| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Tombstone Blues |
Posted - 23/09/2007 : 18:30:39
http://www.one2believe.com/
Hours of fun! |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 06/07/2008 : 06:57:25
quote:
Originally posted by FunnyBones
I'm an incipient atheist. Does that mean I get a lot of options or none at all?
It means that you would be treated just like anyone else. Sorry no concessions, even for incipient atheists  |
| FunnyBones |
Posted - 06/07/2008 : 02:32:43
I'm an incipient atheist. Does that mean I get a lot of options or none at all? |
| Anubis |
Posted - 05/07/2008 : 22:09:33
quote:
Originally posted by Daveb
Yes mediation is within the law, not in dispute.
Why is it needed?
It isn't "needed" -- but it is often the quicker, cheaper, less formal way of settling an argument. It is ALWAYS voluntary ... and is open (often) to all individuals irrespective of where they stand in an ethnic/cultural sense.
What is wrong with applying the current laws of the UK to settle disputes?
Nobody is suggesting otherwise.
Why should it be that these groups may have a different option to the rest of the UK?
NOBODY is suggesting ANY group is afforded an option not open to everybody else.
How do you prevent Divine Law superceding the Law of the Land?
'Divine Law' is no more than a human representation of what some 'god-worshippers' believe and present their views as originating from some supernatural source. In a rational society Law is not determined by any religious spokesperson .... In a rational society, no 'divine law' could supercede the Law of the Land ...
All in the category of unanswered. No! ALL have been answered.
|
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 05/07/2008 : 22:02:22
quote:
Originally posted by Daveb
Yes mediation is within the law, not in dispute.
Why is it needed?
What is wrong with applying the current laws of the UK to settle disputes?
Why should it be that these groups may have a different option to the rest of the UK?
How do you prevent Divine Law superceding the Law of the Land?
All in the category of unanswered.
 |
| Daveb |
Posted - 05/07/2008 : 20:04:09
Yes mediation is within the law, not in dispute.
Why is it needed?
What is wrong with applying the current laws of the UK to settle disputes?
Why should it be that these groups may have a different option to the rest of the UK?
How do you prevent Divine Law superceding the Law of the Land?
All in the category of unanswered. |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 05/07/2008 : 19:56:40
quote:
Originally posted by Daveb
I see no need for mediation for "special groups" when the UK has sufficent laws to deal with situation.
VERY SIMPLE REALLY!
Have any other groups been allowed such mediation?
What is wrong with applying the current laws of the UK to settle disputes?
Why should it be that these groups may have a different option to the rest of the UK?
Alright ... one last time and I shall say this slowly ... All other groups, whether other through ethnicity, gender, faith, socio-economic status or sexuality already have the right to agree to mediation and that is within the Rule of British Law as it stands!
Going to mediation is applying British Law! |
| Daveb |
Posted - 05/07/2008 : 19:46:41
I see no need for mediation for "special groups" when the UK has sufficent laws to deal with situation.
VERY SIMPLE REALLY!
Have any other groups been allowed such mediation?
What is wrong with applying the current laws of the UK to settle disputes?
Why should it be that these groups may have a different option to the rest of the UK?
|
| Anubis |
Posted - 05/07/2008 : 18:45:44
quote:
Originally posted by Miriam Binder
quote:
Originally posted by Daveb
I agree that it may be allowed within the current laws.
Have any other groups been allowed such mediation?
What is wrong with applying the current laws of the UK to settle disputes?
Why should it be that these groups may have a different option to the rest of the UK?
Accept the laws of the land you live in or move too.
Taking the option of mediation is applying UK Law. It is neither intended to supersede nor supplant the Rule of Law! Everyone in the UK has the option of going to mediation when it comes to certain types of dispute.
Probably most London Councils, now, see mediation as the first optional 'way forward' for settling disputes related to, say, the Landlord & Tenant Acts etc., etc.
Possibly no aspect of the 'arbitration' process has developed so speedily in recent years as this ..... I really cannot understand how it is Daveb has such difficulty understanding this ... look around Tower Hamlets, Daveb, and you'll find it's applicable to EVERY ethnic group living there!
http://www.eeoc.gov/mediate/index.html
|
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 05/07/2008 : 16:16:28
quote:
Originally posted by Daveb
I agree that it may be allowed within the current laws.
Have any other groups been allowed such mediation?
What is wrong with applying the current laws of the UK to settle disputes?
Why should it be that these groups may have a different option to the rest of the UK?
Accept the laws of the land you live in or move too.
Taking the option of mediation is applying UK Law. It is neither intended to supersede nor supplant the Rule of Law! Everyone in the UK has the option of going to mediation when it comes to certain types of dispute. |
| Daveb |
Posted - 05/07/2008 : 15:02:31
I agree that it may be allowed within the current laws.
Have any other groups been allowed such mediation?
What is wrong with applying the current laws of the UK to settle disputes?
Why should it be that these groups may have a different option to the rest of the UK?
Accept the laws of the land you live in or move too.
|
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 05/07/2008 : 13:02:17
quote:
Originally posted by Daveb
Please enlghted us to any allowances made in to allow Jews or any other group to follow their own mediation.
Mediation is a process that is proferred. There is no rule that states you must accept mediation and mediation can only occur of both/all parties are willing to accept the mediator. There is no ruling that states that the mediator has to be 'x' 'y' or 'z'. Ipso facto Islamic mediation is within the law. |
| Daveb |
Posted - 05/07/2008 : 12:48:19
Please enlghted us to any allowances made in to allow Jews or any other group to follow their own mediation.
|
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 05/07/2008 : 12:44:04
quote:
Originally posted by Daveb
There is good and bad in all things.
Please enlghted us to any changes made in the laws of UK to allow Jews or any other group to follow their own mediation.
And pray where have I stated that there have been changes in British Law? |
| Daveb |
Posted - 05/07/2008 : 12:35:22
There is good and bad in all things.
Please enlghted us to any changes made in the laws of UK to allow Jews or any other group to follow their own mediation.
|
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 05/07/2008 : 12:28:19
quote:
Originally posted by Tombstone Blues
Some interesting observations here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article4272421.ece
I have read the original article where Shahid Malik brought up the notion that Muslims are Europe's Jews - Muslims 'under siege like Jews'. Unlike Matthew Parris (using the Shahid Malik methodology as he puts it) I find the comparison neither disgraceful, outrageous nor insulting. I think we would do well to look back and see why 'giving a dog a bad name' is a bad idea. For all sorts of reasons we seem to be in some sort of catch 22 where no one seems able to accept that there is good and bad in both sides of the debate; an 'I-will-if-you-will' situation where all you get is an uneasy stand-off resulting in a self fulfilling prophesy.
|
| Daveb |
Posted - 05/07/2008 : 11:53:55
It is a tricky one.
http://livewire.forumco.com/topic~TOPIC_ID~1580.asp
There are set rules/laws in all groups or lands.
Accept them or go where the the laws you want exist.
|
| Tombstone Blues |
Posted - 05/07/2008 : 11:19:25
Some interesting observations here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article4272421.ece
|
| Daveb |
Posted - 04/07/2008 : 20:23:59
Then is some cases the appropriate authorities will never be informed and "local law" will rule. |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 04/07/2008 : 20:15:20
Well it can only go so far and then it will be in contravention of the Rule of Law and it will not be allowed to do so.
As with all matters, the authorities can only deal with issues they know about. So if there is reason to believe that in some areas a Rule of Law that is in contravention of British law is taking preference then it is only by informing the appropriate authorities that action can be taken. |
| Daveb |
Posted - 04/07/2008 : 19:48:53
It really depends on how far it goes. We know that some radicals will see this as the first step. Call me a "Little Englander" if you like but I do see this as the thin end of the wedge.
We also know that in many areas, Southall, Leicester, Slough etc where the indiginous population is in a minority that "local laws" take preference.
Is this intergration or assimilation? |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 04/07/2008 : 19:35:22
I can have a conflict with my neighbours and accept the mediation from a mediator provided by the council. I can have a conflcit within my relationship and accept the mediation of my Great-aunt Betty or his uncle Phil. I can have a conflict with members of my congregation and accept the mediation offered by my Rabbi/Priest and yes, if I was in a Muslim congregation I do not see why I should net be able to accept, should I so choose, the mediation of the Imam.
If as a result of that mediation a resolution is arrived at, and that resolution is not only acceptable to both/all parties in the conflict and it is within the bounds of acceptability of the Rule of Law ... then there is no problem that I can see! |
| Daveb |
Posted - 04/07/2008 : 19:32:17
I see no need for mediation. UK laws apply to all in UK.
If that is not enough for any group then tough. |
| Anubis |
Posted - 04/07/2008 : 19:28:39
quote:
Originally posted by Miriam Binder
quote:
Originally posted by Daveb
Sorry, no way. Move to a country accept the laws.
Mediation is merely a process to try and resolve disputes. It does not claim to be nor should it be regarded as an alternative to the rule of law. And as it so happens mediation is already an accepted format of conflict resolution in this country. So I cannot see where the problem is if both/all parties are willing to accept the mediation of a given mediator; always granted that the proviso is that the arrived at resolution is within keeping of the law as it stands which would be English law in this case.
I am sure I agree with what you mean, Mim ... but perhaps you could have said it more specifically to answer Daveb's possible misunderstanding ?! Of course, in this country already, mediation is a widely recognized "first step" in dispute resolution, which can only take place with the agreement of both parties. The mediator's role is to do no more than help the two parties arrive at a mutually acceptable understanding ... if the parties cannot agree, then the mediation process ends. It is not the purpose of the mediator to make a judgement ..... he does no more than mediate !! |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 04/07/2008 : 19:28:31
quote:
Originally posted by Daveb
Did not realise we were in a conflict. Someone started a civil war?
 |
| Daveb |
Posted - 04/07/2008 : 19:17:15
Did not realise we were in a conflict. Someone started a civil war? |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 04/07/2008 : 19:13:31
quote:
Originally posted by Daveb
People move for various reasons. Invaders are criticised for imposing will on the countries they invade.
While I see no problem with people moving to different countries they should not expect any country to introduce any alternative to appease them.
Respect their religion and beliefs and they should respect and obey those of the country that has allowed them to settle.
Once these conscessions have been made more hardline elements will follow.
Mediation is already an accepted form of conflict resolution. It is not the introduction of something new. |
| Daveb |
Posted - 04/07/2008 : 19:10:28
People move for various reasons. Invaders are criticised for imposing will on the countries they invade.
While I see no problem with people moving to different countries they should not expect any country to introduce any alternative to appease them.
Respect their religion and beliefs and they should respect and obey those of the country that has allowed them to settle.
Once these conscessions have been made more hardline elements will follow. |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 04/07/2008 : 18:59:24
quote:
Originally posted by Daveb
Sorry, no way. Move to a country accept the laws.
Mediation is merely a process to try and resolve disputes. It does not claim to be nor should it be regarded as an alternative to the rule of law. And as it so happens mediation is already an accepted format of conflict resolution in this country. So I cannot see where the problem is if both/all parties are willing to accept the mediation of a given mediator; always granted that the proviso is that the arrived at resolution is within keeping of the law as it stands which would be English law in this case. |
| Miriam Binder |
Posted - 04/07/2008 : 18:58:34
quote:
Originally posted by Daveb
Sorry, no way. Move to a country accept the laws.
Mediation is merely a process to try and resolve disputes. It does not claim to be nor should it be regarded as an alternative to the rule of law. And as it so happens mediation is already an accepted format of conflict resolution in this country. So I cannot see where the problem is if both/all parties are willing to accept the mediation of a given mediator; always granted that the proviso is that the arrived at resolution is within keeping of the law as it stands which would be English law in this case. |
| Daveb |
Posted - 04/07/2008 : 18:03:02
Sorry, no way. Move to a country accept the laws.
|
