reject any other with hugely draconian penalties if they do.
We tried something like that in 1536 to 1840.
You stop sharia courts operating. You stop turning a blind eye to them. You make sure that girls in school are taught about their rights. Your make sure that they are not educated in schools funded by foreign governments or their bodies who have views at odds with English laws. You prosecute - pour encourager les autres - those who mistreat girls who choose to live like British citizens. There are many ways in which you can change attitudes and make clear that certain behaviours are not acceptable. We have done it with racism and homophobia. We can and should do it in relation to religiously/culturally inspired behaviour we find wrong.
I would punish electoral fraud, FGM, child abuse, threats to apostates rigorously, without regard to " cultural sensitivity.". I would end immigration from failed States.
I am far warier of governments using coercion to change attitudes. One reason is that I suspect that I, in common with many on the non-secular Right, would be on the receiving end of this attempt to change attitudes. Secondly, it gives governments great powers over individuals. Thirdly, people we dislike may end up in power and use exactly the same arguments to enforce their own orthodoxy.
< 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.
Derived from and Identical to are not the same thing.
Exactly. Those that claim that Donaghue brought the golden rule into our law are simply wrong.
It was already in the common law. That case just clarified
In a similar way to Jewish Beth Din courts, sharia tribunals can make verdicts in cases involving financial and property issues which, under the Arbitration Act 1996, are enforceable by county courts or the high court.
If I had the brainpower available I'd try reading the Arbitration Act 1996, but I need to stay awake...
The position as I understand it (and ianal) is you can agree to go to arbitratiob and be bound by a mutually acceptable arbiter. Then you have voluntarily entered into a contract as it were to abide by that decision, the power is not in ths court as such but in your agreement to be bound.
You can also challenge that decision in the courts where they can overturn it, but you need to show some partiality or contravention of a point of law (as opposed to a point of fact) to do so.
Anyone else reading Michael P Deacon's twitter thread? He is at a Momentum event with Saint Corbyn, the quotes he is sticking up from attendees and speeches are amazing.
No, but please post some of the juicier ones for those of us not on Twitter.
Here we go then;
"The first speaker, a teacher, tells the rally that he has developed a theory known as "The Many Meanings of Jeremy Corbyn""
"Line of the evening so far: "[Jeremy Corbyn] knows what it means to nurture plants""
"A speaker representing Latinos For Corbyn begins, "You may wonder what the connection is between Jeremy Corbyn and Latin America...""
""The Tories fear Jeremy Corbyn, precisely because he will be our next prime minister." Applause"
""It is right that we seek a New World Order," declares a pro-Corbyn speaker, unexpectedly"
"Jeremy Corbyn: "We're all normal. We're all so normal that every one of us is absolutely unique""
"Jeremy Corbyn tells his supporters that it isn't for "commentators" to decide "what competence is""
"Corbyn: "I don't invite you to have a free ice cream, because there are no free ice creams available. But there is love for each other""
Anyone else reading Michael P Deacon's twitter thread? He is at a Momentum event with Saint Corbyn, the quotes he is sticking up from attendees and speeches are amazing.
No, but please post some of the juicier ones for those of us not on Twitter.
Here we go then;
"The first speaker, a teacher, tells the rally that he has developed a theory known as "The Many Meanings of Jeremy Corbyn""
"Line of the evening so far: "[Jeremy Corbyn] knows what it means to nurture plants""
"A speaker representing Latinos For Corbyn begins, "You may wonder what the connection is between Jeremy Corbyn and Latin America...""
""The Tories fear Jeremy Corbyn, precisely because he will be our next prime minister." Applause"
""It is right that we seek a New World Order," declares a pro-Corbyn speaker, unexpectedly"
"Jeremy Corbyn: "We're all normal. We're all so normal that every one of us is absolutely unique""
"Jeremy Corbyn tells his supporters that it isn't for "commentators" to decide "what competence is""
"Corbyn: "I don't invite you to have a free ice cream, because there are no free ice creams available. But there is love for each other""
Anyone else reading Michael P Deacon's twitter thread? He is at a Momentum event with Saint Corbyn, the quotes he is sticking up from attendees and speeches are amazing.
No, but please post some of the juicier ones for those of us not on Twitter.
Here we go then;
"The first speaker, a teacher, tells the rally that he has developed a theory known as "The Many Meanings of Jeremy Corbyn""
"Line of the evening so far: "[Jeremy Corbyn] knows what it means to nurture plants""
"A speaker representing Latinos For Corbyn begins, "You may wonder what the connection is between Jeremy Corbyn and Latin America...""
""The Tories fear Jeremy Corbyn, precisely because he will be our next prime minister." Applause"
""It is right that we seek a New World Order," declares a pro-Corbyn speaker, unexpectedly"
"Jeremy Corbyn: "We're all normal. We're all so normal that every one of us is absolutely unique""
"Jeremy Corbyn tells his supporters that it isn't for "commentators" to decide "what competence is""
"Corbyn: "I don't invite you to have a free ice cream, because there are no free ice creams available. But there is love for each other""
Anyone else reading Michael P Deacon's twitter thread? He is at a Momentum event with Saint Corbyn, the quotes he is sticking up from attendees and speeches are amazing.
No, but please post some of the juicier ones for those of us not on Twitter.
Here we go then;
"The first speaker, a teacher, tells the rally that he has developed a theory known as "The Many Meanings of Jeremy Corbyn""
"Line of the evening so far: "[Jeremy Corbyn] knows what it means to nurture plants""
"A speaker representing Latinos For Corbyn begins, "You may wonder what the connection is between Jeremy Corbyn and Latin America...""
""The Tories fear Jeremy Corbyn, precisely because he will be our next prime minister." Applause"
""It is right that we seek a New World Order," declares a pro-Corbyn speaker, unexpectedly"
"Jeremy Corbyn: "We're all normal. We're all so normal that every one of us is absolutely unique""
"Jeremy Corbyn tells his supporters that it isn't for "commentators" to decide "what competence is""
"Corbyn: "I don't invite you to have a free ice cream, because there are no free ice creams available. But there is love for each other""
Wow! I am so inspired!
All this from a man that endorses Hamas, the IRA, Venezuela, Iran, Putin etc etc.
Amazing how two faced the man is, he coasted in life to get where he is so doesn't understand for a second what real struggle is. Instead it's all hugs and kisses in a support group and anti-Imperialist bullshit at the hustings, knowing full well he will never have to suffer the consequences of the fallout.
Quarterly tax returns are pointless. A boon for no-one but accountants.
For a small business if youre filling in 3 more tax returns thats 6+ days a year your not selling or running your business.
Whats worse is HMRC are not actually able to manage the system they've got let alone 4 times the volume
Well, if the Telegraph bothered to trouble themselves to include a link in their article to the actual proposals, rather than giving us a series of breathless but completely incoherent indignant opinions, we might be able to figure out what they were talking about and then lobby our MPs, if we thought it worthwhile to do so.
The article even manages to omit to tell us which tax they are talking about. Is it perhaps Corporation Tax? Who knows? You can't tell from the article.
Quarterly tax returns are pointless. A boon for no-one but accountants.
For a small business if youre filling in 3 more tax returns thats 6+ days a year your not selling or running your business.
Whats worse is HMRC are not actually able to manage the system they've got let alone 4 times the volume
Well, if the Telegraph bothered to trouble themselves to include a link in their article to the actual proposals, rather than giving us a series of breathless but completely incoherent indignant opinions, we might be able to figure out what they were talking about and then lobby our MPs, if we thought it worthwhile to do so.
The article even manages to omit to tell us which tax they are talking about. Is it perhaps Corporation Tax? Who knows? You can't tell from the article.
Companies already pay corporation tax quarterly. (At least, I do.)
You stop sharia courts operating. You stop turning a blind eye to them. You make sure that girls in school are taught about their rights. Your make sure that they are not educated in schools funded by foreign governments or their bodies who have views at odds with English laws. You prosecute - pour encourager les autres - those who mistreat girls who choose to live like British citizens. There are many ways in which you can change attitudes and make clear that certain behaviours are not acceptable. We have done it with racism and homophobia. We can and should do it in relation to religiously/culturally inspired behaviour we find wrong.
I would punish electoral fraud, FGM, child abuse, threats to apostates rigorously, without regard to " cultural sensitivity.". I would end immigration from failed States.
I am far warier of governments using coercion to change attitudes. One reason is that I suspect that I, in common with many on the non-secular Right, would be on the receiving end of this attempt to change attitudes. Secondly, it gives governments great powers over individuals. Thirdly, people we dislike may end up in power and use exactly the same arguments to enforce their own orthodoxy.
I mostly agree with SeanF here.
First, it is really absent-minded to think that we are immune from having disgusting "normal attitudes" (for instance, in the early 1950s tolerating homosexuality would have been regarded by many as un-British and indeed accepting illegality), and if we attempt to suppress disagreements with whatever we think at any one time, we will inhibit positive change as well.
Second, it is an important part of British culture that we are free to differ in ways not actually harming others. I think fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Muslims are both pretty strange, but I don't want the Government telling us that one is OK and the other isn't, or indeed that they are both wrong. It's not a matter for Theresa or Jeremy to decide.
Most importantly, it dangerously trivialises the real abuse if we lump it together with social attitudes. If a girl suffers FGM, she has been subject to horrible physical abuse, and long prison sentences are appropriate. If a girl is shunned by her family for the way she dresses or the people she meets, that's regrettable, but we can counter it with supportive social institutions where she can find more agreeable alternatives. FGM has to be countered by coercive State action. Attitudes, not.
Quarterly tax returns are pointless. A boon for no-one but accountants.
For a small business if youre filling in 3 more tax returns thats 6+ days a year your not selling or running your business.
Whats worse is HMRC are not actually able to manage the system they've got let alone 4 times the volume
Well, if the Telegraph bothered to trouble themselves to include a link in their article to the actual proposals, rather than giving us a series of breathless but completely incoherent indignant opinions, we might be able to figure out what they were talking about and then lobby our MPs, if we thought it worthwhile to do so.
The article even manages to omit to tell us which tax they are talking about. Is it perhaps Corporation Tax? Who knows? You can't tell from the article.
Companies already pay corporation tax quarterly. (At least, I do.)
Small companies pay annually, up to nine months after the end of their financial year.
Quarterly tax returns are pointless. A boon for no-one but accountants.
For a small business if youre filling in 3 more tax returns thats 6+ days a year your not selling or running your business.
Whats worse is HMRC are not actually able to manage the system they've got let alone 4 times the volume
Well, if the Telegraph bothered to trouble themselves to include a link in their article to the actual proposals, rather than giving us a series of breathless but completely incoherent indignant opinions, we might be able to figure out what they were talking about and then lobby our MPs, if we thought it worthwhile to do so.
The article even manages to omit to tell us which tax they are talking about. Is it perhaps Corporation Tax? Who knows? You can't tell from the article.
Companies already pay corporation tax quarterly. (At least, I do.)
Quarterly tax returns are pointless. A boon for no-one but accountants.
For a small business if youre filling in 3 more tax returns thats 6+ days a year your not selling or running your business.
Whats worse is HMRC are not actually able to manage the system they've got let alone 4 times the volume
Well, if the Telegraph bothered to trouble themselves to include a link in their article to the actual proposals, rather than giving us a series of breathless but completely incoherent indignant opinions, we might be able to figure out what they were talking about and then lobby our MPs, if we thought it worthwhile to do so.
The article even manages to omit to tell us which tax they are talking about. Is it perhaps Corporation Tax? Who knows? You can't tell from the article.
Companies already pay corporation tax quarterly. (At least, I do.)
Small companies pay annually, up to nine months after the end of their financial year.
How big do you have to be before you become a non-small company?
You stop sharia courts operating. You stop turning a blind eye to them. You make sure that girls in school are taught about their rights. Your make sure that they are not educated in schools funded by foreign governments or their bodies who have views at odds with English laws. You prosecute - pour encourager les autres - those who mistreat girls who choose to live like British citizens. There are many ways in which you can change attitudes and make clear that certain behaviours are not acceptable. We have done it with racism and homophobia. We can and should do it in relation to religiously/culturally inspired behaviour we find wrong.
I would punish electoral fraud,
I mostly agree with SeanF here.
First, it is really absent-minded to think that we are immune from having disgusting "normal attitudes" (for instance, in the early 1950s tolerating homosexuality would have been regarded by many as un-British and indeed accepting illegality), and if we attempt to suppress disagreements with whatever we think at any one time, we will inhibit positive change as well.
Second, it is an important part of British culture that we are free to differ in ways not actually harming others. I think fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Muslims are both pretty strange, but I don't want the Government telling us that one is OK and the other isn't, or indeed that they are both wrong. It's not a matter for Theresa or Jeremy to decide.
Most importantly, it dangerously trivialises the real abuse if we lump it together with social attitudes. If a girl suffers FGM, she has been subject to horrible physical abuse, and long prison sentences are appropriate. If a girl is shunned by her family for the way she dresses or the people she meets, that's regrettable, but we can counter it with supportive social institutions where she can find more agreeable alternatives. FGM has to be countered by coercive State action. Attitudes, not.
I know some former Bretheren who were shunned when they married out. I think some other denominations do the same. I think it thoretically possible to be ex-communicated for the same offence.
The tolerance of alternative lifestyles, whether religious fundamentalist or new age cult, is fitting until it starts to impct on others or involves coercion. Frankly, if Islamist terrorists stopped killing people at random, and attacking the rights of others to free speech etc they would be tolerated just as much as any other weird throwback like Morris Dancers.
Sorry, just catching up. Re the Horse Dancing (aka Dressage) does anyone know of the horses actually enjoy it? I know horses that love hunting and racing and generally working in partnership with people (as do sheep dogs) but I have never been sure about dressage. It seems so unnatural.
Horses enjoy sweet FA. To get horses ready to be ridden by humans they are mentally broken. Any horse with a human on it's back has been driven mad.
I used to ride regularaly.
Such piffle that I assume you are trolling. Like saying children are driven mad by being taught to read. And how could you ever bear to ride a horse, knowing what you thought you knew about what it had gone through to make it rideable?
< 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:
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.
Derived from and Identical to are not the same thing.
Exactly. Those that claim that Donaghue brought the golden rule into our law are simply wrong.
It was already in the common law. That case just clarified
< 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:
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.
Derived from and Identical to are not the same thing.
Exactly. Those that claim that Donaghue brought the golden rule into our law are simply wrong.
It was already in the common law. That case just clarified
Small businesses do not have such accountancy support, so there is disproportionate hassle to do quarterly returns.
If the government wants to get quarterly payments then it would be far simpler to project payments and get payment in advance, reconciled with the annual return, much as personal income tax is for none PAYE earnings.
I know some former Bretheren who were shunned when they married out. I think some other denominations do the same. I think it thoretically possible to be ex-communicated for the same offence.
The tolerance of alternative lifestyles, whether religious fundamentalist or new age cult, is fitting until it starts to impct on others or involves coercion. Frankly, if Islamist terrorists stopped killing people at random, and attacking the rights of others to free speech etc they would be tolerated just as much as any other weird throwback like Morris Dancers.
As I might have mentioned before, my grandfather was raised as Plymouth Brethren. He got disowned by his parents when he married outside the brethren. Likewise, my grandmother was disowned by her parents for marrying a brethren.
Oddly, the parents' hostility did not extend to their children, who I understand were generally welcomed and helped in different ways by both sides of the family.
Both families said the marriage wouldn't last. It lasted over 70 years.
I consider myself a very intelligent chap, but bugger me with a fishfork, I'll never understand how the Ominium works
First five race points are carried forward to the sixth and final round. During the final race, you pick up extra points in the ‘lap round’ where coming 1st – 4th = pts. The more points at the end of the race, the bigger the prize.
Anyone else reading Michael P Deacon's twitter thread? He is at a Momentum event with Saint Corbyn, the quotes he is sticking up from attendees and speeches are amazing.
No, but please post some of the juicier ones for those of us not on Twitter.
Here we go then;
"The first speaker, a teacher, tells the rally that he has developed a theory known as "The Many Meanings of Jeremy Corbyn""
"Line of the evening so far: "[Jeremy Corbyn] knows what it means to nurture plants""
"A speaker representing Latinos For Corbyn begins, "You may wonder what the connection is between Jeremy Corbyn and Latin America...""
""The Tories fear Jeremy Corbyn, precisely because he will be our next prime minister." Applause"
""It is right that we seek a New World Order," declares a pro-Corbyn speaker, unexpectedly"
"Jeremy Corbyn: "We're all normal. We're all so normal that every one of us is absolutely unique""
"Jeremy Corbyn tells his supporters that it isn't for "commentators" to decide "what competence is""
"Corbyn: "I don't invite you to have a free ice cream, because there are no free ice creams available. But there is love for each other""
Wow! I am so inspired!
All this from a man that endorses Hamas, the IRA, Venezuela, Iran, Putin etc etc.
Amazing how two faced the man is, he coasted in life to get where he is so doesn't understand for a second what real struggle is. Instead it's all hugs and kisses in a support group and anti-Imperialist bullshit at the hustings, knowing full well he will never have to suffer the consequences of the fallout.
In case it was lost in translation, mine was an ironic post.
Jeremy Corbyn used his position in Parliament to call for the “complete rehabilitation” of Leon Trotsky, it has emerged despite dismissing concerns about hard-Left entryism as “nonsense”.
In 1988, the Labour leader – then a backbencher – demanded the Marxist revolutionary and other communists have their achievements formally recognised by the Russian state.
Mr Corbyn was one of a series of prominent left-wingers who put their name to an Early Day Motion, a form of parliamentary petition with no standing in law, which made the call.
Bonus style points for the degree of smugness on the cat's face as it nonchalantly ignores its handler.
I'm certain that dressage need alcohol to enjoy, I'm not sure whether the greatest entertainment comes from giving it to the spectators, the ridera, or the horses
Jeremy Corbyn used his position in Parliament to call for the “complete rehabilitation” of Leon Trotsky, it has emerged despite dismissing concerns about hard-Left entryism as “nonsense”.
In 1988, the Labour leader – then a backbencher – demanded the Marxist revolutionary and other communists have their achievements formally recognised by the Russian state.
Mr Corbyn was one of a series of prominent left-wingers who put their name to an Early Day Motion, a form of parliamentary petition with no standing in law, which made the call.
demands that the Russian Government goes further and gives complete rehabilitation to Leon Trotsky, Leon Sedov the chief in defendants in the Moscow frame-up trials, and all those innocent people murdered by the Stalin regime.
Innocent people murdered by the Stalin regime? Oops, Corbyn's eminence grise Seamas Milne won't be very happy with that slur on the unblemished record of his great hero.
This cycle race is good. Be more fun and spice up the speed if all the rest of the cyclists only heard a single gunshot every time one cyclist was eliminated.
I consider myself a very intelligent chap, but bugger me with a fishfork, I'll never understand how the Ominium works
It used to elude me, but it's easy enough once you to think of it as one long race with points for the top 4 finishers at each 'checkpoint'. If you make up a lap, you go to the back of the pack but get 20 points for your trouble.
Bonus style points for the degree of smugness on the cat's face as it nonchalantly ignores its handler.
I'm certain that dressage need alcohol to enjoy, I'm not sure whether the greatest entertainment comes from giving it to the spectators, the ridera, or the horses
Jeremy Corbyn used his position in Parliament to call for the “complete rehabilitation” of Leon Trotsky, it has emerged despite dismissing concerns about hard-Left entryism as “nonsense”.
In 1988, the Labour leader – then a backbencher – demanded the Marxist revolutionary and other communists have their achievements formally recognised by the Russian state.
Mr Corbyn was one of a series of prominent left-wingers who put their name to an Early Day Motion, a form of parliamentary petition with no standing in law, which made the call.
Comments
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/15/taxman-accused-of-using-small-businesses-as-a-cash-cow-after-unv/
The minimum age for the competition is I think 16, after the gymnasts were getting younger and younger - but she looks like a primary school girl, can't be older than about 11.
The relatively speaking tiny group who were actually EU enthusiasts, who actually believe in the european project (and this group overlaps heavily with modern liberals who dislike the concept of the nation state, hereditsry monarchs etc. ) are appalled but now utterly powerless as there is not a whits chance of the UK electorate post Brexit voting to actually join.
Tony Benn put it best:
Britain’s continuing membership of the Community would mean the end of Britain as a completely self-governing nation and the end of our democratically elected parliament as the supreme law-making body in the United Kingdom.
I am writing, not to argue a case, but to explain — as best I can — what effect British membership of the Common Market has had upon the constitutional relationship between a member of Parliament and his constituents. The Parliamentary democracy we have developed and established in Britain is based, not upon the sovereignty of Parliament, but upon the sovereignty of the People, who, by exercising their vote lend their sovereign powers to Members of Parliament, to use on their behalf, for the duration of a single Parliament only — Powers that must be returned intact to the electorate to whom they belong, to lend again to the Members of Parliament they elect in each subsequent general election. Five basic democratic rights derive from this relationship, and each of them is fundamentally altered by Britain’s membership of the European Community,....
This huge Commission building in Brussels, in the shape of a cross, is absolutely un-British. I felt as if I were going as a slave to Rome; the whole relationship was wrong. Here was I, an elected man who could be removed, doing a job, and here were these people with more power than I had and no accountability to anybody...My visit confirmed in a practical way all my suspicions that this would be the decapitation of British democracy without any countervailing advantage, and the British people, quite rightly, wouldn't accept it. There is no real benefit for Britain.
Take 3 girls, all born here, all British citizens. One has a granny born in Naples. One has a granny born in Ulverston. One has a granny born in Lahore. All should have the same rights under English law and should in practice - not just in theory - be able to exercise those rights freely. Their respective religions or lack of should be irrelevant.
This should not be a controversial point.
Time for lobbying your local MP.
Quarterly tax returns are pointless. A boon for no-one but accountants.
I think the SDP really is a very right-wing party. In a funny way it’s more right-wing than Mrs. Thatcher because Mrs. Thatcher is an old-fashioned liberal, if you know what I mean, she believes in market forces and small government. But my knowledge and experience of the SDP is that they believe in a centralised system, they believe in a federal Europe in which we would only be a province under Brussels, they believe in retaining the American bases, they want a statutory pay policy so they would govern the wages of everybody without proper negotiation. I think they’re a very hard right party and I think the Labour Party which has now got a decent policy as a result of all the work we’ve done is going to pick up a lot of support this year.
He would have been popular in some northern cities for that...
Whats worse is HMRC are not actually able to manage the system they've got let alone 4 times the volume
However in one case exercising those rights will result in banishment by her family.
There is nothing the state can do about that unless it passes such draconian laws that the result is untold misery for its citizens.
In the case of Islam the only way you could do it is either mass expulsion or setting up an Islam of England sect controlled by parliament which all muslims in England must worship exclusively at and reject any other with hugely draconian penalties if they do.
We tried something like that in 1536 to 1840.
No, but please post some of the juicier ones for those of us not on Twitter.
Any power or authority can be misused, whether the authority is based in civil life or religious. It is therefore important that there is the opportunity for wrongs to be corrected. That is generally the case in civil life: most systems have, or at least should have, ways of appealing.
The lack of ways to appeal against such religious authority figures, and the historic way that churches have covered up transgressions, means that all religion needs to be kept a healthy distance away from the law, whatever the historic connections between that law and a particular church.
https://twitter.com/rhodri_jones/status/764795970227937280
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/37086680
My step-father-in-law told me of this council estate in Durham which got demolished by the local council, and the inhabitants dispersed to other council estates, when they discovered that lots of girls were getting pregnant by fathers and brothers.
I used to ride regularaly.
* Previous referendum polls in the UK (ScotIndy, AV) had horrendously large errors, far bigger than General Election polls. The size of the REMAIN leads were well within the larger error bands
* Similar polls in other countries (Casino_Royale correctly identified Ireland 2008) had indicated the possibility of a narrow prediction wrongly predicting the winner
* Postal vote sampling and internal party canvassing revealed early on that Labour voters were not turning out for REMAIN, and were in fact for LEAVE
Do these things pertain for POTUS2016? I don't know how accurate US POTUS polls normally are, and there are precedents for a close prediction being wrong and the Christian Right turning out en masse for a Republican candidate (2004 being the obvious one). But as for the internal canvassing predicting a Republican surge...where is it? (unsarcastic question: if it exists, please please tell me!).
I won't be in a position to place a bet until I've cranked the numbers, and that won't be until late Sept (I am insanely busy!). So don't hold my feet to the fire on this.
To score well, a dressage horse has to be incredibly strong - think of the gymnasts who do the rings and the control of power they have to display - that is dressage. But it is not just controlled power that is scored, but also submission of the horse to rider and harmony of rider and horse.
That is impossible to achieve unless the horse has an incredibly strong bond with the rider.
Personally, I have never seen a dressage horse obviously thrilled to go into a dressage ring in the same way as a horse cannot wait to get going on cross country. And I do know that dressage horses love being allowed to do 'silly' games, such as jumping and barrel racing. But I have to think that at some level they have to enjoy dressage big time, otherwise they simply would form that amazing bond with the rider or submit.
PS And the key modern dressage movements are movement wild horses naturally do to impress in the wild. Collection into a frame (head into the neck and high, neck flexed) makes the horse look big to competitor and suitor alike. Impulsion (the high energy in the slow gaits like tempis and piaf) and exaggerated gaits (like the extended trot and the piaf) are also natural show off moves.
You obviously were an appalling rider and a worse horseman.
As I understand it, there's no recognition of the court of any type outside the official ones. Anyone may seek a settlement outside of the law from any court, arbiter, or pb poster they like. They are only bound by these courts as far as they have volunteered to be bound by them (de jure, de facto is of course more complicated) but their legal rights to apply to the official courts.
It's been a traditional point of freedom, whereby if two parties wish to have it settled outside the courts they can.
That's the theory, in practice the conservative ends of judaism and islam both tend to be very restrictive of women (not that they are alone anong religions in that).
It is more than a sexual dynamic, like a lot of sexual crime there is a power and control element to it. Victims are often surprisingly ambivalent to it, at least until it becomes more distant in time and they gain some perspective.
If I had the brainpower available I'd try reading the Arbitration Act 1996, but I need to stay awake...
I am far warier of governments using coercion to change attitudes. One reason is that I suspect that I, in common with many on the non-secular Right, would be on the receiving end of this attempt to change attitudes. Secondly, it gives governments great powers over individuals. Thirdly, people we dislike may end up in power and use exactly the same arguments to enforce their own orthodoxy.
You can also challenge that decision in the courts where they can overturn it, but you need to show some partiality or contravention of a point of law (as opposed to a point of fact) to do so.
"The first speaker, a teacher, tells the rally that he has developed a theory known as "The Many Meanings of Jeremy Corbyn""
"Line of the evening so far: "[Jeremy Corbyn] knows what it means to nurture plants""
"A speaker representing Latinos For Corbyn begins, "You may wonder what the connection is between Jeremy Corbyn and Latin America...""
""The Tories fear Jeremy Corbyn, precisely because he will be our next prime minister." Applause"
""It is right that we seek a New World Order," declares a pro-Corbyn speaker, unexpectedly"
"Jeremy Corbyn: "We're all normal. We're all so normal that every one of us is absolutely unique""
"Jeremy Corbyn tells his supporters that it isn't for "commentators" to decide "what competence is""
"Corbyn: "I don't invite you to have a free ice cream, because there are no free ice creams available. But there is love for each other""
Amazing how two faced the man is, he coasted in life to get where he is so doesn't understand for a second what real struggle is. Instead it's all hugs and kisses in a support group and anti-Imperialist bullshit at the hustings, knowing full well he will never have to suffer the consequences of the fallout.
The article even manages to omit to tell us which tax they are talking about. Is it perhaps Corporation Tax? Who knows? You can't tell from the article.
First, it is really absent-minded to think that we are immune from having disgusting "normal attitudes" (for instance, in the early 1950s tolerating homosexuality would have been regarded by many as un-British and indeed accepting illegality), and if we attempt to suppress disagreements with whatever we think at any one time, we will inhibit positive change as well.
Second, it is an important part of British culture that we are free to differ in ways not actually harming others. I think fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Muslims are both pretty strange, but I don't want the Government telling us that one is OK and the other isn't, or indeed that they are both wrong. It's not a matter for Theresa or Jeremy to decide.
Most importantly, it dangerously trivialises the real abuse if we lump it together with social attitudes. If a girl suffers FGM, she has been subject to horrible physical abuse, and long prison sentences are appropriate. If a girl is shunned by her family for the way she dresses or the people she meets, that's regrettable, but we can counter it with supportive social institutions where she can find more agreeable alternatives. FGM has to be countered by coercive State action. Attitudes, not.
Small businesses pay annually.
https://www.gov.uk/pay-corporation-tax/overview
The tolerance of alternative lifestyles, whether religious fundamentalist or new age cult, is fitting until it starts to impct on others or involves coercion. Frankly, if Islamist terrorists stopped killing people at random, and attacking the rights of others to free speech etc they would be tolerated just as much as any other weird throwback like Morris Dancers.
If the government wants to get quarterly payments then it would be far simpler to project payments and get payment in advance, reconciled with the annual return, much as personal income tax is for none PAYE earnings.
I think I am officially confused as to who is doing what and where ?
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/making-tax-digital-consultations
I haven't read it yet, so I've no idea whether I should be indignant. I'll read it and then form a view.
Oddly, the parents' hostility did not extend to their children, who I understand were generally welcomed and helped in different ways by both sides of the family.
Both families said the marriage wouldn't last. It lasted over 70 years.
Generally agree with your second paragraph.
During the final race, you pick up extra points in the ‘lap round’ where coming 1st – 4th = pts.
The more points at the end of the race, the bigger the prize.
Jeremy Corbyn used his position in Parliament to call for the “complete rehabilitation” of Leon Trotsky, it has emerged despite dismissing concerns about hard-Left entryism as “nonsense”.
In 1988, the Labour leader – then a backbencher – demanded the Marxist revolutionary and other communists have their achievements formally recognised by the Russian state.
Mr Corbyn was one of a series of prominent left-wingers who put their name to an Early Day Motion, a form of parliamentary petition with no standing in law, which made the call.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/15/jeremy-corbyn-called-for-complete-rehabilitation-of-leon-trotsky/
Innocent people murdered by the Stalin regime? Oops, Corbyn's eminence grise Seamas Milne won't be very happy with that slur on the unblemished record of his great hero.
Quite apart from Trotsky being a nasty piece of work, obviously.