[wit]

When the same driving licence issue came up in Florida in 2003, the veiled one lost.

http://www.courttv.com/trials/freeman/v … l_ctv.html

although a non-factor in the case, the following was an interesting bit of side information :

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Ms Freeman told the court that she permitted no photos in her house, and that she coloured over pictures of people on cereal boxes with a felt-tip pen.

"Wearing a religious veil is a peaceful, modest act; I am not a threat to public safety because of practising Islam," she said in a statement.

However, she admitted she was photographed without a veil in 1998 when she received a suspended sentence for battering two girls in her care.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international … 11,00.html

<br>best regards

wit

[wit]

Hi Aranalde

Very sensible approach – to those with traditional British values.

The only problem is that Islam is quite unlike a religion like, say, Christianity, in that Islam admits of nothing "to render unto Caesar".

The Shari’a is the sole and unified body of commandments – religious, legal, moral, social., all rolled-up – given by God to mankind through the Prophet Mohammed.   It as much governs the terms on which you do business, as how you behave in marriage and in respect of your family, as how you deal with non-believers, as how you should pray.

If the law isn’t in the Qur’an, its in what the Prophet said and did (hadith), or in consensus of opinion the community (ijma), or analogical reasoning (qiyas).    

Since only about 80 verses of the Qur’an deal with legal topics regarding secular matters, and even fewer give specific legal precepts (eg fulfil your contracts), and since the world of Mohammed was somewhat different from today’s world, in practice Shari’a is determined by consensus of the community, as informed by clerics explaining the Qur’an and the hadith.   (I say that having spent much of the past 20 years trying legally to bridge that world with the world of English law).

When it comes to God-given law (albeit interpreted and expanded by man) vs man-made law, there’s no contest for the devout Muslim, so it becomes crucial as to what extent British man-made law is accepted as the consensus of the particular community.

Which goes back to the understanding of, and perspective given on British culture.  

Education is vital to that process and I suggest the way things have gone under UK multiculturalism as practised to date has resulted in a disaffected youth which has lost the culture of their parents, but not actually taken up the British culture of a particular type of constitutional monarchy (yup, that’s our political classification).  

So they look to assert a distinctive character by identifying with the umma, the worldwide Muslim community, which is a politically unachievable dream of extremists rather than anything real.

best regards

wit<br>

[wit]

NV

The question is what being tolerant of others actually means in this context to someone of your declared liberal persuasion.

For example, within the expanded definition of liberalism to "things which affect those that I know and wider  ‘communities’ which I am or feel a part of",  where would the following fit in:

–  honour killings / rapes<br>-  female circumcision<br>-  forced marriages

–   the fatwa on Salman Rushdie

–   ritual slaughter of animals

–   the concentration of immigrant children within a few schools

–    the curriculum and the attendance at such schools left to the immigrant culture, including what is taught as the mother language?

<br>As regards the last two, you may recall the Bradford headmaster Ray Honeyford, who in 1983 wrote a series of articles for the right-leaning Salisbury Review attacking the multicultural policy Bradford had adopted in response to Muslim demands.  

He objected to the way children were withdrawn from school for long holidays "at home", and also to the Council ending a bussing policy that distributed Muslim children equally around the city’s schools.

After a wave of protests by Muslim parents he was forced to take early retirement.

There’s an analysis from 2003 of what happened in the subsequent 20 years at:

http://www.thisisbradford.co.uk/bradfor … -lang.html

<br>Is this a satisfactory situation from your liberal standpoint, and if not would you insist on a more assimilationist culture ?

When the Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality does a 180 degree turn from multiculturalism being inviolable to multiculturalism being dead, and is supported in that change of mind by other liberals,  sure its a change of opinion by some individuals –  but I suggest it’s a change that’s likely to have more impact than you or me changing our opinion.  

best regards

wit<br>

[wit]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br>I have never actually said that you are racist Dave, just that the content of the original posting on here was……….

I make no apologies for being a tolerant liberal……….

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

NV, if you want to be a "tolerant liberal",  then I fear the world has moved on from under you – your fellow liberals in fact did a volte face on multiculturalism about a year ago, since when it has no longer been "racist" to oppose it:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,36 … 61,00.html

<br>If it was yesterday the liberal position to say:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br>"If I don’t like how you live your life, fine, but unless it really ***** me up on a regular basis, I don’t really care. <br><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

this is now reclassified as "I’m alright Jack"-ism –  the liberal position today is that active steps must be taken to avoid ghetto-isation and to inculcate certain indigenous core cultural values among immigrants to the UK and their offspring.

Chief among these is that, say what you like about British culture – and folk have on this thread –  historically it doesn’t do bombings and assassinations.

That unfortunately cannot be said of the cultures being imported from places like Pakistan, Somalia, etc, where violence within the community is endemic as a way to seek to promote political and religious objectives.

<br>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br>"The right to leave" must be a new concept…..<br>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

ACR1, that right  wasn’t enjoyed by those behind the Berlin Wall / Iron Curtain, and isn’t enjoyed  today in those countries where you still need a visa to exit (China, Saudi Arabia, etc)  –  somehow I doubt many of those folk would be too impressed to be told the right to leave is a new concept in rights.

best regards

wit<br>

[wit]

IMHO the answer to "London bombings – why did they happen?" is not to be found in debating geo-political issues.

A number of posters on this thread seek to answer the question by basically going down the path that there are no enemies, just friends whose grievances we haven’t yet accommodated, and then launch into bashing Bush/Blair/Sharon.  

Well, in this case IMHO there are real enemies and that kind of approach doesn’t work.

First, there is no equation of force as exercised by a state and force as exercised by an individual.   The essence of a society is that force is reserved to the state (imperfect though it may be, the state  has a democratic mandate for its international as well as its national activities), and individuals can’t go around making individual decisions to injure and kill based on their individual mind state.  

Second, seems to me the immediate questions are:<br>a.    who are these disaffected youths around the UK?<br>b.    what end are they trying to achieve?<br>c.    who or what makes them think they’re justified in using violence to achieve it?<br>d.     what pushes them into a suicidal tendency in using that violence?

<br>They seem to be mainly second/third generation immigrants who are Muslims.  They seem to be in a far greater generation gap than the indigenous population. The parents want them to stick by the old ways, language and dress, and eventually to return to their ancestral homelands, from which they were forced rather than chose to move.  The kids on the other hand hanker after the freedoms of other children around them.    Take the youngest suicide bomber Hasib Hussain – 18 years old and deeply religious (twice visited Mecca) but had also been arrested for shoplifting and liked to get high on marijuana.   They end up with a double life, strangers both to their parents and the country they live in.    

They stay away from their local mosque but are attracted by radical groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir – banned in Germany and Holland but the largest extremist group in the UK.   From Shiv Malik in the New Statesman:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br>Unlike Britain’s mainstream Muslim clerics, most of whom are foreign born and obsessed with getting you to rote-learn the Koran, groups like Hizb are in touch with the young: they don’t insist on dress codes, long beards and prayers five times a day…..most important, they offer an intense sense of purposeful belonging.

They cultivate the idea that Muslims all belong to one community – the Umma – with one clear (if totally unrealistic) political goal: the triumph of the caliphate (an Islamic super-state, covering not only the Middle east but also large parts of Europe.).   "Work for the caliphate", Hizb tells its recruits. "The caliphate will restore honour to your mothers and sisters"<br> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Sure, its easier for these groups to operate if they can point to British or US soldiers "killing your brothers in the Umma", but realistically (and I base this comment on my own ongoing conversations over years with Saudis, Egyptians, Jordanians, Iranians, Lebanese, Iraqis) the reality is that most Muslims do not actually see a single Umma, rather their own tribe/ nation first. None of them hold with anything that involves the taking of human life.

From the Guardian:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

….according to Anne Marie Oliver, a leading expert on the suicide bomb phenomenon, in the end its psychological factors that turn an angry youth into a suicide bomber.  There is a sense of pride  at having been selected by an Al-Quaeda recruiter for such an honour.   Most importantly, there is the element of ecstatic camaraderie that keeps the group together….Look at the CCTV pictures and you see them smiling.  They look like a group of friends going on holiday.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<br>    

The way to cure the UK suicide bomber threat would seem to be a mixture of reconnection between the generations in Muslim immigrant communities, and cracking down on the brainwashing extremists.    Not an easy or a quick process, but very necessary.

If the domestic threat is neutralized, the foreign-based threat will be easier to handle.

best regards

wit <br>

[wit]

LM

OK, how about  "why do we drive on the left-hand side of the road ?"

Or, "why does the tax year start on april 6 ? "

(with the second one, you can imagine that using key words could end up producing thousands of unhelpful hits from the Inland Revenue – so try asking the question within quote marks, which brings up only the exact phrase inside the quotes).

if you’re ever short of stuff to learn, two good sites are

http://www.newscientist.com  , then  the Last Word section

and  the US site

http://www.howstuffworks.com

best regards

wit  

[wit]

LM,

almost.

in the little box,  i just typed in some key words – Belgium motorway lighting – and scrolled down the first result , picking out any of those words (which it highlights in blue).   in this case it took about 10 seconds.

in other cases you can often filter the results by only looking at the more likely of the domain names.

or use a "search engine of search engines" like copernic agent  (http://www.copernic.com), the basic version of which is free.

there’s always rubbish thrown up in the results but with a bit of practice it can be worked around.    

and if i do get side-tracked, i just look on it as an opportunity to learn something that i wouldn’t have otherwise.    to me its a lot more fun than tv.

best regards

wit  

[wit]

LM

earlier last weekend i’d seen an old Alastair McGowan show where he lampooned Clarkson by making various overblown statements, so when that one came up during his race to Oslo i thought in an idle moment to google it.

best regards

wit

[wit]

stevedvg

try

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9077856

<br>best regards

wit<br>

(Edited by wit at 5:59 am on July 15, 2005)

[wit]

LM

If you picked that up off that Clarkson on Top Gear, you’ve been misled.

There are still  "missing links" in the motorway network, particularly motorway A8 near Ath and the E25/E40 link in Liège.

http://services-techniques.met.wallonie … _lighting/

<br>best regards

wit <br>

(Edited by wit at 11:43 pm on July 13, 2005)

[wit]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

why did they happen….iraq ?

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

interesting couple of articles in the latest edition of TIME:

Why Iraq Has Made Us Less Safe….

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic … 92,00.html

<br>….Why That’s Ridiculous

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic … 84,00.html

<br>In the same edition  

3 Lessons From London

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic … 66,00.html

seems to make a first point of call jihadists with UK passports – at least as far as where US intelligence (if not perhaps as overtly the diplomats) would look.

not to say they’re right, of course, but it did bring to mind a comment from an ex-flying squad commander turned pundit in the pressure of immediately responding in the aftermath, to the effect of:

"the reason this hasn’t happened in the UK before is (a) our security is so good and (b) there are so many extremist groups operating out of the UK that they don’t want to foul their own doorstep".

that second point really stuck in the mind.

best regards

wit

[wit]

for quality of life, one international firm of employee benefits advisers puts four cities tied top:

vancouver<br>zurich<br>vienna<br>bern

http://across.co.nz/qualityofliving.htm

obvioulsy a matter of personal opinion as to the weight to be given to individual factors – eg some that look good for material wealth may be a bit dark psychologically.

best regards

wit

[wit]

Very sad news – always came across as a very nice guy.

May his family find some comfort in knowing that his life touched positively many who never met him other than through his postings.

Deepest condolences.

<br>wit<br>

[wit]

Irish Stamp

These things tend to be very fact specific (eg at one point you seem to suggest  the tenancy expires in July, but at another you seem to suggest it may go beyond)-  so please take the following as no more than possible ideas and don’t let them override any specific advice you’ve had from anyone who’s actually seen your paperwork..

First, I’m assuming you’ll have signed a pre-printed form like this:<br>http://www.regisdirect.co.uk/regisdirect/arlata.pdf

Second, I’m assuming you signed no house rules or similar contract with your house-mates regulating the relationship as between yourselves.

Third, if you are a joint tenant then, all things being equal (eg the landlord has not promised to the Uni authorities not to do this)  the landlord’s easiest reaction would be not to chase after you when you quit and stop paying, but to pursue your remaining co-signatories for the shortfall in overall rent you’ll have caused him.    

Fourth, this would normally leave the remaining tenants to pursue you for your unpaid share of rent.  

Fifth, as and when they do that then, for the amount of rent I’m assuming will be involved, it will be a small claim in the County Court before the registrar, who is used to parties showing up without legal representation.

So, when you get the claim form from the County Court (assuming you can be found to be served in the first place),  you answer it by filing a defence and counterclaim on the basis of the aggressive behaviour against you, perpetrated by one character but acquiesced in by the other occupants, which left you in fear of your further physical safety (bearing in mind past broken limb).  

While you had been prepared to put the first incident down to an accident, it has now become clear that as a matter of character this individual is volatile / unpredictable / menacing / violent and has developed a particular animus against you.  

You had not wanted to leave but feared for your well-being. Through his behaviour and the other house-mates’ acquiescence in it, you were in effect evicted against your will  

Having taken this action against you, and now benefited from their consequent increased enjoyment of less crowded premises, the individual and his accomplices should not be allowed to have their cake and eat it by reclaiming rent.     <br>  <br>All this depends on your stopping your current "nice guy" routine.    Looking just to your interests, I’m with Grasshopper’s PPS (ie not the fire and pitchfork bit).

You’re better off being first out than the last one – use it to create pressure between the aggressor and the acquiescers.  

Stop paying rent.  Reclaim from them (not the landlord – nothing to do with him) what you’ve paid since you left.  

Get your paper trail in early –  write to your co-tenants carefully in measured, non-libellous, strictly factual-incident terms, stating the cumulative impact of events on you and not focusing on the aggressor – understated and non-accusatory reads more persuasively than rants and direct accusations.    

Outline a case that will have a dispassionate reader – your real audience here is always the decision-maker at the Court – warm to your side as the mild-mannered, unassuming party put upon by unreasonable others.  Get the reader thinking "Nobody should have to put up with this – he’s been more restrained than I’d have been".

The onus will be on your co-tenants, and from what you say who knows how the cracks will then come between them.

IMHO you’re not playing the hand you’ve been dealt correctly at the moment – get tough, shake the tree and see what falls.  

Worst case, you end up paying what you’re paying already anyway plus some minor-ish Court fees and scale costs for putting them through the wringer.  

If your co-tenants come over to your side, you can try a deal with the landlord as suggested by Grasshopper.

If you are sufficiently circumspect in writing a non-defamatory (ie factual and justifiable) account of events to the present, you might consider blind copying it to the landlord to let him know what’s happening – though don’t put anything on it that may help him chase you down if that’s what he’s promised the Uni authorities (that’s what I take to be behind his statement of  "I’ll  accept any replacement" .

Just some ideas.

Ultimately though you need to be or get comfortable with what  you do and how you do it.  However logical or "right" a course may be, I always reckon its not that   good if it ends up giving you sleepless nights.

best regards

wit<br>

[wit]

I’m with Barry on this.

All the others on the island are cannibals and are not doing anything that would be classed as dishonesty if someone tried to prosecute them for theft, so why expect Barry to subject himself to a voluntary different code?

Betting isn’t like Kanu chasing the throw-in to the keeper – you play to the rules and the whistle because the others will.  Like futures / options / stock exchange trading – you have to understand the precise way the particular market and its technology works before getting involved.

It will be very interesting to see the detailed articulation of the much-trumpeted "cheating" offence to be introduced by the new gambling legislation…… personally I’lll be surprised if its deliverable.

best regards

wit

[wit]

hi gamble

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br>The exchanges are unlike regular businesses in that they hold vast funds of clients money very much like banks. They should in my opinion be vetted more closely and their VAR regularly assessed. <br><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

On top of that, punting debts are about to become legally enforceable  (to what extent will we see the Big 3 getting into debt collection ?) and Betfair is already mimicking banks with KYC checks.

Expectations of both backers and layers are developing beyond the traditional "word is my bond" environment.    

IMHO,  the safety of client money on exchanges currently ultimately depends on the personal character of the folk controlling the money deposited – and faith is put in  more  than just their honesty – they are trusted to have the strength of mind not to wilt under commercial pressure.

In this respect Betfair and backandlay are in the same boat to my mind – with Betfair, client faith is with founders Andrew Black and Edward Wray as the only directors of The Sporting Exchange (Clients) Ltd; with backandlay, client faith is with founder Ian.

Question after the SO episode (and whatever may have happened there, the money is not where most think it should be) is:-

if "trust me" is not enough to meet punter’s new expectations, what can punters reasonably demand and what can betting providers reasonably provide?

So far both Betfair and backandlay provide, as I understand:

1.    A separate bank account with a major UK clearing bank, with the words "trust account" or "client account" in its title.

2.    That account at all times holding the full amount of  outstanding deposits made by clients and settled winnings of clients.

3.    The only withdrawals ever made from that account  being (a) stake monies paid to the trading arm of the exchange only as specifically directed by the client, (b) payments of balances back to the clients, and (c) proper commission due to the exchange.  

That’s great, and if properly operated, it stop clients deposits being part of the general pool of assets for creditors on an insolvency.  

But it does depend on proper operation – and on client faith with the exchange founders not to do anything with the deposits that the clients might view as inappropriate (any small print in conditions notwithstanding).

How would Betfair and backandlay react if there was punter demand for something more, for example :

4.    That their client account be operated exclusively by experienced stakeholders who are totally independent of their trading business.     In other words, put control of client deposits with someone totally outside Betfair and backandlay – an agent of independent means in each case and a "trusted third party", with no history ever of failure to meet financial obligations or criminal or regulatory convictions, disqualifications, investigations or allegations, etc?  

5.    That each client communicate its staking directly to those stakeholders to place with the exchange, so that no actual or purported client communication in respect of the deposits comes via the trading business ?  

6.    That those stakeholders themselves be independently and solidly insured/bonded against negligence and lack of fidelity by a financial institution rated at the minimum AA/Stable by Standard & Poors in the full amount of the sums due to clients from time to time ?  

7.    Alternatively, the stakeholders are brought within their own version of a  Deposit Protection Fund  (they aren’t within the existing Fund since the deposits they accept, unlike with a bank or building society, are not then lent to others, nor are exchange activities financed materially out of the deposits – exchanges make money when folk actually doing something with the monies deposited: they get relative peanuts from the interest ).

The Protection Fund run for the banks and building societies (and funded by contributions from them all) guarantees 100% of the first £20,000 and 90% of the next £33,000 (ie  max £48,700) in respect of  a protected deposit lost in an insolvency.  

How would exchange operators feel about taking compulsory collective responsibility for everyone licensed to operate an exchange?

How would punters feel about being obliged to pay for that kind of cover ?  

How would  both sides react to the cost and delays of having independent stakeholders controlling and checking on staking of client deposits in each betting transaction, and payment of winnings in and legitimate commission out ?

Would both sides, faced with something like this, maybe eventiually say that SO was an aberration that would have been picked up and prevented under the incoming Gambling Commission regime ?

There are risks everywhere in life, including as regards banks, insurance companies and pension funds.   Many of us have quite happily traded thousands if not millions over the years on the basis of a phone call and credit, and with the underlying transaction not being legally enforceable.   Bookies have lived and prospered on that regime, albeit suffering notable defaulting clients.

Now we’re getting into an environment of concern about deposits because exchanges can’t guarantee settlement unless they have the funds immediately to hand, so can’t work on credit.

Personally, at the end of the day I’m happy enough to trust in Andrew and Ed and Ian and manage my own exposure (though, davejay, I would watch out that withdrawals out arrive as fast as deposits are put in, or actual exposure could be multiplied by maybe 3 days worth of overnight take out/ put in).  

But then I never signed with SO, and maybe would feel differently if I had.

best regards

wit <br>

[wit]

In its haste to reassure clients, I think Betfair is overstating the effect of ringfencing.

Its statement to clients on its website includes the claim:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br>…..The Royal Bank of Scotland treats the customer account as money that is subject to a legal trust. Therefore even if RBS were to be liquidated, Betfair’s customers (as beneficiaries of a trust) would be first in the queue at RBS……… <br><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

IMHO this is utterly wrong.

I can understand the preceding bit of its statement about "the trustee of the trust is a separate company called The Sporting Exchange (Clients) Limited", and the bit about RBS knowing its a trust account (and so not being able to apply banker’s right of combination to that account), and that therefore it might help folk with deposits if Betfair was to go bust.

But the relationship between RBS and TSE Clients Ltd – a customer of RBS acting as trustee or fiduciary- will still be that of debtor and creditor.   If RBS went belly up, Betfair clients would NOT have any special place in the queue of RBS’s creditors.

Even if – highly unlikely and not mentioned but possible -RBS has declared itself a second trustee of the funds deposited with it by TSE Clients and so has a dual role both  as a trust corporation and as a banker – it ain’t gonna help  anyone if RBS the trustee has then gone and deposited the money with itself as RBS the bank, which then goes bust.

Its a bit worrying when even BF seems not to understand the limits of ringfencing.

best regards

wit  

[Author]

Posts