salsafan

Because he was speaking from the ego and needed that "self actualisation" to happen and above that of the common harmonious natural state. Sometimes if you read the words that people write, it opens up an extension of their inner state. As the quote above shows "opium". He was criticising and judging others that believed in religion as if it is addictive. But if he ever stops and think for himself, and actually talk and share with others. He may learn to believe that every person has a kind of inner light and an inner ethic within themselves. This is the same in each and every generation. Each person when born see the situation with new baby fresh eyes again. So that is how religion turn into knowledge and knowledge turn into hatred, and then hatred turned into a "new" religion until someone stops and say "hey.. wasn't that the same as someone who wrote and said this in year x..." In these modern days, people seem to govern themselves. Both government, spiritualist, citizen, and everything else. I thought that people are supposed to live in a more cooperative way.

You have got a screw loose. Bragging ? Abusing a child ? You mean I should sit here and take this when someone threaten you with calling the social services to take your nephew away and bring down your sister emotionally and harass you and your family ? He can get lost. If you have such hatred in you, then go ahead and use what I wrote here to report me and convict me. Especially if you think that I am such an abuser. Then do so. I disgust you ? Like wise. Decent people stand tall and have nothing to hide. If you think that I have done something wrong, then by all means... Go ahead and contact the forum and do the rest. If this gets rid of your own hatred and steam, then by all means. ---------- Post added 31-03-2014 at 12:37 ---------- Not funny Mr C. To me, it is a form of communication method. From being tactile first and using body languages to using simple sounds and then forming sentences and things like that. Even when he met my other teenage nephew for the first time. I could tell that he was anxious and is a little bit weary being in a new environment. So I taught my other nephew to use baby noise and sound and he took to this and felt more at ease. It is one of those simple but intuitive things which you know needs to be done in order to help him grow every step of the way and be aware of his own environment. I also noticed that my other nephew got jealous too of the attention, especially when his mother spend more time on the baby. So you just know these kind of things. Maybe a lot of people do not stop to think about this kind of thing, but we know that. You just kind of know intuitively what works and why the child responds to you so much more. Even now as he meets other children, he can be weary, but he now uses his own method and ask quietly "want to play" ? Did you also play with your children when they were young and did you notice these kind of simple behaviours from them ?

If you have any evidences on that side of things, then go ahead and report me. I realised how harassing and intimidating you are, and actually twisting a scenario that I shared publically as a way to reduce the antagonism that you dug up publically to then actually intimidate me back this way personally. Despicable. No wonder I know that women now huddle together it is because of men like you! I expect nothing less from people in this city, cos I already know that a lot of people backstab this way rather than to stand up and chat honestly and openly. You do not scare ME. People like you, break families apart, and scare young moms. It is people like you who drag this up and blown it up publically and now the mom and the mother is here and stating their own actual side of the story, and you have not even an ounce of shame for perpetuating this at all, and now you wanted to displace your own anger onto innocent parties like myself ? Despicable. Shame on you.

To be honest, I do not see religion as a "way to control" the masses. Everybody has to live by a rule or a guidance. Even those who says they do not follow religion, but there is intrinsic part of themselves that follow a particular method and a way to live their own lives. This is nothing new. If you want to see yourself in a reflective way, a scientist once stated that people follow a Maslow's Hierarchy. Of needing creature's comforts, then friends, then partner, then family, and then some kind of self altruistic act. This kind of concept is quite true. It is just that, people now raises their own baseline to be different level. Some may seeing and needing the basic item as meeting their needs. Others uses branded name items as the basics. It just differs in some ways. To me, I see religion in this day and age as more of an anchor in a way to focus on the spiritual side of life, than a complete "controlling" aspect. To reduce anxiety and to find moments of inspiration on how to handle and deal with certain situations which conflicts with one's internal and moral values. It is not like in today's society that we are not tested with out own moral value each day. e.g. If you are a manager, then you need to fire an employee because someone told you to. But in doing so, it does put a lot of guilt on you as well knowing that the person now has to find another way to survive, this kind of thing.

I would go to CAB first and put all information before them even before considering to plead not guilty. http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/ https://www.gov.uk/tv-licence The above links show that if you do not receive live signals, then you do not need one. But then one link does state that even if you use Sky box to record a live signal but not actually to watch it live, you still need a TV license. The TVlicensing.co.uk link is more updated with information such as when it is a multi-tenancy rental place. As each person "requires" their own TV License. I did not even know this. I just have a home one, and never translated it to the different places I lived in. But then, I never did watch a live TV either in those places. I just watched DVDs or online iplayer. Plus even on iPlayers, not all items are "broadcast live". Some are pre-recorded. So you need to be quite specific and correct on the law on this one. If you are truly unsure, I would consider forking out money to get a solicitor's to deal with you just to be on the cautious side, and ask for his formal opinions.

I think "God" just mean "inner peace" in modern day terms. I was reading my Tao book again this past weekend, and it is so true what it says. With knowledge creates anxiety too. Overthinking, or overanalysing and overlooking of other people's feelings, words, and so forth. Finding peace with yourself, and doing a job which is using your own nature strengths is to be said to be "Godly". When there are conflicts, and differences, to avoid killing and dying, something "new" has to be introduced to avoid further conflicts and fights. But what is quite natural as it seems is that, once you are actually a part of a group and has emotion to attach to things, or people, you cannot bring yourself to fight or to kill, then you need to integrate too and keep a balance of harmonious state. Sometimes this take a little bit of Godliness in order to achieve. You think in a very black and white way, but have you thought that to be Godly, means to avoid fighting ? This explains why words and religion has been regurgitated into its various different form, so that the believer themselves feel peaceful, and feel safe. I can so easily see how religion has become what it is today. Very easily.

I know it isn't a documentary, but some of the truthful and historical reality was true, wasn't it ? He did get sued by his "friends" at university. He then settle them out with money when it came down to it. That could possibly also be around a time whereby his company can grow exponentially with backing. I have also seen this kind of situation happening too with other businesses. Somebody needs to own the true ownership and patent and then the business can grow on its own. Lots of people have these crazy ideas, and many people are quite intelligent actually. But the reality is still the case, "what" will make millions of people use something ? To use something, and then to make it grow. This is the point. To make it grow and then to pay for the growth. That is another thing. When you are hooked, then reduce services or make people pay for it. That is how most of the US tech worked in the past, and it shall be nothing new now too. I think why people rephrased it as "social" network is because they wanted to sell it across the US. Actually in the US, the culture itself is not very sociable, and it is more of a hype in the US than it is across the rest of the world. What makes people use the internet was because to connect with others, but I think this idea is now overdone. I dare say that in the future, this shall be reduced, and people would prefer to be less exposed. Because overstimulation is also not good for health too. ---------- Post added 30-03-2014 at 22:32 ---------- I think what is indeed moving this further afield is now the momentum of this new type of marketing. Some online things are working, whereas others are not. So... I think FB will indeed be successful because it has already got too much money invested into it not to do so. What may happen now is obviously to use the money for other things and diversify their own portfolios in order to find that business stability, and then whether the online FB works out or not, is irrelevant, cos they are a sustainable business already. Just like Yahoo did. Just like Google did. Google also own percentages of other companies already which is non-tech. This is how a business can jump above the stratosphere and make it stable. I thought that a company cannot diversify from their own portfolios in the specialty that they are a part of because of competition rules. But I cannot understand how these MNC can exists.

I agree with that. Just because the piece of written text was more relevant say many years ago, does not mean that we cannot use the concept or the symbolic element of the work itself, in modern day life too. To me, Christianity is more modern and is indeed can be more relevant in today's society too. I can see how and why it works. I see a lot of things in parallel these days any way, so it does not surprise me if the history in the past had indeed some overlaps somewhere. To me, just because something is not "accurate" in today's context, does not mean that we have to throw out everything and reject everything of the past. That is how I see it.

I had to really think about why you are not on the same wavelength as others. I also realised something from what has been written. It seems to me that you are trying to generalise the kind of Sharia Law that is being practised in a state with Islamic Law, and thinks that the way the Law itself will be introduced or made compliant with shall be the exact same way. Even when in reality, this has not been the case at all. Nor has there been an overhaul of the Common (English) Law here. The article which I linked previously is very true, and more professional and common sense because it abstracted the elements of the Islamic Law into components and translated that in terms of the American legal system or the UK one. The element which was translated so far is actually the Family Law element, and not the Criminal Law section. Which is what you have been going on about in terms of equality. I finally figured out what you are on about ! Even though you are not aware that that particular section of Sharia is not to be implemented into the legal system, and you fear this aspect. Even when asked why you fear, but you cannot see yourself as fearing this. That is rather strange also. Because when the facts are pointed out, you are generalising one component of the legal system with another. I have also read the article by the UK lawyer, and if I am honest, I just think to myself, "That is your job, sorry to say. You are the lawyer, so why complain about this?? Is this not your job to actually figure out this kind of complexity ?" To me, the way I read his article is that, he thinks that there are two section of the laws which may conflict, and is actually a grey area. But I also know that, the law is only enforceable and applicable when the actual case comes up. There may also be a decision point too. So shouldn't he actually ask for further clarification within his own profession to truly iron out the particular sections of the law that may not work all that smoothly ? To me, I read his action as also another one based from a fearful angle, and a negative angle, than one which is more solution-based, and more contemplative. On the note about religious freedom. I do not think that a "secular" government (and this is different to a secular society) will mean more religious freedom, because basically, we are a country which has got its priorities wrong to begin with and we are moving further and further away from humane things, and more and more into this negative, and antagonistic state, which uses "knowledge" for knowledge sake and removing the equality of a person's right altogether. On the note about Equality Act. I also wanted to point out that, there is INDEED a section of the law which states that, if these equalities are not met, then the public service, or the providers NEED to encourage the equality level to be raised. Therefore, in certain circumstances, the "positive discrimination" shall be enforceable. It does state this. It does. I can now also understand why some companies, have indeed increased the number of female employees within their own workforce, in order to increase the positive equality of gender.

Yes, but the question is, should the solicitor also force a non-Sharia list of distribution of wealth onto the client ? My guess is a "no". Solicitors are there to provide advice and to support. I agree with what the others have said before about this being a marketing thing because in a way, anybody can write in their own adverts "we can write sharia wills", and try to get more businesses that way, but when in reality, all solicitors can indeed write a will. Maybe some solicitors thought that it is far more complex than it seems. I don't know. We are really grasping at theories now and guessing what could have happened. ---------- Post added 27-03-2014 at 19:58 ---------- Anyway, why are we going into this level of details ? I am not a solicitor.

FYI Zamo. I found this article from an American Solicitors on what is classed as "Sharia Law". It is indeed interesting, as it really only cover a certain aspect of the legal system. e.g. Family Law. http://omanlawblog.curtis.com/2011/04/sharia-law-in-oman.html This is going to hurt my brain. It gets quite complicated. I did wondered how US or UK have traded with other countries where Islamic Law already applies, and this is why. Because the Commercial Law is quite similar. By the way, I noted that this is just an article about Oman's Law only. It seems that other countries may have far more complicated structure also too. For example, take Malaysia into account. Only a few of their states follow Sharia Law. The rest of the country does not. So how do citizens actually live in that country ? As above, Sharia only really affect the Family Law when compared to Common Law of other countries. Here is also a list of countries with the different type of laws in existence. Common Law, and Civil Law are the main legal system for many countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

But we are bordering into a grey area argument here. The solicitor is a service provider. He cannot tell what his client to do. He has to support what his client wants. As a service provider, he cannot turn a person away because of their religion, and this is governed and enforced by the recently updated Equality Act. Does that make sense to you ? To me, they are just protecting themselves so that they do not land into legal hot water. Nothing more to it than that. Maybe muslims have been turned away before in the past, and that is why there had been dedicated muslim solicitors who deal with this kind of thing. Because if this is the case, then we are going back to that good old hair dresser example again about discrimination without intent or actually realising the remit of the law itself for business owners. Solicitors are asked by employers often anyway with regards to Employment Act. You forget that as a solicitor, they are still needing to act impartially too. Without biases. I know this because I once had to deal with an employment issue, and I understood what the lawyer was doing, without being implicit. He follows my instruction and can only answer what I ask, in accordance to the law, but without advice on how he wants me to deal with the situation.

Because they also need to be seen to be acting with the law too. Especially if they need to also protect their own members as well.

There really is a lot of nice greenaries and fertile land to really make use of. Here's hoping that more produce are going to be as well received as the honey farmer ones. I noticed of late that F&C and Liberties are bringing it back home and selling more of "best of British". I hope it works. Especially if we are going to enter the next phase of doing International Business with other countries too. Here's hoping !

If you want this to be a thread about the law itself, and I am doing so in a style to humour you, which does not enable me to also violate the law myself too. Then that is the approach to discuss the logic, it has to be on a very objective level. But if you want to be prejudicial yourself and write in such a way which is subjective, then you are on your own. Take it or leave it. In the beginning of the thread, I teased others on their English and understanding of Sharia, because there is no such a law existing in England legally. That is why I was a bit mean to teased others on that alone. I think you are confusing yourself on how the equality act applies, and how your own view actually is seen. The thread title states "Combining UK and Islamic Law", but the Islamic Law of Islamic states are far more complex than what is asked of here, which is really about writing a will. The criminal aspect of Sharia has not even been taken into account either. So it is NOT a combination of Sharia Law with UK Common Law. It really is a Law Society interpreting Sharia in the eyes of the Common Law, with regards to will writing, for general public and members to see !

But you need to, because this is how we are, and what is the reality. You are a citizen. I am a citizen. Zamo is a citizen. That is why what he writes and how he writes represents him as a person. He needs to take responsibility for that. Some of his logic is confusing and is not really coming across as he intend it to be. That is the problem why it can sound more aggravating then it should !

The action taken by the Law Society now resolve such situations: Muslim client - "I would like to draw up a will. I would like it to follow Sharia." Solicitor - "Sir, I apologise. I cannot provide this service, as I do not understand what is Sharia." If the solicitor did this, then he would have broken the law himself, and violated the Equality Act. For discriminating him against a service which he is entitled to because of his religion. Remember, there is a difference between a person living freely and practising who and what they are in this country, and asking for services and the government to accept and give the person their due support and help. Compared to, a person who IS discriminatory towards others on a person to person basis. This may make it more clear: Type 1 - Relationship between State to Citizen. Type 2 - Relationship between Businesses to Citizen. Type 3 - Relationship between Citizen to Citizen. Equality Act, as it currently stands, govern type 1 and type 2. Not type 3s. Type 3s are only enforceable, if that Citizen who is being discriminatory, is doing so within the actual job position of the State or the Business. Type 3 is governed by ASBO actually.

Sorry. I apologise for calling you daft. You wrote that he "single-handedly" rebooted the dot com bubble and that is not true. I didn't pay for Whatsapp. Are you trying to insinuate again ? Anyway, I thought the hype is about data, but then Zuckerberg got cheated out of, didn't he ? I also do not see the future well for this company as many others also predict. Surely you can tell that, right ? Anyway, I do not like him all that much. If you watch the movie, then you will know. It is a typical story of US grad student fighting and cheated his mate out of their fair share of the company, and then got venture capitalists investors to propel himself above its struggle to gain further market shares. Then Boris tries to say that UK need the same type of companies to be like that. I think he is nuts.

Yes, me too. I like to hope that by eating more local, the prices will drop as there are more choices. Then everyone can eat well too. This local honey business I have not seen or heard of before, but it is interesting that they became the supplier as well. I hope more local businesses will try to aim for this too.

Don't you know how they structure the game? They make you pay for extra lives, and they make the game hard cos they strip away the normal basic things which you get. So you try and get to this point, and then they hang you in mid air and hope that you will pay. It takes a lot of will power to pull back and not pay. I don't like this concept all that much. I can guess how addictive it can be too though. Imagine all the little kids paying for this with their pocket money ? It's like gambling. ---------- Post added 27-03-2014 at 14:31 ---------- Zuckerberg did not reboot the economy. Don't be daft. Maybe you are giving him too much credit. After the initial big "boom" of the IT bubble, a lot of people cannot foresee, or did not want to pay for these companies because the business models were not working. i.e. not have the people behind them to pay and it does not end up in a sale. Hence, why suddenly everyone in Silicon Valley as well as Wall Street investors, wanted to make the business happens. A lot of small start up caught a second wave in Silicon Valley and went and aim for that big social media wave. i.e. MORE people = MORE money. With small amount of money per person. That is why it became this boom and this big wave. Everybody knows that this is the only way, but to be honest, who would pay ? All the silly teens went and wrote apps which then gave it away to Apple for free. Whereas you used to pay a coder to write them, but suddenly everyone was doing things for free. But who is earning? Apple. It is a lot of hired hands for how much ? Not very much. Imagine this was a sustainable business model, many people would have also been millionaires by now too. I am not quite sure if such companies being so large how this would affect the economy that they are a part of. Because it then means that they will affect the other start ups. Maybe there should be laws now governing this areas. Apple started to lock down on copyright by per country already. The most playable games have the most simple and classic concepts. I kept all my old games. Did you know that a lot of people got paid by these agencies to continue clicking in order to gain more market share and hence it gives the idea and the stats to show these investors the feasibility is there. It really is just buying time if there are no solid sales behind all of this kind of thing.

Urm. Okay. (Salsafan backs away slowly...) So, what do you think of this Yorkshire Farmer and what he has achieved ? Don't you think it's great for the local economy ? (Hopeful look.)

http://marketmill.co.uk/from-farmers-market-to-fortnum-and-mason/ Just wanted to show others what can be done, and what people prefer these days in terms of sustainability and good wholesome food. Well done to him ! People say there is not much going for Yorkshire but that is not true.

You should never walk out of your shifts, cos the company can dismiss you if this is in their employment condition that you did not adhere to their clauses. Always either work that extra and make sure you cover the hours, and more. Than if you did not. Always play it safer.

I have to say Wateralls' meat pie are good. They know what it should taste like. I saw a new Crawshaw store in the Moor. So I was wondering really. Nice to know though.

Is this Crawshaw ?