On Aug 28, 11:56*am, "Recliner" wrote:

"Charles Ellson" wrote:
[...]
The Church of Scotland was not created or "approved" by the law of any
government of Scotland or the UK.
The Church of Scotland always disclaimed a state connection and this
was acknowledged by the government in the Church of Scotland Act 1921,
see :-
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/11-12/29
[...]
Not only will the Kirk not tolerate state interference, the state
itself acknowledges it has no business in its government.

What a pity the English situation is different. It seems so bizarre that
in a largely non-religious country that there is still a state religion,
with bishops voting in parliament. And as a taxpayer I strongly
disapprove of state money going into religious schools. I'm perfectly
happy for religions to run schools if they choose to do so, but I don't
want any of my taxes going into them. And it's even worse that parents
have to feign faith so that their children can get into state-funded
schools.

I think in practice the specific influence of the C of E is genuinely
minimal in government affairs nowadays, at least in terms of influence
derived from their being the 'established' church. I can't recall any
specific controversies (at least not of late) where the Bishops in the
Lords have been instrumental by voting in a particular way (and they
do put forward the idea that they represent all 'people of faith',
rather than just specifically Anglicans) - though it's high time that
HoL reform happened - I'd have a fully elected Senate instead. (I can
sort of appreciate argument in favour for the 80/20% elected/appointed
outcome, in terms of having some 'experts' and wisened experience old
statemen/women in there - but at the same time I'm slightly
disappointed that I allow myself to countenance such undemocratic
thoughts!) And just to clarify, that'd be a Senate without Bishops -
but the way change is done here,I can see that not happening - if
indeed proper HoL reform actually finally gets off the ground at all
(about bloody time it did - been waiting a hundred years already...).

"Mizter T" wrote in message

On Aug 28, 11:56 am, "Recliner" wrote:

"Charles Ellson" wrote:
[...]
The Church of Scotland was not created or "approved" by the law of
any government of Scotland or the UK.
The Church of Scotland always disclaimed a state connection and this
was acknowledged by the government in the Church of Scotland Act
1921, see :-
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/11-12/29
[...]
Not only will the Kirk not tolerate state interference, the state
itself acknowledges it has no business in its government.

What a pity the English situation is different. It seems so bizarre
that in a largely non-religious country that there is still a state
religion, with bishops voting in parliament. And as a taxpayer I
strongly disapprove of state money going into religious schools. I'm
perfectly happy for religions to run schools if they choose to do
so, but I don't want any of my taxes going into them. And it's even
worse that parents have to feign faith so that their children can
get into state-funded schools.

I think in practice the specific influence of the C of E is genuinely
minimal in government affairs nowadays, at least in terms of influence
derived from their being the 'established' church. I can't recall any
specific controversies (at least not of late) where the Bishops in the
Lords have been instrumental by voting in a particular way (and they
do put forward the idea that they represent all 'people of faith',
rather than just specifically Anglicans) - though it's high time that
HoL reform happened - I'd have a fully elected Senate instead. (I can
sort of appreciate argument in favour for the 80/20% elected/appointed
outcome, in terms of having some 'experts' and wisened experience old
statemen/women in there - but at the same time I'm slightly
disappointed that I allow myself to countenance such undemocratic
thoughts!) And just to clarify, that'd be a Senate without Bishops -
but the way change is done here,I can see that not happening - if
indeed proper HoL reform actually finally gets off the ground at all
(about bloody time it did - been waiting a hundred years already...).

Yes, I'd go along with your prescription for reform, including probably
the 80:20 split, but to be fair, there has been some HoL reform already
(ie, reduced powers to overturn key Commons decisions, and the
near-elimination of hereditary peers). And it's not quite as easy as it
used to be to pack the Lords with the PM's pals, even though some pretty
dubious types (like the recently ejected Commons speaker and London
police commissioner) still end up there.

On Aug 28, 1:20*pm, "Recliner" wrote:
[snip]
Yes, I'd go along with your prescription for reform, including probably
the 80:20 split, but to be fair, there has been some HoL reform already
(ie, reduced powers to overturn key Commons decisions, and the
near-elimination of hereditary peers). And it's not quite as easy as it
used to be to pack the Lords with the PM's pals, even though some pretty
dubious types (like the recently ejected Commons speaker and London
police commissioner) still end up there.

Though the removal of (most of) the hereditaries was only ever the
first stage, as we were so earnestly promised at the time (by people
who I'm sure believed that as well).

(And I'm also tempted to say that Ian Blair might well have some
useful stuff to contribute - he was a more thoughtful top-plod than
many have been, albeit a flawed one of course. But I digress!)

On Aug 26, 12:38*pm, The Real Doctor
wrote:
On 26/08/11 11:28, 1506 wrote:

It is nonsense. *Until now, in civilized countries, we have tried
people for actions not thoughts and speech.

"The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed
in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means
"the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind be also guilty"."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

Ian

The standard example would be manslaughter vs murder, where the mens
rea is the only difference. And I'm not sure which "civilised
country" is being propounded, because English Law (and by extension
most common law countries) has had a long history of crimes like
sedition, incitement, scandalum magnatum, criminal libel, conspiracy
(which in English, as opposed to US, law doesn't require an overt act)
and so on which precisely criminalise speech. And it's not as though
the huge pile of legislation repealed by the Roman Catholic Relief Act
1829 was dusty and unenforced, was it?

ian

On 28/08/11 11:56, Recliner wrote:
What a pity the English situation is different. It seems so bizarre that
in a largely non-religious country that there is still a state religion,
with bishops voting in parliament.

It's just as bad in Bonny Scotland where old Joe Devine and his
left-footed Army of the Night attempt - with some success - to order
political parties about. What's more, they have the nerve to claim a
moral basis for their actions, though if the RCC really believed in
morals, atonement and so on they'd be keeping their collective heads
down for, ooh, a thousand years of repentance would do well. For a start.

Not that the prods are much better. See Soutar's attempts to buy
religious influence. A bit of ob.railway in there, too.

Ian

In uk.railway Mizter T twisted the electrons to say:
though it's high time that HoL reform happened - I'd have a fully
elected Senate instead.

Why not just go for a unicameral system? If the upper house is directly
elected then it will likely reflect the composition of the lower house
anyway, so let's save a bit of cash and only have one lot of corrupt
politicans rather than two?

Though I'd rather go for a "Federal UK", with the upper house indirectly
elected like the Austrian & German Bundesraete and the US Senate (prior
to the 17th Amendment). We'd also need IMHO to do something with the
Parliament Acts 1911 & 1949 at that point to prevent the lower house from
being able to overrule the upper ...
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

"Alistair Gunn" wrote

Why not just go for a unicameral system? If the upper house is directly
elected then it will likely reflect the composition of the lower house
anyway, so let's save a bit of cash and only have one lot of corrupt
politicans rather than two?

The House of Commons is too addicted to wasting its time on party politics
to do legislation properly. The Upper Chamber is needed as a revising
chamber to have half a chance of getting right, or at least workable,
legislation. An appointed (or partly appointed) chamber needn't be a
problem, as long as the appointing commission was, and was seen to be, above
party politics, and with nominations for their consideration being open (to
give proper time for press scrutiny).

Peter

On Aug 28, 2:07*pm, ian batten wrote:
On Aug 26, 12:38*pm, The Real Doctor
wrote:

On 26/08/11 11:28, 1506 wrote:

It is nonsense. *Until now, in civilized countries, we have tried
people for actions not thoughts and speech.

"The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed
in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means
"the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind be also guilty"."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

Ian

The standard example would be manslaughter vs murder, where the mens
rea is the only difference. *And I'm not sure which "civilised
country" is being propounded, because English Law (and by extension
most common law countries) has had a long history of crimes like
sedition, incitement, scandalum magnatum, criminal libel, conspiracy
(which in English, as opposed to US, law doesn't require an overt act)
and so on which precisely criminalise speech. *And it's not as though
the huge pile of legislation repealed by the Roman Catholic Relief Act
1829 was dusty and unenforced, was it?

ian

So if you "conspire" to do something a bit mischevous but not illegal,
like, I don't know, putting a whoopee cushion under someone's seat or
something equally trivial, you're technically breaking the law?
Bizarre.

Nick

On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 13:49:32 -0700 (PDT), Nick
wrote:

On Aug 28, 2:07*pm, ian batten wrote:
On Aug 26, 12:38*pm, The Real Doctor
wrote:

On 26/08/11 11:28, 1506 wrote:

It is nonsense. *Until now, in civilized countries, we have tried
people for actions not thoughts and speech.

"The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed
in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means
"the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind be also guilty"."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

Ian

The standard example would be manslaughter vs murder, where the mens
rea is the only difference. *And I'm not sure which "civilised
country" is being propounded, because English Law (and by extension
most common law countries) has had a long history of crimes like
sedition, incitement, scandalum magnatum, criminal libel, conspiracy
(which in English, as opposed to US, law doesn't require an overt act)
and so on which precisely criminalise speech. *And it's not as though
the huge pile of legislation repealed by the Roman Catholic Relief Act
1829 was dusty and unenforced, was it?

ian

So if you "conspire" to do something a bit mischevous but not illegal,
like, I don't know, putting a whoopee cushion under someone's seat or
something equally trivial, you're technically breaking the law?
Bizarre.

If it outrages public decency there is nothing "technical" about it.
For the conspiracy offences remaining under English Law it is not
necessary for the intended act to be an offence or to be committed
within the jurisdiction; IIRC before 1977 it was only necessary for
the intended act to be against public policy, the potential scope for
prosecution being the reason for the serious limitation imposed from
then.

On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 19:21:12 +0100
The Iron Jelloid wrote:
So if they'd killed him because they didn't like say his blue shirt then
they were threatening everyone who wore blue shirts? Do me a fscking favour.

Not so long ago a young woman was savagely beaten to death by a mob in a
park in Lancashire, entirely because of what she was wearing - she was a
Goth. The SOPHIE campaign was the result. Attacks on people for their
dress sense are not unknown, and an attack on someone who identifies
themselves as belonging to any given group does put others of the same
group in fear.

Sure, people can get picked out because they look different. Doesn't necessarily
mean the people who did it were on a mission to get everyone who dressed like
that.

Suppose a serial killer started to kill people, and it was eventually
proven that the only common link between the murders was that all the
victims had been active posters on uk.railway. Wouldn't you find that a
little bit alarming, assuming you'd not yet been one of the victims and
the killer was still at large? I certainly would.

Sure. But other than on TV dramas when has something like that ever
happened?

B2003