Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Ughh.

It seems to me that many atheists, having lost their belief in a "god" and "rules and regulations", switch their belief in a "non-god" with as much zeal as many fervent believers in a "god".

Not having a "god and rules and regulations", may relieve them of communal moral responsibility for some of their own actions.

From my own experiences, many who have religious beliefs and adhere to them, seem more content than free roaming atheists without a real basis for a moral code.

But it is strange how others having religious beliefs, engenders so much hostility from those propounding atheism.

=

Gadaffi,

I am quite happy that the above has been eradicated and think his death has probably saved the "new regime possible problems. If he remained alive, he might have been a focus point for his previous followers.

But, if he was killed when a prisoner and "defenceless", the perpetrator's action was probably "illegal" and against international law.

Many of Gadaffi's actions were against international law and copying his actions, by members of the new administration, or a "police" officer (who thinks he knows what is right, or wrong) is, I think, in itself wrong. (Setting the example for others do likewise at whim. Perhaps, Mafia justice.


If you have a legal system and laws, which you hope to protect you, then it is necessary to uphold them.

That means, no picking and choosing on based on ones own insightful instincts.

Gadaffi, picked and chose which laws he wished to keep to and justified his deviations, when they were advantageous to himself.

(If you don't like the laws, or rules, change them, don't break them. The latter leads to anarchy. Use the constitution of the relevant country to do so.)



-----------------


If I had caught G, I might have shot him!





===========

Fred

"Not having a "god and rules and regulations", may relieve them of communal moral responsibility for some of their own actions."

You don't need god to have a framework of morals. I have no hostility against believers in god and religious people, I just want them stopped from teaching it all to children and having tax breaks that we are paying for.

By the way Life of Brian is on BBC 2 at 9:00pm tinight.

Hays,

I agree with you that there should be a separation of state and religion.

I don't like "religiously segregated schools" and do not think they should be subsidised by the state.

I don't think that being a "religious organisation" should receive tax "allowances" or "benefits" for being, but would be tolerant of support for them for "social work" they undertake.

I.E. the likes of the work carried out by the Salvation Army, with what many see as the untouchables.

Religion, without the hypocrisy which tends to go with it, can be of "humane" benefit to society.

Replacing the beneficial effects by teaching of "a state's institutional civil morality" would be difficult.

Look how communism seems to have failed.

delete

As expected there are several bodies calling for a full inquiry into how Gaddafi died.

No doubt any such inquiry would find that one or more very angry people executed him, with several shots to the head and body.

It would also probably find that some or all of those involved had suffered either personally or had relations imprisoned and tortured on Gaddafi' orders, or/and had relatives disappear.

And just think of the problem it would cause if this person or persons were bought to trial and found guilty, what would be the punishment.
According to the Human Rights commission, being convicted of summary execution ( a war crime) would result in a lengthy prison sentence, and just think how that would go down in Libya.

I posted earlier that it would not take long for the 'bleeding heart liberals' to start banging their drum.
I read a letter in todays Telegraph saying that everyone deserves dignity in death, no matter what they have done.
It is people off the 'Turn the other cheek brigade' that allows despots such as Gaddafi to rule as long as they do.
In my experience if you turn the other cheek, it just gives the other person something else to hit.

I doubt anyone on this earth thinks Gaddafi is an innocent (got in with the wrong crowd perhaps) so summery justice is what he got and deserved.

I am sure someone will use the argument that justice has to be done and seen to be done, well as far as I am concerned it was.

All this requires, is a statement to the effect that any inquiry held by other that the National Transitional Council of Libya would be counter effective, and then leave it to the NTC sort out.

Bring back the vigilantes, they are always right and besides, they will know that everybody else agrees with.

How many "paedophiles" were "hounded" by the braying mob, with absolute certainty of the rights of their cause? (Remember "Megan's law".) Afterwards some of those hounded were found afterwards not to have committed the supposed offence.

=======

Out of interest, how many "doubles" did Gadaffi have?

How many would have given their life for him?


Umhh.

Which member of the present cabinet is next to walk the plank?

Doesn't seem credible but is cut and pasted from The Telegraph, which I thought was a tory flag.

Article previously indicated by Goldy.



"Michael Gove has raised tens of thousands of pounds from rich City financiers to fund his private office.

Michael Gove, Mick Davis, Adam Werritty

Mr Davis, centre, the chief executive of the mining company Xstrata, gave money to both Michael Gove, left, and Adam Werritty, right Photo: AP/HANDOUT/PA

By Holly Watt, and Heidi Blake

7:00AM BST 21 Oct 2011

The Daily Telegraph can disclose that over the past few months, the Education Secretary raised 30,000 from donors one of whom provided money for Dr Liam Foxs unofficial adviser, Adam Werritty.

Mr Goves parliamentary register of interests states that the money was secured to support his work as an MP. But Mr Gove has refused to say what exactly the money has been used for, in particular whether it paid for an adviser.

The majority of the money was declared in August after details of Dr Liam Foxs unofficial adviser first began to surface. One of the donors also provided money to Pargav Limited, the secretive company at the centre of the Fox scandal.

In total, Mr Gove reported more than 30,500 of donations in the capacity as an MP in August. The amount is far higher than any other MP.

According to parliamentary rules, donations registered in this way usually refer to costs relating to the services of a research assistant or secretary whose salary, in whole or in part, is met by an outside organisation or individual or the provision of free or subsidised accommodation for the Members use.

The donors to Mr Goves office include Mick Davis, who also gave money to Pargav, the company that funded Mr Werrittys international travel.

Mr Davis, the chief executive of the mining company Xstrata, gave Mr Gove 7,500 to support him in the capacity as an MP. Mr Davis declined to comment last night. A company called Manrows Ltd gave 5,000 to Mr Gove. The only director in Manrows is Manny Weiss, an aluminium trader, who used to work with the disgraced aluminium trader Marc Rich. Mr Weiss was unavailable for comment last night.

Mr Gove received 5,000 in May from Christofferson, Robb & Company, the private money management firm. A spokesman for the company said last night that the donation had been made after a member of Mr Goves parliamentary staff said the MP needed extra cash to pay for his office costs.

Mr Gove received a donation of 2,000 from Nick Leslau, the millionaire property tycoon who owns Thorpe Park. The Education Secretarys entry in the register of members interests states that the donation was received on August 10, but Mr Leslau said last night that it had been paid on June 27. The chairman and chief executive of Prestbury Investments said he had given the money after being unable to attend a fund-raising drinks reception hosted by Mr Gove at which donors were given the chance to talk to the Education Secretary about state schools and Islamic extremism. He said he was unaware of what the funds were spent on, but that he had been assured that his donation would be declared, and insisted he had categorically not given money to fund an adviser.

Mr Leslau said last night: I was asked for the money and I dont recall any particular reason why, but I made the donation because I like Michael Gove and I have been a school governor for 14 years. I was not aware that there had been a spate of donations in August, but I can say absolutely categorically that under no circumstances would I knowingly give money to pay for an adviser.

Over the past two days, Mr Goves spokesman has repeatedly declined to answer questions from The Daily Telegraph as to whether the money funded an unofficial adviser or whether it was used for another purpose. One source close to the Education Secretary, when asked about whether the money was used to pay for an adviser, replied by text message: Not sure what you mean by 'adviser could cover all sorts.

Yesterday, a source close to Mr Gove said that the minister raises money from private donors, all of which have been properly declared to Parliament and the Electoral Commission, to pay for political activity that should not and could not be paid for by taxpayers. For example, things like paying someone to make a video for party conference are paid for by private donations not by taxpayers via parliamentary expenses.

Fred
I can see that it is a bitter pill for you to swallow, but you are stuck with this government for at least four more years. I suspect that it may be for another five after that. You will be a lot happier if you just sit in a dark room and begin to accept it. Labour is heading left. Until Blair shifted Labour temporarily to the right it never won two elections in a row and not many at all even then. Hopefully we are returning to those heady days of a socialist in a donkey jackey that was unelectable. It is a great shame that John Smith died in 1994 as he was also unelectable and we would have been spared Blair and New Labour.

Haystack

I agree with ever word.

Fred

If this is your reply to Greekman's post.


Bring back the vigilantes, they are always right and besides, they will know that everybody else agrees with.

How many "paedophiles" were "hounded" by the braying mob, with absolute certainty of the rights of their cause? (Remember "Megan's law".) Afterwards some of those hounded were found afterwards not to have committed the supposed offence.

=======

Out of interest, how many "doubles" did Gadaffi have?

How many would have given their life for him?


Umhh.



Then you are a complete idiot

Hays,

You are entitled to live in hope.

The economy at the end of this coalition will be in tatters.

The tories will split into the little englanders and the moderate rump.

The majority of Libs will probably vote Labour in disgust at Clegg selling out.

Just a guess.

But this government is accident prone and PR won't get them out of their problems.

Also, the press is beginning to forsake them.

--------

I see the the intellectual stalker is still up, I think he is in need of help!

Its time for your medication Fred . I wish they would take his computer away.

.

The Retail Prices Index (RPI) - which includes mortgage interest payments - rose to 5.6% from 5.2%.

My company pension is index linked up to 5% , but luckily I have no mortgage to pay .

http://news.aol.co.uk/main-news/story/jailed-rioters-from-44-countries/1953977/

Church Bulletins.

The Fasting and Prayer Conference includes meals.

Call me Dave is going to be busy today over Europe and the dissent in his party. I dont like the idea of this 3 line whip.

I say give the people a referendum. I was too young to vote for the Common Market and strikes me it wasnt set up to give away all our powers to Europe.

We need them back.

Im not saying lets get out, Im saying lets get out if we dont get some control back over the running of OUR own country.

Morning Haystack re post 12275.

really!!!


You expect the conservatives to win the next election.

What I see is the return to the dark days of feuding over Europe which has been a noose around the partys neck for years.

I think people are looking for a party to be different, so a slight move by labour to the left could be a good thing for them.

Just my opinion as usual.

Hi Goldfinger,

I would vote in a referendum for the 3rd option of renegotiation, if I thought there was any hope of getting a good deal, but no doubt such renegotiations would result in yet another fudge, whereby we end up with giving away even more that we would receive.

Just finished reading that Mr Cameron is fed up with Alex Salmon and the SNP because they will not come out in the open and name a date for a referendum on Scottish independence.
He (Mr Cameron) stated that the SNP continue to ignore calls to make public the date of the referendum.
He also stated that he wants the Scottish people to be presented with a straight Yes or No vote and that the question needs to be put sooner rather than later.

This of course is the same Mr Cameron that has stated that now is not the time for a referendum on EU membership as this will detract from our efforts to sort out the present EU financial crisis.

So he must feel that a Scottish referendum would not distract anyone from EU matters, presumably because he feels that no one is interested.

But to say that the people of Scotland deserve to be given a date regarding their referendum, and yet denying the UK electorate even the chance to have a EU referendum, even allowing for a none stated date of holding such a referendum, must go down as one of the most hypocritical, none democratic statements ever made by a Prime Minister.
And remember he is using bully boy tactics to deny even elected members of his own government a chance to debate such issues of the referendum on the EU.

In a meeting with my own MP Graham Stuart on Saturday I informed him that I will never again vote Conservative as long as Mr Cameron is leader.

I can also confirm that Graham Stuart will be voting NO in todays vote re holding a referendum.

He also stated that he is in general terms against referendums as he believes that as an elected member he should be allowed to represent the people.
I put it to him that he is not representing the electorate, as it is their wish to hold a referendum on continuing EU membership.
I also said, I agree that it is pointless running a country on a referendum system, but in some cases such as membership of the EU, the people have a right to a say, especially when a government was elected on a belief that such a referendum would be held.
His argument to that was that, Mr Cameron only stated that he would hold a referendum if further significant loss of power is taken away from the UK and that all Mr Cameron had stated was that he had ring fenced any further loss of power away from the UK.

To me Cameron is like a car salesman who has hidden detail in the small print.

I wonder if he is aware of the raw anger out there re this broken promise and the feeling of impotence felt by the general public.

The referendum is not going to happen. There is no appetite for one in the commons. I do think the Conservatives will get in again in four years. By then the economy will be doing fine and people have short memories. Conservatibe government usually have at least two terms in a row and Labour do not.

I agree 100% with you GM.

Cameron for me is just not consistent and above all is just a salesman for his party. Never their when needed aswel, look at the riots, he didnt turn up until day 4.