salsafan

Nooooo.... that is crazy ! Everyone knew that you can indeed make money from the internet. People thought that softwares could do the same, but this kind of app. Is just. Crazy ! Also, I couldn't believe that some silly people really pay to get onto the next stage or for extra lives. That is crazy. Seriously crazy. It makes you think how much we pay normally for our goods. Some items are not truly worth it. Really. There really is no point to pay for games.

I'm kind of buzzing from the trip today. So I went to my favourite place Smith & Tissington and I did see the chicken, but they were not hot, I do not think. I didn't buy them in the end, as it looked a bit small. Maybe next time. I wonder if they are from Tissington or somewhere like that. If it is, then I would buy free range chicken. And yes, I can tell the difference when it is the case too. I didn't get any hot pork in Wateralls, as the lady said that it is only certain time of the day. I did feel a little bit disappointed by that. I tried Sharon's too, and they already were closed. I think in some ways, the remaining stores are getting better. The fruit and veg stall caught my eyes today with their great big mooli. Then I noticed that they really caught on as there is a section of unique salad boxes. This reminded me of London's Borough market. You could find all sorts of salad leaves there to put together a proper continental type salad. It really got me giddy. These are the type of salads that you can put together and ordered say in Cafe Rouge or Strada. To see those on the shelves got my heart bumping a bit faster. I did manage to get some pork pies, and sausage rolls from Wateralls. My God. I wish I discovered market's sausage rolls before. There is something about them which differs to Gregg's. I do not know what it is yet. Whether the fat is made from dripping or other, but it smelt GREAT. I got 2 for 1.30 or so ? I got some sausages as well. Going to try them later on. I also managed to get some cheese. I think the guy got confused. He let me tried a small piece and I was so wow'd by it. It is very very smooth, and it is from Lancashire. It melt in the mouth. I wondered how come I have never tasted this kind of thing before. I was thinking that this could actually be put into a salad or other. He only had local cheeses, but I was really after a bit of edam. But I was just wondering whether people do not try this is because they may not know how to put together a meal from these ingredients. The cheese was unpasteurised as well. It really wow'd me. I then went onto the other cheese place. I suddenly got an inspiration to go for some parmesan cheese for my favourite pasta dish. I felt lucky to have found them here in the local market. When the guy said that the parmesan only cost me 50p or so. I almost grabbed it and ran. I wonder if he knows that it is being charged quite expensively say in supermarkets. I did go to Carluccio today also to get the linguine to go with it. I once bought a piece from Carluccio in Windsor, and my mouth dropped at the pricing. I do think that it is fairly fresh and definitely imported. When I used it, I could tell. To be honest, I finally figured out why the market is not catching on. It needs a bit of marketing and ooomph ! It would be nice if there is a way to demonstrate recipes or ingredients that you get from the market to turn into recipes, or to show how much a shop can cost. Maybe this will bring back the customers, as long as they can see the potential of what to buy and how to cook it. I would love to write a food blog based on this place if the ingredients are going to be more and more unique and can almost compare to that of say London's Borough market. It will bring people back into town. Because even some ingredients are not seen or found anywhere else. I can also see that my pears are from Spain. Considering Spain is now kind of going down economically, I dare say that their fruit business can be quite low in pricing. If I was a store holder, I would try and capitalise on that now. I got my box of pears from Spain today. Previously I also managed to get some Seville oranges too from Waitrose. So this is quite a reality now. Why doesn't someone bring in some parma ham ???

Indeed. What are they going to do when it is on the mobile too ? Or other gadgets ? The tech world is moving too fast. I am surprised that they are not targetting copyrights. I can see slowly that even on youtube, some materials cannot be watched in other countries? Even the BBC World cannot be seen by me now in the UK. A lot of restrictions are now set into place. To think that China first blocked all offensive materials from outside and allow controlled information into the country only. Well, this is NOT surprising at all. Maybe in their own indirect way, they have managed not to get into the copyright trap.

It is a fear in our eyes as a bystander reading this on a person to person level from you. Muslims want this for themselves even when it does not impact you. You have your right, and your voice, and you can choose. Muslims also have their right, their voice, and their religious fights too. Even if they think that the versions of the Sharia is somewhat wrong, it is down to them as British Muslims to raise this as a concern and root it through the proper channels. At the moment, the Law Society is just integrated or really to "define" guidance for those who may not be muslim solicitors anyway but are asked where the boundary lies and how it works. Even the Sharia Council has established guidance also on how to divorce. It is more symbolic. The Sharia Council provide the religious aspect of it. The Law Society provides the legal aspect of it. Combined together, it is the same as if this is in another country whereby Sharia Law is part of the state's legal system. But in the UK, the state shall never be Islamic to begin with. As we have the Common Law written for many many years and it is pretty well established and integrated. Even when it comes to Christianity, there are aspects of Common Law which incorporates some of the old religion of the Roman Empire days and the Catholic Church. (You asked why the Catholic church is exempt from certain aspect of Common Law, well, this may be why. Unless you want to overthrow the entire Catholic Church establishment, and why would you want to challenge this to begin with ?) I do not see anybody disputing this. Why should they any way ? It has been working on that ground for quite a long time. In fact, I was reading today that, because of the loose structure of the Anglican church, a few bishops have "come home" to the Catholic church again. To really focus on their spiritual life and work. I am sure that a lot of people felt like that they wont a battle to have homosexual priests, but if in doing so, you take down the whole church itself, then really what is indeed the point ? You win your personal battle over the sake of many others ? Then suddenly, there is no more church ? Of which many attend to seek sanctuary any way ? But it also really boils down to how the law is written. I do not know if within our current Common Law, whether an Anglican church have a different status to that of a Catholic Church or not. I am really not that well versed there. To me, I can survive in this country with my views and with my way of life too. So why should I push mine over that of someone else's? If my point is to achieve harmony to begin with ? (By the way, are you forgetting that this is a "democratic" country ? It means, your right, your vote. My right, my vote. )

Never mind.

Thanks for that info. I really appreciate it. I'm going to try it this week and make the best of it whilst I am still back home here.

It's such a funny picture. The guy in the photo looks a little bit apprehensive...

It is not really a separatist issue is it ? Even people who were Christians were fighting internally and throwing bombs with one another and wanting their own rights. Same with Scotland now, wanting far more power. Same as Wales. It never truly stops. The society evolves and maybe not all members are aware of its changes. Just like the point I made about the introduction of major technologies and systems, and how finances are handled and dealt with. The layman Joe Blogg may dispute the fact that the government does not do the right thing or hire the right person, but in actual fact, the issues are happening "now", it is dynamic, and no one could have predicted everything. You may argue that the government was not one step ahead of this potential problem, even though you could have foreseen it happening. You can never know how it happens, and how it unfolds. Something similar now is also happening within the US about genetic information and genetic testing seen as food and not as drug etc. The law is always tested all of the time.

There is no "Sharia Law" as said continually in the UK. There is a "concept" preached by a few religious leaders. As I understand it, the Christianity and its laws and its boundaries are indeed slowly defined over a high number of years. But at the same time, in some countries, the religion is embedded quite closely with its politics. I also know this too. However, I am not going to speculate, nor will judge that the Sharia Law of other countries to be a part of the Common Law because I know that it will not happen. At the same time, how most muslim believers will handle their own affairs is down to their own discussions with their own religious leaders. I am also sure that there are a lot of areas which can also be discussed and understood too. Meaning that muslim men also have to respect muslim women as well. Not really. Some decisions may not be the greatest, but then again, this means that the women themselves need to be educated in specific areas and understanding before asking for readjustments themselves. By default, most muslim women will know of this already. This kind of conflicts are no different to your other conflicts like men wanting more rights to fatherhood and "justice for father" was created to change a certain aspect of the law too. I dare hazard a guess that these kind of disputes will also occur in the far future. But as a bystander who is not part of this religion. It should not be for me to disturb the still waters. Cos that to me is also violating my own beliefs too in Taoism of wishing for harmony. There is a fine line for me to wanting to keep harmony and also participate too, but another line if I need to go into that unpeaceful place and I get angry. But then you are not a muslim, so how does this affect you ? If you choose to push your values onto others, then you are actually marginalising them too. So is the mosque. The same is happening now. These religious matters happen every day within the Church anyhow, and these are the jobs of the Bishops, Priests, and all the other spiritual leaders to hash out and discussed in a religious context. The same is happening now, because there is no such areas, and dare I say that this may be a new area of the International Laws too. Just like when the internet was created, and how these numerous business laws will be affected and taken into context of when something occurs and the boundaries that it needs to be clear about. This is even uncertain now, as we dispute taxation. Because with global systems, where a legal transaction occurred has not even been disputed. This is an area that I deal with in my job, and I know and can imagine how much complexity a religion and the context is seen from a legal standpoint too. I would leave them to it, is what I would do and suggest. http://www.shariahcouncil.org/?page_id=26 At least a centralised Shariah Council is being created for one and possibly guidances shall or may exist in the far future. Come on. You ought to know better than to theorise it to this kind of level. You know that each religion should have its own right to practise the deep and intense level of spirituality that it can. This can indeed be omitted from your political areas and this is and had been indeed what had been slowly clarified and defined over the years. You really have to ask yourself truly what is your intention and why you are questioning this area to begin with. Especially since considering you are not a spiritual person. (Based on what you are writing here.) I hazard a guess that women priests existed because some men are behaving less spiritual even within the church and hence possibly why some more empathetic women priests are preferred, can do the job, and it exists. If they could not do the job to begin with, I dare say that the role would not have been given to them. They are not in those roles purely because of the law. The modern british "society" is already defined by Christian values any way. Most religious scholars who study religion now realises when in comparison of all religion, there exists a fundamental basic set of constructs which applies to all religions. This creates an area classed as "ethics". Is something ethical, or is it not ethical ? This needs to be considered in relation to the people itself. I do not see why the annoyance if other muslims are happy with this setup. As you are not a muslim, your view doesn't count too much where Sharia Law is that concerned to be honest. Because it means that you either need to be a muslim to accept it. If you do not accept it. Then you do not be a muslim. Simple. I also realises that, as my bf calls it, there are many "take away religious believers". Meaning that, they do not practise what they state they believe. That is also an interesting point too. But for everyone who is searching, like me too, I would hope to maybe live my life in a way which can indeed allow such religious elements to be in my life so much more. And there isn't. To me, I see it simply. Either you are indeed a believer, in which case, follow the religion for what it is. If you are not a believer, then it does not apply to you anyhow. If you love a man, then as a woman, you need to know what it is that you are getting yourself into, and to also hash out what being married means and discuss how life will be in the future and so forth. If you are not, then this area does not affect you anyhow. It is indeed to be so objective when you are indeed in love with somebody, but that is why most religious entities now have a kind of "test the water" guidance before actual marriage. I wonder if there is or should be such similar guidances from the Islamic mosques. I know that the churches have them. Huh ? How does that work ? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-big-question-how-do-britains-sharia-courts-work-and-are-they-a-good-thing-1724486.html Arch Bishop of Canterbury, and also Lord Justice also stated that the laws as it is today actually allows a muslim to follow Sharia. To me, it is a concept. A principle. Just like the 10 commandments. It is open for interpretation really, doesn't it ? Just like "thy shall respect they father or mother". How does that works in modern day England ? Do people give money to look after them, or do they spend time only? Do they look after their entire welfare, or do they live separately ? That is open for interpretation isn't it ? I think you are seeing this wrongly. Or maybe you are misinterpreting this wrongly. According to the Equality Act. Which only came into force around 2010 ? http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/about-us/our-constitution/ It really states that any service provider, or any public bodies, need to also NOT discriminate against sex, religion, etc etc etc. The Law Society, as far as I can research the information is actually a public body ? They themselves are just following the law basically. Any lawyer cannot discriminate against any muslim customers who wants to draw up a will. But how do you draw up the will to make it fair? Does he know ? He may not know. So the Law Society providing a set of guidance notes is not going to create a situation for anybody. At the same time, in doing so, they are also probably seen as being "forefront" and keeping up to date with the law too. I just realised the above link in the Sharia Council states that they are often asked on a religious context what is "sharia". The legal system need to also know where it stands too, whenever there are new information or knowledge of society coming forward. Just like my previous example of the internet affecting society. How the business transaction works, and the law of buying and selling, and where the goods resides and the definition of the goods and items and so forth. It all actually is affected. Some people are not necessarily aware of this too.

Correct, and this is whereby I agree. I interpret the Equality Act the same way. Incorrect. I do not know about you, but I do know this much. Sharia Law, may need to go through a process of possibly defining in its context, in accordance to English law. Which is really what this entire hoo har is about isn't it ? I just thought that Sharia Law is a rule, a non-forceable rule that one has to follow if they decide to be religious. There is no scope for politics (head) to follow issues of religion (heart). At best, I would associate it as a "concept". Just like Christianity is in the UK. To me, you have to follow religion with your heart, not your head. Not everyone of the same religion can agree either, as it is also open for relevant interpretation. That is why even within the church, you have so many activities to cater for the different groups of people. Bible classes for the young. Older services for older parishioners and more peaceful services. It all differs. I hazard a guess that Sharia will be similar in some ways. That is down to the mosques to decide though isn't it ? How they provide the services and how they make and interpret the religion to be relevant to their own believers. I think what you seem to be confused over is possibly the legal system within this country in comparison to other countries abroad. They are indeed different for a reason, and had been for many years. Many of those countries have indeed been in conflicts, and the resultant of those conflicts are these diversed setup, which if you give it a few more 30 or 40 years, then it would possibly evolve to something more stable that their own citizens want. I was reading that website about the evolution of England, and I am surprised, but not too surprised really that UK since the detachment of the Roman Empire had more or less stayed the same. By the way, I noticed you used this term "Sharia Court". There is no "Sharia Court" in this country. Do you realise the difference ? But open your eyes. Muslims have been practising this for many years already and it is just that maybe in your eyes, "suddenly" you see other countries like Afghanistan being more primitive, and YOU want THEM to be up to scratch and be in modern way, but THEY want YOU to be leaving them alone. So you see. The answer is as simple as this. Leave them and their countries alone and let them rule themselves, and I am sure that you can then also live in peace, and you rule your own life too. Those who are living in the UK already HAVE integrated already. So why give them the grief ? If they haven't, then you wouldn't see them existing in the UK to begin with. There may be some heart aches from some families as they see their own child more modern and adapting to life here. Just like my mother used to when I started drinking. She almost sobbed so badly. But these are private affairs to be honest. We used to argue so much. But that are the choices we are given, and our own family's heartaches just like many other peoples'. You got to deal with it the best that you can, and the outcome that you want to. I certainly would not for one, listen to someone outside my family and dictate what we should do as a family. That irates me an awful lot, because they do not even know what had gone on, or what we wish for ourselves and how. It does not help that often than not, their opinions are the divisive choices than the integrative and support opinions. You can often tell when you listen to people's opinions. So this is why I often state that if you are not a believer, then leave this for the religious entities to deal with. Even the MPs do not trod on the affairs of the COE. They know their remits and they need to think of the best fair way amongst all their religious believers. I remember this from watching Question Time once. That is the line the government is towing, and rightly so. On the one side are the believers, and then on the other side is the law and government. They are co-existing and is co-existing and working in a integrative manner. To be honest, I do not see it as a bad thing. Just as you said, that this country has a long long history. Then why are you throwing out the baby with the bath water and deliberately ignoring the fact that the UK came from the Roman Empire to begin with ? That the Roman Empire had Catholicism as its basic religion ? You cannot acknowledge one and ignore the other. The way that the law exists now is just left from history, that is all. I blame Henry the 8th. I do. Can they ? I did not know that. But anyway, if certain religious rights and actions are specific, then why would you want to enforce equality law onto that to begin with ? You may as well break up the church. I do like the above link on gay marriages not receiving blessings from the church but that they will and can receive a prayer. This to me is about sincerity. You cannot force the church not to be a church, and break its own principles, and yet the church is not forcing the homosexual and not acknowledge them, even if they cannot accept them entirely in certain positions and powers. I think this is justified in a way. Plus anyhow, some positions within the church requires you to have studied theology to begin with and need you to actually be truly spiritual to the highest sense. Just like Dalai Lama had done for his Tibbetan Buddhism. It is a lot of intense spiritual practise to reach that stage. So why be so pushy and wish for that kind of position when you have not even begin to do the homework to gain that kind of high level of spirituality to begin with. The question is also SHOULD you ?? My personal opinion is also a "no". Religion freedom is not about equal rights. Religious freedom is about practising spirituality and the right to practise it to reach a certain level of personal harmony and spirituality. That is what religious freedom is about. Social freedom is different. Which is what I think you are trying to advocate here, if I understood you correctly.

No, this is what I hate about Sheffielders and their sense of what is classed as "tourism". I go to London and I see all these touristy tacky things, and I do despise it to be honest. There is indeed a middle ground you know. I went to York recently and I loved what they were showcasing and is selling. They are not tacky items but pretty high-end and well made locally. They are also made by local people as well. It beats the things which comes out of the chain stores. In Stockholm, in their market, they were selling local produces. This is what was attracting tourists in, because this is not going to be fish that you can get from a Costco, or another chain store too. It is local, and it is from the surrounding areas. Local eat this. Tourists eat this. It brings tourists in because it is unique to the place. That is why it thrived. The increasing tourisms and similar "copy cat" style hotels, or copy cat places are everywhere. But if you want somebody to come here, then you got to offer what is local to your environment and from the surrounding areas. We do have a lot of those already, it just need raising its profile, and also consolidating it into the right places, and marketed it better, that is all. I think it is the marketing side which is letting things down I guess. Yes, I have moved back home again. I was working elsewhere before. Maybe I will check out Sharon's in the market. I guess I am a bit disillusioned and not knowing where things are any more cos it keeps changing ! This is also annoying as well as I tried to find a post office the other day. I was reminiscing those hot food. Hot ham being sold near the market in the good old days ? My mother used to bring a whole ham home ! Sometimes when I work away or live in a new place, and I eat so badly and rely on manufactured junk. It really upsets me. Because I think to how well I ate when I was a child. Next time I go to the market, I shall check it out thoroughly for the hot food. Hm... Hey, I still do visit the market now.

Sorry, I thought I understood this before when I was younger, but now reading these kind of legal acts and its definition on sexuality and "orientation", I am even more confused. One of the article above shows the the difference between "desire" to that of "actions" and "behaviours". A lot of people thought that homosexuality is born with, and not nurtured into. Or a choice. Now it seems to be different, and even the actual law itself is very granular now in its definition. It also state what is "gender", and what is classed as a characteristic of a man or of a woman. I find that rather strange to read to be honest.

I do not know any. If there are, then this is a surprise to me. But then again, this is not really for me to know and to judge is it ? Since I am not a believer in Islam, and I do not know the ins and the outs. Just like I do not know why there are indeed homosexual priests when the religion is against that. But I do know that it took the Anglican church an awful long time to consider, and that change has to be from within, and maybe because they are also a service provider as well in accordance to Equality Act that such that it forces them to be able to provide this kind of compliance. But the question remain though, DO homosexuals want to be a priest ? Above the dislike of many of their parishioner ? I hazard a guess that similar things may occur. I do not know if a mosque will indeed also be registered as a public body and as a charity. If they are to do so, then the same Equality Act must apply to them when they actually recruit people, and so forth. I am not too familiar within this new areas to be honest. To me, in a religious context, one must and should indeed be done in sincerity and omitting stirring up actual hatred and discrimination to begin with. With the homosexuals becoming priests. The ones that eventually got the job was indeed supported by their local parishioners to begin with. Even though other churches disliked this actual idea. But for that specific church, if I recall reading about this, is that it was accepted and wanted from their own local communities. FYI. Homosexual Bishop within the Anglican church, but they are and must remain celibate. Yet, why define yourself as a homosexual then ? It makes no difference in the eyes of the church. But as a member of the church, you must or should have been shown as a role model. So this is a dilemma for the head of these churches to decide. As it is almost a pre-requisite to remain celibate. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/senior-anglican-condemns-gay-bishops-as-a-compromise-too-far-8440005.html To be honest, as I mentioned, I just read this and understand for myself just briefly but I do not get into the thick of things and question this and it really is not something that I confuse myself over that often. I can see conflicts, but it really is not my role to provide any opinions, especially since I do not attend the church. Equality Act in question. Church in response. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13831162 "No blessing" given to gay marriages by the church. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/02/16/uk-britain-religion-marriage-idUKBREA1F0NE20140216

If you are a muslim, then you choose to be a non-homosexual by sharia law. If you want to be a homosexual then you cannot be a muslim. It cannot discriminate, can it ? To follow a religion, it must be out of free will. The thing is that you seem to be wanting to push for further integration of Sharia into the English law, but then look at Christianity, it took many years for it to change. If there are to be changes then it must come from Muslim believers to change it from within, and not for non-muslims to harass and push. This is the same with Christianity to begin with whereby we now have homosexual priests. If the sincerity is there from within a muslim community to want this, then they too need to push for that democracy themselves. Look at it from another angle. You may say that you dislike Christianity when conversing between people in a daily basis, but there is no way that you can express this dislike when in employment and when the situation is during the employment of another person when they happen to be a Christian. There is a personal position which you can hold and you can believe in. But you cannot exert that opinion and personal position during a process which you represent an entity and needed to be impartial and not judge someone else based on your own values. THIS is what the law protects. It protects the right of the person during a situation whereby they seek employment, during employment, and when they seek services from the government. They must be treated fairly. The law is not asking you to change your own values. It asks do not push your own values onto others when in a position of responsibility towards the other person. You may say that you can indeed separate the differences, but for many, they are just lazy and try to be impartial daily such that they cannot create a situation where they can discriminate indirectly and unknowingly.

But if these views are representation of the citizens itself, then the State has a need to address it. It is that simple. The same with Christianity. Why does the State provide so much benefits for all ? It is because we are indeed a Christian country and we have defined the law over the years such that it counteract the wealth of the Kings and Queens and Lords of the past, so that all the original "peasants" were looked after by the State. Just like the olden days when we had different Monarchies in place. This setup has not changed. It is not a discrimination in my eyes to begin with, so how can I actually answer this as right or wrong? Obviously it is always wrong to discriminate, which is a negative behaviour, but as you could see from my illustration of the legal system, do you truly think that this is discriminatory ?

By the way, you "may" think that this current set of laws is in its current state because of the terrorism and the previous racism that has occurred. Which is true to some level, BUT, as UK is part of the UN, as a country, we also pledged to meet the millennium goals too. http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=7329 It means that we need to ensure that our laws also can indeed be interpreted and provide the support to meet these goals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Development_Goals I was actually looking at the gender equality one and wondered what companies are doing to achieve this. So that is why it is still in my mind somewhat.

Sorry, I do not agree with that. You are actually looking at it from a wrong perspective. Sharia Law is NOT the sole legal system in this country, and that is why it does not apply in the way that it does in some countries. In this country, we have Common Law (which has taken years to define), along with Statutory Law (?) (I was reading this the other day for another thread.) So unless you are saying that there is a move to overthrow the entire legal system, I do not think that it impacts you or changes the way you live any time soon enough. A country cannot change its legal system so easily. Maybe if the UN actually agrees. Even in war torn countries, when they rebuild an entire country, the UN needs to follow International Law to build it back up from scratch. Maybe you think that it can happen in this country by a democratic vote, but it cannot. Because if it does, it will actually impact so many more countries who is also using Common Law as part of their legal system too. So because of that, it certainly and definitely cannot change any time soon. Now, as to the Sharia Law as part of a religious practice within this country, how does that integrate into the legal system. It had always been part of the legal system, but it seems that some areas are really being tweaked a little bit here and there, that is all. Guidance and recommendation and advice is not wrong, it just makes clear what the boundaries are and how it can be applied. Sometimes you see these charities existing to provide such support and guidance within the legal boundaries, so that many businesses and companies can indeed use this as a base guidance. Even when HR is confused of a situation in their employment law, they certainly can either indeed use some of the references provided by the government's portals to reinforce their own legal interpretation, or that they can indeed use solicitors and lawyers to recheck their own internal HR policies as to not violate the law itself. And in terms of the legality and interpretation of things. There had always been these laws, but not everybody or not all companies necessarily interpret it well and really adjust to this. Some companies are being more and more visible in showing that they are compliant, and they try to enforce this throughout their own company as a set of core values for their own employees. The Millenium Goal has forced companies like Deloitte and Touche to really now employ more than 40% of their own workforce to be women. Because when the majority were men, it had a certain inequality which reduced the way it operated. It means or if you read between the lines, previously the company was not able to comply with the law with its existing workforce. Maybe this explains why so many were indeed fired in the end and were retrained or literally hired because they are female.

Sorry, I do apologise, I got carried away again cos I was laughing so much and I almost fell off my sofa. Yes, what was the question again ? ---------- Post added 25-03-2014 at 20:52 ---------- And "society" has responded, by providing shelter for those in need, by providing guidance in finding work, and by providing benefits too, and also guidance on how one needs to raise their child. There is also guidance on how to marry and how to divorce, and how to open a business, and how to deal with illnesses. Why do you still think that the vulnerable is not looked after ? If anything, the vulnerable is looked after ever so much ! Maybe too much in some cases, but I shall digress.

Oh, I cannot WAIT until Taoism is going to be introduced, it shall be SO much fun !!! Zamo, we're going to be jumping over fire bowls. You game ?

Think of this from another business and legal perspective. I showed you the Equality Act link. Here it is again. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents It actually is quite convoluted to be honest, but if you read it slowly and relook at certain areas, they can indeed compound to be quite a tight set of rules, which covers majority of circumstances in the UK alone. Approaching this from a professional perspective, I see that the Law Society has every right to really publish a set of guidance so that their own members do not trip over and write it wrongly. In the Equality Act, it states that businesses, and "service providers" cannot actually discriminate against the followings: 5.Age 6.Disability 7.Gender reassignment 8.Marriage and civil partnership 9.Race 10.Religion or belief 11.Sex 12.Sexual orientation If they publish the guidelines, it really is to just cover themselves from a certain perspective really if you think about it. They have not actually changed any laws, nor have they changed the Equality Law. If anything it is the actual Equality Act which is driving them to be more accurate and a little bit more diligent to safe-proof any potential and possible discrimination exerted on their side whilst providing services to the general public. That is how I see it. In terms of discrimination and prejudices between people, this still happens in real life. Just that one cannot do so in the name of the representation of a company, a local council, and so forth. There are indeed some interesting angle if you read it and see. There is something about buildings as well and how they must be treated and nobody can discriminate you from walking into a premise.

My smiley was more for my editing. Haha. Ok, so I take your comment seriously. First of all, I do not find what has been done by the Law Society all that "discriminatory" as you say. I thought that it was kind of respecting a certain area which some people need to address, but kind of with some support. There are already other ways around and other ways to handle the situation if a Muslim father wishes to pass on his inheritance onto his sons, and distribute it amongst his offsprings. It is his right, and he can do as he wishes. Personally, when it comes to private affairs such as this, I leave my nose out of it, and of course, it is none of my business, and I would not necessarily use my political vote to harm them either. I can also deal with my private affairs too under the same set of laws. So it is no skin off my nose. In fact, in my family, there are a little bit of similarities, but with some variation in certain areas, and about hierarchy within a family tree. I was aware of this from the day I was born, and I was aware of my father's wishes to also work against his previous generation's ideas so that every one of his kid is looked after. We have found ways which we are all happy with too. To me, it is not inequality because the hierarchy does not state that the female is omitted entirely, and the modern day muslim family is not necessarily like the historical ways of old British Lords and so forth where the woman is literally suppressed and cannot work, or to earn. So in a way, a woman can earn, and she can also be allowed to be looked after too by her dad if she requires support. A son still have to have responsibility too to his own parents, as well as to his own family. Maybe this is relieved in a little bit of way, but if he honors his father, then he should indeed try harder in his life time so that the further next generation is also looked after too. People live for people. They do not live for goods or a laptop. So working hard for your own family, and for others is what living is indeed about. So even in a Moral Value level's perspective, whether this is the Ten Commandments or other religious ethics and values, it all states that one should respect their father and mother. Some choose to repay the parents in this lifetime in monetary terms, others rather pay for the next life time in the next generation through inheritance to honor their parents but not to give direct to parents in this life time. As for the Equality Act. I thought that it was really more about citizens treating each citizen with respect. Then also give opportunity and right for each citizen regardless of their age, sex, gender, sexuality and so forth ? You can read it all here, it is very granular. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents To me, I summarise it as; "Every Man or Woman, of whatever age, or of whatever sexuality, can indeed live, and work in harmony in this country." That is the equality law. Because some people do not get this respect from others, or from shop owners or business owners. To me, I see it as this is needed because there is only really a small population size of 69 millions, which is really not a lot of people, and everyone need to be working, and surviving and supported. That's it. Even public services cannot discriminate against by gender, or by age, everyone needs to be accounted for, regardless if they are indeed wealthy or not already. They are still entitled to welfares.

No, it is not discriminatory. Yes, you are right that they have changed the wills to comply with requirements of the Sharia Law. Ok. Thank you so much for clarifying too. That makes sense. It also does not discriminate against the nation's equality principles, values or laws. If it is, then it would not have been written as guidance to begin with. You also have to remember that there is no equality within this country whereby it is literal and equal for equal sake. It never has been at all. The Suffragettes were given an opportunity for a "voice". It does not mean and it does not imply that women needs to be men, and men needs to be women.

It could be possible. I mean, you wouldn't think that micro-coffee shops are possible, but they are everywhere now and are on the go. The question is would people drink beer on the go rather than to sit and chat ? Would you ? Coffee on the go is a very continental thing though isn't it ? Micro-beer shop could be possible, and not necessarily micro-pub. Hm. It's an idea.

But it should not though, because most big cities actually has a market that attracts tourism too. I remember visiting the one in Stockholm and it is a working local market where they sell fish and other produces to the local community, as well as attracting tourists too to taste their local delicacies. So it is win-win overall. If this gets going, then it can even be written into guide books, and they normally DO write about this kind of thing. A friend recently posted on his Facebook about this yummy Yorkshire Ham, so it is indeed quite revered. I am not sure if the locals here realises this kind of selling point of old heritage. I also miss a good roast sandwich. I cannot see them anywhere any more. I found a place in York recently when I went with my bf, and he was wow'd by it. It was so fresh and so nice. I really miss that kind of thing from my childhood days. You used to be able to get actual entire roast ham from the market for very little money. Then cross the road, and you can get a roast chicken nicely done at this store next to the Co-op. People used to queue a lot for this too. I know that the supermarkets also do this now but there is no reason why it cannot be brought back too in the market. I think the ham is a good idea. I rather buy a whole roasted small size ham and cut it for my sandwiches per week than to buy prepacked ham.

There used to be a pub in Manchester which had the beer price fluctuating according to how many people are drinking it, and what is left. It was quite interesting and fun to watch as it was mimicking those stock market tv screens. But Pound burger sounds good.