Randomness

Tired of your heavyweight flipper system?

http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/238951/dfb01575/katapultzwemmen.htmlhttp://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/2389...ltzwemmen.html

:rofl: Mind you, is anyone picking them out downstream?

That looks tremendous fun :)

R.I.P. Richard Wright. :sad:

Well I failed two out of my five resits and was set to be excluded from uni pending an appeal.
I appealed and was successful and can now progress to third year while carrying over the subjects that I failed this time round.

Thanks to everyone who posted/offered advice (I think it was all in Swannys thread) about uni being worthwhile and to stick at it if I still had the motivation for it, which I discovered I do, so many thanksies :)
Just over a week and a half now till Rebel Robots, will be good to catch up with a lot of you again.

And echo Leos message above :sad:

Just a random question...

If you strangle a smurf... What colour does it go?

Pink.

quote:

If you strangle a smurf... What colour does it go? Strangle a smurf. Is that what they call it now? :rofl:

Theres always someone to bring the tone down Leo.
Its usually you...

To Leo :rofl:
To Geoff, :blush:

Purple, or black. One of the two. :P

Wow John, lighten up. Have a http://sanseverything.files.wordpres...er3.jpgcookie.

I was only pretending to be serious for comic effect Leo. Thanks for the Cookie!
:)

Pfhew. Luckily its http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PoePoes

Just watching the Ross Kemp On Gangs in Kenya programme. I have to say there is little in the world I find truly shocking nowadays but I find the glue kids truly truly shocking.

These kids have sod all they are addicted to glue and tend to be victimised by society in general. That I dont actually find surprising. What shocked me was their ambitions. When asked most simply say I want to go to school.

Anyway, thought Id get that off my chest. You can carry on with the silly stuff now.

Andy

PS: I also find it really shocking that Grant Mitchell has gone on to be a very good, very serious documentary maker - hats off to the man.

Although primary school fees have been abolished in Kenya, attendance isnt compulsary. Families are so poor (by our standards their level of poverty is beyond imagination) that a child in work - any work - brings some sort of relief. Those children lucky enough to have been given a taste of a better life from education only see it snatched away from them by the more pressing need to helping their family survive. Those who still lag behind are in an ever spiralling circle of despair and the glue helps to kill the hunger pangs and fight the cold

Andy and Karoline thanks for that, it is always good to stop and think of those worse off than us. It is always important to get our lives in perspective; Bec and I have always supported child sponsorship in countries like Kenya. We can€™t cure the countries poverty or even go out there to help at the moment, but at least we can do that.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4749183.ecehttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle4749183.ece

Am I the only one who finds this worrying?

No Leo you are not alone, Wendy read about this a few weeks ago.

Will the last person to leave the country please turn off the lights and lock the door!!

I think its a bit of a misconception that Sharia law is extremist in itself and contradictary to the British legal system.

As with Christianity there are extremes. In the Christian church you have the liberals who want to accept gay vicars and the extremist who want to hang gay people. These people to get quite a lot of publicity when in reality the vast majority of Christians are quite moderate.

It really is the same with Islam. Most of what is portrayed as the fundementals of Sharia law is that of extermist countries. It is actually in a lot of cases quite forward thinking.

The jewish community have been able to resolve things according to their own laws for a quite a while and it doesnt cause a problem.

I do agree however that should this be contradictary in principle to British law then it should be not be allowed. We are not about to have stonings in the streets of Newcastle and I am sure that beyond an article in the Times very few of us will see any effect on our daily lives.

Andy

But would other countries change their legal system like Britain? I doubt it.This is after all a predominately Christian country.

Let me make my position perfectly clear on this: In a democratic society it is detrimental to grant laws to a specific sub-society, No matter how huge the minority may be. That is, if it touches on the fundamental laws the majority of people in the society live by. It only fuels alienation, discrimination and feelings of inequality and leads to a shattered society.

I find this concept of a Sharia court in a country that is not muslim by the majority of its citizens an insult to the country. It insinuates that the existing laws are not sufficient while it has served your country for centuries and as opposed to Sharia Law amended its laws to accomodate the changing morals and values of the zeitgeist.

Now I know some might find this point of view Islamophobic but it truly isnt. I am in the opinion that if you want to live in a specific country you should adhere to that countries rules, and not impose your own value system on it. It doesnt matter to me what religious group tries to do it. You all live in the same country, you will all abide by the same laws.

I actually dont find it Islamaphobic Leo.

I think we are not a million miles apart. My argument is exactly the reverse of yours. If arbitration is available to all members of society then it should be available to all. And if as part of that arbitration the choice of applicable law is allowed then any law should be allowed.

Now, the jewish faith has been allowed to refer their issues to arbitration for many years. As have the construction industry. As have the RMT on a regular basis prior to calling a strike. We even have a consiliation service called ACAS which deals with arbitration in trade union and emplyoment cases etc.

The term court is misleading in the article. The option is to refer it to an arbitrator not a court. The referral can only be carried out with the consent of both parties.

At the end of the day Leo under UK law if I decided to take offence at your comments and sue you we could agree to refer my civil action to an arbitrator and have them decide the case under English Law, Dutch Law, Murphys Law or sods law. It is not a new concept. The concept of arbitration has been established in British law long before you or I were born. It is just good alarmist journalism!

We are not changing the law. It is just being used to meet the requirements of a changing society.

Andy

Andy, what if a muslim acts under the Sharia and calls you to Sharia court?

He cant do that because you can only act under British law. The Sharia Court would actually be a tribunal. The only way it would have any jurisdiction would be if I accepted to go to an arbitrator (Sharia court) and if I decided to accept that a case should be ruled under Sharia law.

Quite simply that wouldnt happen. Not because I particularly object to it but because I dont understand Sharia law and I have the absolute right to have any case heard under english law.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6190080.stmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6190080.stm

Andy

And there we have the main problem.

Why must Muslims have their own courts with rules you dont understand?
And to boot, a court you just can avoid by claiming not to be of their faith.

I wont predend to understand the Sharia, but what I have read from it, it aint pretty.

Lets imagine, you have a bit of trouble with the muslim neighbors. One of the joining walls has a problem. Its wet and wallpaper will mould and bladder off in weeks. Your neighbor ask you to give this case to a Sharia court, before it gets nasty.
You agree. Just to prove your good will.

What will be the result?

After reading up on this issue there are some concerns that linger.

Though it is true that arbitration decisions cannot be contrary to English law, Arbitration decisions in other areas which purport to apply English Law but where the legal principles of English Law are misunderstood/misapplied cannot be overturned - despite the fact that they are contrary to English law, and if it were a decision in a lower court could be overturned by a higher court - an arbitration decision must be a gross violation of English law before it will be struck down - this means that I imagine a Sharia Arbitration Panel would have considerable scope to make decisions which are contrary to English law, but which are not gross violations of English law.

Furthermore, I am concerned about family/community pressure put on women to use a Sharia court, which treats them quite differently to UK law. Similar courts in India already admitted to awarding women much less than men in financial disputes and their actions have resulted in women dropping their police complaints about being violently abused by their husbands. Women traditionally have very little power or influence in Muslim communities and by sanctioning these courts, were approving of that. All women in the UK should have access to the protection of UK law but its clear that many Muslim women dont and this inequality is likely to increase as more Muslim men use these courts.

It is true that Europeans are a dying race! In Oxford the birth rate is calculated at only 1.24 children per couple, though I am trying to up the average!
The government figures are, about 1.7 children bourn to indigenous peoples in the UK and 2.55 children bourn to the very welcome visitors with British citizenship.
Eventually we will be the minority group, then the democratic systems we have can be used to change the law to that of any previous minority group.
I believe A Church leader like David Pawson has predicted this event to happen in the future about 60 years from now.

The arbitration courts according to religious laws are in my opinion against the national laws. Some religious laws (and I do include the Jewish ones, not just the Islamic) can be contrary to our national laws and even the Human Rights. Our national laws have been influenced by Christian religious laws, I will not deny that truth, but tempered by what we call the Age of Enlightenment and are in my opinion fair and as unbiased as possible. And even today our lawmakers are working to improve them even more. I am of the firm belief that religion should not influence law.
At the end, I believe that all inhabitants of a country should be subject to the national laws of that country, and if they have a problem regarding their religious laws/beliefs, they should go to a country where that problem does not exist. When one migrates, one must adapt to the new country, not demand to have the culture of the old country instated. Enrichment of a culture by intercultural exchange should be voluntary and gradual, not imposed by the newcomers. The latter situation would only create discontent and even hatred. In both sides.

Elisabeth

I agree completely with your comments, but the question begs dose everyone else? not just in word but also in deed.

I agree.

I am currently living in another country, the czech republic, and was living in the US over the summer. On both occasions I have had to embrace the laws of both nations (there are differences in both cases). Mind you I am not religious :)

The Jewish equivalent (Beth Din) has existed in the UK for many many years and yet it somehow it is only the approval of Sharia law that is feared to breach our human rights and erode our nationalism. Why is that?

Caroline, when was it the last time you have seen a Jewish horde demanding anything , and was using violence in the UK to get what they want?

i have seen a horde of football fans using violence does that count?

Shane,
What did they demand, and were the football fans all Jewish?

Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Egypt .......
Historical fact aside, how many people can, in all honesty, remember being confronted by an angry Muslim horde or any horde for that matter?

Missed the UK point there.....
The propensity for violent protest in the UK is not limited to any one religious group. Anything seen to offend has led to such action being taken.

Karoline, I did write I am also against the Jewish version of arbitration courts. For the same reason as why I am against having the Sharia applied here: religion should not be law.

The reason why you will find not much people protesting it is because the Jews have always been very quiet about this. They have some experience regarding being hunted, which makes them cautious and secretive (Im not condemning that, just stating a historical fact).
Here in Belgium the most protests you will find on the streets, and usually quite violent to boot, is by Muslim youths. We have the occasional Union protests, and hooligan fights, but aside from that little else violent. When a Belgian newspaper comments on youths attack/fight/protest/steal/rob... it is generally understood that they mean Muslim youths... or more precisely Moroccan youths... which is -alas- the same thing here. Why is this ? Maybe because their original culture is more violent ? But these youths have been born and bred here ? And sometimes their parents too (at least their fathers) ? It shows how strong the original culture of immigrants can remain amongst the offspring. Introducing religious arbitration courts only adds to that. It is one of the other reasons why I find this phenomenon abhorrent.

Historical fact aside, how many people can, in all honesty, remember being confronted by an angry Muslim horde or any horde for that matter?
I can. The former. And it aint fun.

I havent seen angry Christian hordes in the streets when there was this crucified frog with a loincloth in a museum (although Italian Christians did torch a cinema once because of The Last Temptation of Christ being showed a couple of years ago). But try cartoons of a certain prophet, or a teddy-bear with a certain name, or a book about a child-marriage, or a Pope quoting from a historical speech...

One of the main problems I see is that the law should be the same for everybody. If people have a choice to choose an arbitrator then it should that choice should be available to everybody. You cannot say that muslims cannot choose their own arbitrator who will 9/10 be muslim and therefore be classified as a sharia court by the media.

The problem with civil law is that it allows freedom of choice. If i enter into a contract that says i would be bound by islamic law then thats what im bound by. Nothing in law will stop me being stupid and agreeing to anything put in front of me (unless its enough to prove i am mad or are co-erced - another issue which is just a pandoras box).

Another point i would make is that any decisions made by these courts cannot be contradictary to human rights, criminal or other such laws and their ruling must be fair. This is a protection common to all arbitration.

I actually agree that religious law is generally very poor. Not because it is inherantly poor but because it is open to interpretation. The bible is the bible, the same the world over. This book has spawned many differnt churches, sects and cults which are spawned from the same basic principles and more than one of which follows the bible to the letter (but are fundementally different). The book was not written as a legal document. I dont believe the catholic church should have involvement of running countries just as i dont believe that sharia law should be the law in a country. islamic law is often portrayed as oppressing women and in some forms it does. Christian law is portrayed by the media as being good and wonderful but the failure of the catholic church to acknowldge that preaching abstenance will not stop an aids epedemic and that as soon as people leave church theyre bonking like rabbits has caused many many deaths (yet another pandoras box).

That said Personally I think to protect our basic legal system and to ensure the same law is employed to all, it has to be allowed on the basis that anyone should be allowed to enter into a contract under any terms they like (such as a muslim marriage). If we dont want it then change the legal system.

Andy

Now I know some might find this point of view Islamophobic but it truly isnt.

Let me just address this as I didnt when Leo wrote it. People are very quick to throw accusations of racism, anti-semetism and islamaphobia. Its not helpful and worse, its not correct.

This type of comment tends to stifle a discussion on various issues and can even stifle discussions on fundemental scientific research.

Try discussing the theory of evolution in relation to the theory of dominant genes and the relevance of maths in the interaction of all things in the universe and see how long it takes before you are sounding like a mild nazi propoganda officer or a fundamentalist bible basher. It is unpalatable to discuss if there was a difference at the origin of the human race because of the history behind it (slave trade, nazi germany etc etc) and the emotion it raises. Creationism tends to be unpalatable to most as it leads to the question of who created it.

I would not brand anyone with the tag islamopbobe just because my views differ. Discussion is healthy and after we kick seven bells out of each other, if we can all go have beer were doing it right.

Andy