i haven't been to london in about 15 years.
i decided to take my kids for their first outing to see the sights.
i remember as a kid going with my mom and nan, we actually went inside the houses of parliament, went in the house of lords, up downing st, but now with the terrorist threats obviously all thats changed.. there is a definate difference in the security aspect of it, but not enough to take the shine off the experience.. we saw the changing of the guard at buckingham palace, the band playing were the ghurka regiment, something i have never seen before.
I worked in London some years ago and whilst initially I hated the place (given that I am a true northerner!) I have to admit my impressions of the place grew on me. I travelled extensively throughout London with my work but was predominantly in Archway (N19) and even to this day just going up there through Camden brings a smile to my face and a feeling of being home from home.
To this day I love my visits back and I usually get to go there once a month or so.
Glad you enjoyed.
Gary
i have been told by a reliable source that minors under the age of 16 cannot refuse life or death treatment within the uk, and that this has been the law since the mid/late 90's.
however i have been under the impression that if a minor can give a judge the impression that he/she fully understands the implications, then refusel of life saving treatment could indeed be granted to a minor.. can anyone shed some light on this?
perferably with documented proof of the law.. thanks in advance.
Whilst not being specifically written into statute the courts do rely upon a legal doctrine of competence or Gillick Competence. This is taken from a House of Lords ruling in Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority [1985] 3 All ER 402 (HL);
The issue before the court was whether or not a minor could consent to treatment and whether or not being competent to make such a decision in the legal sense, his wishes could circumvent those of his parents. There have been numerous cases since that have dealt specifically with the issue of blood transfusions and medical treatment however they are always considered in light of the above ruling.
To quote Lord Scarman in this case he ruled: "As a matter of Law the parental right to determine whether or not their minor child below the age of sixteen will have medical treatment terminates if and when the child achieves sufficient understanding and intelligence to understand fully what is proposed."
Gary
someone had a thread about "smart people" in their congregations.
while i readily admit there were some "good," and "kind" jws in the congregation i grew up in.
and maybe it was the location -- my dad was asked to move there -- but for the most part it was an intellectual sahara.. yet i've noticed that on this forum there are some incredibly "smart" people.
I have known a number of intelligent people who are Jehovahs Witnesses. I dont think that just because someone is intelligent they are immune from indoctrination. Indoctrination takes place no doubt for a whole host of reasons personal to the individual and it often has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence.
It also begs the question as to how you define intelligence; it is apparent in all sorts of shapes and sizes with some being more academic and scholarly whilst some have a more practical form of intelligence.
This being said, when someone is more academically intelligent and are able to think critically this does provide a barrier to indoctrination unless of course other psychological factors are manipulated and the individual for one reason or another prefers to delude themselves. Often intelligence of this nature is repressed by the organisation especially when they associate independent thinking with something negative such as rebellion or even stupidity.
There are a number of highly intellectual people on this forum and its a pleasure to be surrounded by them and supported by their knowledge and expertise. They have already been mentioned elsewhere and know who they are.
Gary
gareth knight (real name basil wilby) is an author who i respect.
i have met him - he is getting old now but he's no less intelligent or fascinating.
some 40 years ago he wrote a well respected book called "a practical guide to qabalistic symbolism".
To me there is an experientialist alternative to that which motivates both subjectivism and objectivism. It's when you lean too far either way that you become unstable.
Great post and excellent point!
An interesting quote from Dion Fortune on imagination is quite interesting too
"To say that a thing is imaginary is not to dispose of it in the realm of mind, for the imagination, or the image making faculty, is a very important part of our mental functioning. An image formed by the imagination is a reality from the point of view of psychology; it is quite true that it has no physical existence, but are we going to limit reality to that which is material? We shall be far out of our reckoning if we do, for mental images are potent things, and although they do not actually exist on the physical plane, they influence it far more than most people suspect." --Dion Fortune
Gary
Under the Public Order Act, it is an offence to display" any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, " but it is a defence to show that "that his conduct was reasonable."
You are right to some extent however nothing within the Public Order Act 1986 (as amended) or the Racial & Religious Hatred Act 2006 prevents a person from expressing their freedom of speech. They might have grounds to arrest given that they suspect him of doing the above but whether or not they have adequate grounds to prosecute is an entirely different matter.
In short the CPS wouldnt have a leg to stand on and they know it.
Gary
gareth knight (real name basil wilby) is an author who i respect.
i have met him - he is getting old now but he's no less intelligent or fascinating.
some 40 years ago he wrote a well respected book called "a practical guide to qabalistic symbolism".
Yeah - and what's up with the "holy magic water" and that silly red string?
Ah..this is entirely different to the Qabala of Gareth Knight or Dion Fortune and is entirely seperate from the Western Esoteric Traditions.
The holy water and silly red string are the items peddled by a cult advocated by the likes of Britney Spears and Madonna - totally different.
Gary
difficult to understand how even heavys that taught about having a relatinship with god now proclaim that it was imagined after leaving the truth.
puts into question appointments and people serving.
i can understand if some one new leaves the org.
I have said this before elsewhere but I spent years speaking to a God that never spoke back - How could I possibly have a relationship with him?
I now speak to more sociable Gods and Goddesses!
Gary
I am a frightful snob with a down to earth approach
Gary
so far, i like needful things, secret window/hidden garden, and langoliers best.. guy at the bookstore said the stand was the best.. i just bought the shining and pet cemetary (book's in the other room.
can't spell).
what's your favorite?.
For me 'IT' was the best Stephen King book I have ever read.
Its portrayal of the fear felt by children and that of adults and the differences that lie therein, I thought was amazing.
Close second was 'The Stand' for the reasons already stated by CaptainSchmideo.
Gary
the reason why i ask is because whenever u are df and u are trying to get reinstated they are always tellling u that u have to produce fruits befitting repentenace like attending the meetings,etc.
they always make it seem that since they are gods spirit-directed org.
that he will know whether or not if a person is repentent.
They cannot know whether you are truly repentant as many have already said on this thread - they can only know to what extent they have made you feel worthless, embarassed, victimised and abused. Once they assess that you have suffered enough and all your self esteem is on the floor and you are well and truly broken, then and only then, they reinstate you.
Even then, you will be stripped of all your privileges and will be expected to not comment at meetings or have literature in a further effort to make sure the congregation victimises you further, this also greatly contributes to the feelings of isolation and ostracism. When you are finally given your so called privileges back and you are allowed to enjoy full status as a JW the feeling of relief will be so great your whole self esteem will depend on this pseudo acceptance therefore ensuring that you do not fall off the narrow road again!
It is and has always been about control!
Sick fuckers!
Gary
