Zombie

Thanks for giving us a better understanding of what has happened in your country In an earlier blog I looked at this in terms of problems inherent with "democracy" if the majority will is allowed to prevail and thereby oppress minorities. Maybe this won't happen in India - in fact it mustn't be allowed to because "the will of the majority" is toxic and cannot exist in a diverse, modern pluralistic society. Which, sadly, India is not and cannot be until the huge changes required have happened - specifically around education, poverty and the removal of institutional corruption you referred to. And the removal of all discrimination including caste-based discrimination. But that's not going to happen any time soon. Every country, it seems, has to go through its own painful struggles and traumas. There is no shortcut and what emerges is ultimately what the people of that country want and are prepared to fight for. In the meantime you know you have our love and support here at GA

"I don't like how Christianity has taken the route of power by manipulating political figures and movements, creating strife through the wealth of believers due to "issues of faith", and at the highest levels hold an absolute "Pride" in themselves for interpreting the will of God." Well, yeah, a lot of history is real shitty "Who are they to judge the will of God? Who are they to hold the reins of what is true faith and heretical?" That would be the power thing "a known link between religion and banking during the housing boom, mortgage lenders would go into churches to advertise their lending products, even enlisting preachers to their cause. The banks in turn would pay handsome donations to churches that had given them business. In a matter of fact, religious figures acted as sales agents for mortgage lenders, is that what Christianity means to people?" That would be straightforward corruption. Nothing new there "Religion to me is not about laws and rules, but love and kindness" No, that would be your personal faith. Organized religion has traditionally been about God-fearing, hell-fire and damnation to terrorize the flock and offer "protection" in return for obedience and hard cash

If you'd said that to begin with we wouldn't have had a tiff!

Happy Birthday Greg!! Here's some cupcakes I baked specially for you!!

you're right fishie both are dangerous - but in different ways

"Traditional" Christmas dinner in England - turkey - crispy roasted potatoes - overcooked sprouts - carrots and other veggies - sausages wrapped in bacon - stuffing balls - draft belly pork with crispy crackling - lots of gravy - bread sauce, cooked with a cloved onion. - cranberry sauce Interestingly turkey was for the "toffs" when it began to be available in Victorian England - it was expensive - and goose was for the "common man" - it was cheap. Now it's the other way round

Neatly woven tale. There's a vividness in the use of the present tense for the opening and closing passages that works very well in a vampire story told in flashback. And I love the sly humour Good job addy

I know what the terms mean. But you said in your original post "Fair weather allies are more dangerous than religious zealots" and that is patently untrue. The worst a fair weather friend can do to you is disappoint / annoy / hurt / let down / embarrass / inconvenience... you get the idea. I can live with that. But I can't live with what the zealot might do - because I might be seriously injured. Or dead. Like the 3 gays killed by the zealot nailbomber David Copeland, or the 100+ wounded or maimed by his cowardly bomb attack. And if we could, as you say, "stop them from taking action" then we wouldn't have had the London bombings. And you wouldn't have had the Boston bombings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Copeland

Sadly the reality is that even in developed societies like Britain there will always be zealots who would like to and do kill gays - like the London gay pub nail bomber link I posted above. Then there's this one from 2011 where a religious zealot emailed this to the UK Stonewall CEO: "With regard to the recent so-called victory that evil sexual weirdos Steven Preddy and Martyn Hall had against decent law-abiding B&B owners Peter and Hazelmary Bull. It is my duty to inform your evil organisation that, despite what the government says, according to the holy Christian Bible, homosexuality is in fact illegal. I have therefore decided to embark upon a campaign of terror against you Chief Executive Dame Ben Summerskill and all those that seek to support the so-called human rights of the Homosexual community. It is going to give me great pleasure to put a bullet in the head of Dame Ben Summerskill, Steven Preddy and Martyn Hall and any other homosexual vermin that I have the misfortune to come across. I suggest that the people mentioned in this email and indeed all evil bigoted homosexual scum start making their funeral arrangements." http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/08/threatened-gay-rights-campaigner-sentence So, yeah, I'll take a fair weather friend in preference to a zealot any day

Fair weather allies are "more dangerous" than religious zealots? Come on get real. Fair weather allies may indeed "betray you" but they won't actually murder you. Unlike zealots - religious or otherwise - who will and who do http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Copeland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Gary_Matson_and_Winfield_Mowder http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/aug/06/gayrights.iraq ....and too many more to list

welcome Gypseytails - hope you join in the fun!

No I didn't say this is progress - it just is, and has been for 35 years I mentioned the "dark consequences for non-compliance" just for balance - the information is all out there if you want to read up on it but we can't really discuss it here because of their nature. China and Europe are quite different. People are free to move and live and work anywhere in the EU which means populations are reducing in some countries and increasing in others - like Britain - purely because of movement not expanding population and accurate numbers aren't available so it's hard to see what's happening with population growth overall. But China is one state so number crunching is more straightforward.

China has controlled its population growth since 1978/9 with its "one child" policy. This has been effective but it has completely changed the traditional "family" -no-one has any brothers or sisters. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25035280 On the one hand China is to be congratulated for thinking generations ahead - something Western countries have not generally done - recognising the dangers of uncontrolled population growth and having forward vision and the will to do something about it. But on the other hand this obviously has meant controlling people's personal lives and how they live them in the most intimate and intrusive way, and with very dark consequences for non-compliance. Meanwhile, the Earth is our only viable long term home. Which means an ever increasing population having to share limited / finite land and resources. Humans are not programmed to think and act for the long term. It didn't matter when we were just a few million in number - it matters a lot now

Now this is what I call real beer...

:funny:

"My colleague is proof-positive of the incremental progress that is happening all over India." Much of what you posted is fair comment. But this bit is problematic - India is dynamic, technologically advanced and developing rapidly. Part of it. The bits the Indian government want us to see. Then there's the stagnant, primitive, backward India. The bigger part, the part that's seen little gain as India unleashed its ambitions to be a World player, with an ambitious space programme and a nuclear arsenal. Would you believe India received annual multi-million pound development aid from Britain right up until last year to help all those poor that the Indian government preferred not to look at?

Adult responsibility and driving licence minimum age are not the same thing. Is a 14 yo an adult? No. And yet 14 year olds are allowed to hold a driver's licence in parts of the US and Canada - the youngest permitted drivers in the World. You cannot exclude government and licensing authorities from responsibility when we all know that young people behave irresponsibly. All of human history tells us this. And I was no different In the UK the minimum age is 17 and the government is seriously reviewing young driver accident statistics and considering various proposals including to raise the minimum age to 18 and to ban young drivers from carrying any passengers below age 30 to remove the "showing off" component of many RTAs. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/10370373/Driving-age-could-rise-to-18-under-new-proposals.html

Good point. And of course what's happening with the traditional diet of countries like India and China is that as they embrace Western lifestyles so they also embrace Western diet - high meat - which in turn requires all the extra resources [land, feed, transport infrastructure etc] to meet that new demand. "Lots" conveys no factual information. I eat "lots" of fruit. But that is meaningless to anyone else. That aside, this Halal website states clearly that animals cannot be anaesthetised "The animal must not be anaesthetised, stunned to be killed or otherwise rendered wholly insensible prior to slaughter. It must be conscious and alive when it is slaughtered." http://www.eat-halal.com/slaughter-procedures-employed-halal-food-authority/ Also, conventional abattoirs are subject to government inspection to ensure regulations are met but I don't know how these are applied to Halal meat production.

True, but once a case gets to court then we all get to see the outcome. What we don't know about is the cases that never get to court. Not seen many bankers up before the beak...

He pleaded guilty so there was no conviction just sentencing

Justice is no longer blind in Australia either On 7 April, Liam Danial Sweeney attended a friend's birthday drinks at Crown Casino in Melbourne. According to the prosecution, Sweeney had been ignored when he attempted to shake another guest's hand, and stewed on this "insult" for a couple of hours. At midnight, under the influence of alcohol, he reportedly engaged in an "unprovoked and gratuitous" assault of the man, Richard Huiswaard. Sweeney smashed a wine glass into Huiswaard's face, and then punched him twice in the head... he pleaded guilty to "intentionally causing injury", which can carry a sentence of up to 10 years in prison. But Sweeney will not serve a day. He received an 18-month suspended sentence and a $5,000 fine. The serving magistrate, Jack Vandersteen, explained in sentencing that he did not believe Sweeney "would last very long" in jail. "Not many people are in jail who went to Haileybury," continued Vandersteen, naming the prestigious private school that educated the kind of young man who glassed and scarred another as the result of a perceived slight. Vandersteen's concern was that it may be "extremely devastating" for Sweeney's parents, one of whom is a barrister himself, to see Sweeney in court. There were concerns, too, about the impact of sentencing Sweeney due to the young man being a lawyer himself. Should he be jailed, he would not be able to practice law, after all. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/26/too-privileged-jail-lawyer-australia

I see this pic won't display using Image Link *again * - has to be uploaded to My Media

Hmm, I'm a feeble hypocrite - I couldn't kill animals unless it was survival. But I don't feel guilty as I tuck into my rare steak and the warm blood squirts down my throat I think I rationalise this by telling myself that the animals were humanely killed at a regulated abattoir after being stunned and rendered unconscious. However I now learn this is wrong and a lot of meat we buy is not humanely killed at all - the animals aren't stunned but have their throats slit while they're fully conscious. Now I'm conflicted So I'll wriggle off your moral hooks and stick to fishing. Fish are very tasty and I don't mind bashing their brains out on a rock

Just to clarify "intent", drink / drugged driving is in a category of crime where intent is not required. It's called "strict liability". So, as a matter of law, for drink / drugged driving the only intent needed is the intent to drink alcohol / take drugs - driving while drunk / drugged is then automatically an unlawful act. And killing someone while DUI is then a further, much more serious and automatic criminal offence. The reason for this is obvious - when you drive a car while drunk / drugged, whether you make it home safely or mow down and kill a group of people is a lottery, a lottery of the driver's making.

You can't blame the lawyers for making a specious defence / mitigation plea, just as you can't blame a turd for ruining your jacuzzi - it's what they do The key issue is that responsibility for sentencing rests with the judge not defence lawyers. In the UK judges are not elected but appointed, based on experience and competence as practising lawyers, and if they are too lenient the Prosecution can appeal - just as the defendant can appeal against harsh sentences - and judges can be reprimanded, or sacked, for incompetence or misconduct. Seems fair to me