Jamie123

Correct - though it's more often abbreviated UKSC. It's what used to be called the "Lords of Appeal in Ordinary" (Law Lords), which was a subcommittee of the House of Lords devoted to legal matters. They are now quite separate from the Lords, though the judges still have the courtesy title "Lord" (or "Lady").

Yes I know Pope Francis is dead (and peace be upon him) but something else happened this past weekend which is causing much more of a splash: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/19/europe/uk-supreme-court-biological-woman-intl/index.html The Supreme Court has ruled that as far as the Equality Act 2010 goes, gender is defined by what a person was born as, not how they choose to identify. Right now Starmer-schmarmer is keeping a very low profile, but from here on he can't use the Equality Act to justify allowing trans-women into female-only spaces, or allowing trans-women to beat the socks off actual women in women's sports. I'm seeing my "child" this coming Thursday and I'm taking her (them) back up to college Friday. I may be worrying unnecessarily (she knows I'm a disgraceful reactionary Neanderthal) but I'm a bit uneasy about what to say if she brings it up. And to be honest, I think this may be a false dawn for "real gender" anyway. If I understand correctly, all the government needs to do is to get a new law passed to replace the 2010 act, making it explicit that "woman" includes trans-women, and the Law Lords' ruling becomes completely moot.

Many years ago I knew a Scottish ex-Catholic JW convert. He was always coming to visit me, sometimes alone and sometimes with his wife. I liked both of them a lot. He was an ex army man, who had also been an officer in the Royal Air Force. I also sometimes used to talk to his wife when I was on the bus into town. She was a very pretty woman, but she had a strange skin condition that made her come out in red blotches. This worried me the first time I saw it but she assured me she was fine. (Don't know why I'm telling you this detail - I'm rambling.) Anyway, on one occasion he asked me "do you know who the God of this world is?" and was gobsmacked when I answered "the Devil". He wanted to know how I knew this, and I said it was traditional Christian doctrine and had been for centuries. This was news to him. He said he had had no idea until he had met the JWs. It may not be talked about much - especially these days - but it's right there in scripture. The Devil promised to give Jesus "all the kingdoms of the world" if he would worship him. Its there throughout Christian literature: to give you one example, it is the entire premise of C.S. Lewis' "Cosmic Trilogy". I didn't tell him (though maybe I should have!) that he must have very poorly explored traditional Christianity before rejecting in favour of JWism.

Mr. Sherlock Holmes and his friend Dr. Watson went camping together. One night, as they lay looking up at the starry sky, Holmes said: "Watson, what do you see up there?" Watson replied; "I see thousands and thousands of stars." "And what does that tell you?" asked Holmes? "Well, Holmes," said Watson. "It tells me that the universe is vast beyond comprehension. Each of those stars is a sun, with worlds of its own, which may have beings on them who are looking up at the stars just as we are, asking whether they are alone in the universe." Holmes was silent for a few moments. "What does it tell you, Holmes?" asked Watson at last. "It tells me," said Holmes slowly. "That someone has stolen our tent!"

https://daggionline.blogspot.com/2005/10/when-im-in-heaven.html?m=1

...so time for a bit of highly offensive cultural appropriation! Yakki-da everybody!

I've not made any secret of the fact that, although I'm still a practicing Anglican, I'm not a great fan of the Church. So I don’t totally disagree with your assessment of it. I suppose I get a kind of comfort from the continuity the Church of England provides - stretching back to Saint Augustine - to a time even before England was a single country. You're going to disagree strongly with this, but I've always seen the "real" Church as the individuals who love Jesus Christ - be they Anglicans, Catholics, Latter-day Saints or whatever - not as an organised body.

I also wonder whether Collins really was such a "good vicar". It's worth noting that a gentleman-priest in those days was not so much a pastor or a preacher serving his flock, as a Church tax collector. He could employ some poorly-connected nobody to do the actual vicaring (for the 18th century equivalent of "minimum wage") and spend his time collecting tithes from wealthy (and poor) farmers, or ingratiating himself with potential patrons in the hope of acquiring new parishes to milk wealth from.

Better to have been a happy oyster...

We might all be oysters in the cosmic oyster bed...

https://www.plough.com/en/topics/culture/literature/why-we-should-envy-mr-collins Enjoy what you have and take delight in every small thing. And give no thought to what other people think of you. Could this be the long sought-after key to happiness?

I think "whole life order" means you will never be released alive. Its quite rare - most murderers do get out eventually, but some are considered so bad that they get "whole life" sentences.

And the judge. I know old Rumpole aways complains about "The Judge for the Prosecution" (he nearly always defends) but at least in theory the judge is neutral.

I know this has nothing to do with the insane vs. evil debate, but I have always been totally against the death penalty. I agree that if Axel Rudakubana were some isolated case which set no precedent there might be a case for it, but you can be sure that if it were allowed for him it would soon be applied to many other less clear cut cases. People are convicted of murder on purely circumstantial evidence, and sometimes these same people are later found innocent. They may have lost years of their lives, but they can still be let out of prison. No hanged man can ever be let out of the grave. One of the most heart-rending cases was Stefan Kiszko, who had an emotional age if 12 and was told by the police he could go home for Christmas if he confessed to murdering a little girl called Lesley Molseed. He had a useless defence in the form of Lord "Toad-Face" Waddington QC and he spent 16 years in prison before his conviction was overturned. Aside from many other inconsistencies in the prosecution, he suffered from hypogonadism and could not produce headed sperm. The sperms found on the victim had heads. Later still, DNA evidence was used to find the real killer who is now thankfully behind bars. But had capital punishment not been abolished, Kiszko would have been hanged. Now you may say that Kiszko and others like him are rare cases, and that most murder convictions are safe. If a few innocent people need to be killed on order to create a deterrent against others committing murder then its a "price worth paying". (Though it's funny how the people who use that phrase are never the ones who are going to have to pay the price.) But as Spock says: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." But is it true that the death penalty deters potential murderers? That question needs to be answered by evidence, not blind supposition. Ok rant over.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/czepl8406n8t You're going to hate me for saying this, but I cannot believe that Axel Rudakubana is sane. It's no use telling me he's "perfectly sane, just evil". He's not. "Perfectly sane" people, even if they're evil, do not go around stabbing little girls for no reason, and with no regard for the consequences to themselves. He's now in prison for life. True, he could be released on license when he's 70 (assuming he survives five decades in prison) but he probably won't be. He's thrown his life away for no other reason that he likes to play stabby-stabby with little children. That is not "sanity". He belongs in a very secure mental institution, for however long it takes him to be properly cured, with no guarantee that he will ever be released.