We all know that discrimination on the grounds of religion is not
allowed under the Equality Act. So, does that include astrology?
Suppose that fourteen Leos had been appointed to be Pope but there had
never been a Pope Sagittarius, would that be illegal?
On 09/05/2025 07:51, Norman Wells wrote:
We all know that discrimination on the grounds of religion is not
allowed under the Equality Act. So, does that include astrology?
No. Astrologers are an abomination and *should* be persecuted today. ;-)
They had a reasonable world view in the distant past when observing the heavens for things that changed and predicting eclipses was important.
Isaiah doesn't have much time for them at all but stops short of
specifying how big are the stones that you should throw at them.
Isaiah 47:13-15 NIV. "All the counsel you have received has only worn
you out. Let your astrologers come forward, those stargazers who make predictions month by month, let them save you from what is coming upon
you. Surely they are like stubble; the fire will burn them up. They
cannot even save themselves from the flame… Each of them goes on in his error; there is not one that can save you."
More in favour of incineration to purify the land.
Suppose that fourteen Leos had been appointed to be Pope but there had
never been a Pope Sagittarius, would that be illegal?
One other minor glitch for astrologers is that the sun also passes
through the 13th constellation of Ophiucus between Sagittarius and
Scorpio which never gets a mention.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophiuchus
It is harmless in the tabloids leaving 1/12 of the population with the
idea that they will meet a tall dark handsome stranger or some other
suitably vague "rain or go dark before morning" prediction. But very dangerous when world leaders start consulting them for advice.
We all know that discrimination on the grounds of religion is not
allowed under the Equality Act. So, does that include astrology?
Suppose that fourteen Leos had been appointed to be Pope but there had
never been a Pope Sagittarius, would that be illegal?
On 09/05/2025 09:53, Martin Brown wrote:
On 09/05/2025 07:51, Norman Wells wrote:
We all know that discrimination on the grounds of religion is not
allowed under the Equality Act. So, does that include astrology?
No. Astrologers are an abomination and *should* be persecuted today. ;-)
The problem with that, despite the smiley and its possible truth, is
that, if astrology is a religion or philosophical belief and therefore a protected characteristic, your comment could be regarded as 'hate
speech', ie 'inciting hatred or hostility towards individuals or groups
based on protected characteristics like race, religion ...' etc, and therefore criminal.
On 09/05/2025 09:53, Martin Brown wrote:
On 09/05/2025 07:51, Norman Wells wrote:
We all know that discrimination on the grounds of religion is not
allowed under the Equality Act. So, does that include astrology?
No. Astrologers are an abomination and *should* be persecuted today. ;-)
The problem with that, despite the smiley and its possible truth, is
that, if astrology is a religion or philosophical belief and therefore a protected characteristic, your comment could be regarded as 'hate
speech', ie 'inciting hatred or hostility towards individuals or groups
based on protected characteristics like race, religion ...' etc, and therefore criminal.
So, it comes down to whether astrology is a religion or a philosophical belief, both of which are protected characteristics, and could in my
view apply. So, how would you argue in your defence?
On 09/05/2025 11:04, Norman Wells wrote:
[quoted text muted]
By experience. It's neither an observation or a religion; it's a con.
Did you know that the Sun signs published in daily papers are nearly a
sign out? If you think you were born "in" Pisces you were probably born
when the Sun was in Aries. 'Cos you can't see the stars when the Sun's
out, so they do a calculation which has got wrong since the Sun signs
were worked out a couple of thousand years ago. (It's due to precession:
real astronomy is a lot more interesting than (fake) astrology.)
On 09/05/2025 07:51, Norman Wells wrote:
We all know that discrimination on the grounds of religion is not
allowed under the Equality Act. So, does that include astrology?
Suppose that fourteen Leos had been appointed to be Pope but there had
never been a Pope Sagittarius, would that be illegal?
I'm not sure that Pope Leo is named after the constellation, though I
suppose they are both named after the lion.
How about Scientologists? They claim to be a religion (for tax purposes
I think), and get rather antsy if you criticise them. Are they a
"protected species"? Can I be "protected"?
On 9 May 2025 at 11:04:01 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 09/05/2025 09:53, Martin Brown wrote:I think that was rather the point he was making. But obvious facetiousness might well be a good defence. Or does one have to take the sense of humour of one's putative victims as one finds it?
On 09/05/2025 07:51, Norman Wells wrote:
We all know that discrimination on the grounds of religion is not
allowed under the Equality Act. So, does that include astrology?
No. Astrologers are an abomination and *should* be persecuted today. ;-)
The problem with that, despite the smiley and its possible truth, is
that, if astrology is a religion or philosophical belief and therefore a
protected characteristic, your comment could be regarded as 'hate
speech', ie 'inciting hatred or hostility towards individuals or groups
based on protected characteristics like race, religion ...' etc, and
therefore criminal.
On Fri, 09 May 2025 12:49:41 +0100, Max Demian wrote:
Did you know that the Sun signs published in daily papers are nearly a
sign out? If you think you were born "in" Pisces you were probably born
when the Sun was in Aries. 'Cos you can't see the stars when the Sun's
out, so they do a calculation which has got wrong since the Sun signs
were worked out a couple of thousand years ago. (It's due to precession:
real astronomy is a lot more interesting than (fake) astrology.)
None of that means astrology is of no use. Even for something as trivial
as finding a quick and well understood way of roughly dividing a crowd
into 12.
On 09/05/2025 12:34, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 9 May 2025 at 11:04:01 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 09/05/2025 09:53, Martin Brown wrote:I think that was rather the point he was making. But obvious facetiousness >> might well be a good defence. Or does one have to take the sense of humour of
On 09/05/2025 07:51, Norman Wells wrote:The problem with that, despite the smiley and its possible truth, is
We all know that discrimination on the grounds of religion is not
allowed under the Equality Act. So, does that include astrology?
No. Astrologers are an abomination and *should* be persecuted today. ;-) >>>
that, if astrology is a religion or philosophical belief and therefore a >>> protected characteristic, your comment could be regarded as 'hate
speech', ie 'inciting hatred or hostility towards individuals or groups
based on protected characteristics like race, religion ...' etc, and
therefore criminal.
one's putative victims as one finds it?
It would have to be established that it was in fact (a) facetious, (b) obviously so and (c) that obvious facetiousness is a legitimate defence.
I doubt if Lucy Connolly would think it's a good idea to rely on it:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/uk/tory-councillors-wife-jailed-tweets-southport-denied-temporary-release/
Victims anyway tend not to have much of a sense of humour about what
caused them to be victims.
Anyway, what is your answer to my original question? You seem to have neglected to say.
On 09/05/2025 12:49, Max Demian wrote:
On 09/05/2025 07:51, Norman Wells wrote:
We all know that discrimination on the grounds of religion is not
allowed under the Equality Act. So, does that include astrology?
Suppose that fourteen Leos had been appointed to be Pope but there had
never been a Pope Sagittarius, would that be illegal?
I'm not sure that Pope Leo is named after the constellation, though I
suppose they are both named after the lion.
Who knows what anything is named after? Leo is a bit unimaginative and >repetitive though.
Pope Sagittarius the First would be much more
interesting. It would break the ice at parties if nothing else.
On 09/05/2025 11:04, Norman Wells wrote:
On 09/05/2025 09:53, Martin Brown wrote:
On 09/05/2025 07:51, Norman Wells wrote:
We all know that discrimination on the grounds of religion is not
allowed under the Equality Act. So, does that include astrology?
No. Astrologers are an abomination and *should* be persecuted today. ;-)
The problem with that, despite the smiley and its possible truth, is
that, if astrology is a religion or philosophical belief and therefore a
protected characteristic, your comment could be regarded as 'hate
speech', ie 'inciting hatred or hostility towards individuals or groups
based on protected characteristics like race, religion ...' etc, and
therefore criminal.
So, it comes down to whether astrology is a religion or a philosophical
belief, both of which are protected characteristics, and could in my
view apply. So, how would you argue in your defence?
By experience. It's neither an observation or a religion; it's a con.
Flying back in business class from a meeting in the USA in 1995, I was >sitting next to a very well-dressed, late middle-aged woman (covered in >jewellery as it happens). She had a laptop open and I could see that she
was "generating" horoscopes. She was writing a few lines under each star >sign, without recourse to any background information. What she wrote was
a work of fiction, with its source entirely in her mind. What came next
had me almost laughing out loud. Having finished all the horoscopes, she
read through them from top to bottom and then started cutting and
pasting the text from one horoscope to another until she was satisfied
with each "prediction"! When she had finished she saved the final
document. I assume it was sent to a newspaper - perhaps more than one if
it was syndicated.
On Fri, 09 May 2025 13:20:09 +0100, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 09/05/2025 11:04, Norman Wells wrote:
[quoted text muted]
By experience. It's neither an observation or a religion; it's a con.
Regardless of that, does it have any utility ?
On 9 May 2025 at 13:33:00 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2025 12:49:41 +0100, Max Demian wrote:
Did you know that the Sun signs published in daily papers are nearly a
sign out? If you think you were born "in" Pisces you were probably
born when the Sun was in Aries. 'Cos you can't see the stars when the
Sun's out, so they do a calculation which has got wrong since the Sun
signs were worked out a couple of thousand years ago. (It's due to
precession:
real astronomy is a lot more interesting than (fake) astrology.)
None of that means astrology is of no use. Even for something as
trivial as finding a quick and well understood way of roughly dividing
a crowd into 12.
Isn't month of birth slightly easier?
On 09/05/2025 12:49, Max Demian wrote:
On 09/05/2025 07:51, Norman Wells wrote:
We all know that discrimination on the grounds of religion is not
allowed under the Equality Act. So, does that include astrology?
Suppose that fourteen Leos had been appointed to be Pope but there
had never been a Pope Sagittarius, would that be illegal?
I'm not sure that Pope Leo is named after the constellation, though I
suppose they are both named after the lion.
Who knows what anything is named after? Leo is a bit unimaginative and repetitive though. Pope Sagittarius the First would be much more interesting. It would break the ice at parties if nothing else.
On Fri, 9 May 2025 13:12:48 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
Who knows what anything is named after? Leo is a bit unimaginative and >>repetitive though.
It's been reported that the current Pope Leo XIV chose the name as a mark of respect for the previous holder of that name, Leo XIII. Leo XIII had a reputation for both intellectualism and favouring social justice, supporting the creation of trade unions and campaigns for fair wages and safe working conditions, while at the same time affirming the rights to property and free enterprise.
What's a slightly more plausible possibility is that some future Pope will choose to re-use one of the names that, until now, has only been used once. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Leo XIV's successor is Francis II. But you never know, we might end up with a Hilarius II, a Severinus II or a Telesphorus II. Or, maybe, even, a Mark II.
On Fri, 9 May 2025 13:20:09 +0100, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 09/05/2025 11:04, Norman Wells wrote:
On 09/05/2025 09:53, Martin Brown wrote:
On 09/05/2025 07:51, Norman Wells wrote:The problem with that, despite the smiley and its possible truth, is
We all know that discrimination on the grounds of religion is not
allowed under the Equality Act. So, does that include astrology?
No. Astrologers are an abomination and *should* be persecuted today. ;-) >>>
that, if astrology is a religion or philosophical belief and therefore a >>> protected characteristic, your comment could be regarded as 'hate
speech', ie 'inciting hatred or hostility towards individuals or groups
based on protected characteristics like race, religion ...' etc, and
therefore criminal.
So, it comes down to whether astrology is a religion or a philosophical
belief, both of which are protected characteristics, and could in my
view apply. So, how would you argue in your defence?
By experience. It's neither an observation or a religion; it's a con.
I don't think astrology alone could be classed as a religion. Any more than fingering a rosary or bowing down on a mat could, in themselves, be classed as a religion. But astrology can be a part of the expression of some religions. Some branches of paganism, for example, practise astrology. In that context, it would be a religious activity, just like praying the rosary or praying in the direction of Mecca. But, in my experience, the people who do take it seriously in that context are just as dismissive of tabloid horoscopes as the rest of us.
Flying back in business class from a meeting in the USA in 1995, I was
sitting next to a very well-dressed, late middle-aged woman (covered in
jewellery as it happens). She had a laptop open and I could see that she
was "generating" horoscopes. She was writing a few lines under each star
sign, without recourse to any background information. What she wrote was
a work of fiction, with its source entirely in her mind. What came next
had me almost laughing out loud. Having finished all the horoscopes, she
read through them from top to bottom and then started cutting and
pasting the text from one horoscope to another until she was satisfied
with each "prediction"! When she had finished she saved the final
document. I assume it was sent to a newspaper - perhaps more than one if
it was syndicated.
I recall reading a diary article in a newspaper which described a situation where the regular astrology correspondant was unexpectedly away (I think
he'd been taken ill or something), so one of the sports correspondants
dashed off a set of predictions in his lunch break and the newspaper published them. And nobody noticed any difference.
On 09/05/2025 11:04, Norman Wells wrote:
On 09/05/2025 09:53, Martin Brown wrote:
On 09/05/2025 07:51, Norman Wells wrote:
We all know that discrimination on the grounds of religion is not
allowed under the Equality Act. So, does that include astrology?
No. Astrologers are an abomination and *should* be persecuted today. ;-)
The problem with that, despite the smiley and its possible truth, is
that, if astrology is a religion or philosophical belief and therefore a
protected characteristic, your comment could be regarded as 'hate
speech', ie 'inciting hatred or hostility towards individuals or groups
based on protected characteristics like race, religion ...' etc, and
therefore criminal.
So, it comes down to whether astrology is a religion or a philosophical
belief, both of which are protected characteristics, and could in my
view apply. So, how would you argue in your defence?
By experience. It's neither an observation or a religion; it's a con.
Flying back in business class from a meeting in the USA in 1995, I was sitting next to a very well-dressed, late middle-aged woman (covered in jewellery as it happens). She had a laptop open and I could see that she
was "generating" horoscopes. She was writing a few lines under each star sign, without recourse to any background information. What she wrote was
a work of fiction, with its source entirely in her mind. What came next
had me almost laughing out loud. Having finished all the horoscopes, she
read through them from top to bottom and then started cutting and
pasting the text from one horoscope to another until she was satisfied
with each "prediction"! When she had finished she saved the final
document. I assume it was sent to a newspaper - perhaps more than one if
it was syndicated.
On 09/05/2025 11:04, Norman Wells wrote:
On 09/05/2025 09:53, Martin Brown wrote:
On 09/05/2025 07:51, Norman Wells wrote:
We all know that discrimination on the grounds of religion is not
allowed under the Equality Act. So, does that include astrology?
No. Astrologers are an abomination and *should* be persecuted today. ;-)
The problem with that, despite the smiley and its possible truth, is
that, if astrology is a religion or philosophical belief and therefore a
protected characteristic, your comment could be regarded as 'hate
speech', ie 'inciting hatred or hostility towards individuals or groups
based on protected characteristics like race, religion ...' etc, and
therefore criminal.
So, it comes down to whether astrology is a religion or a philosophical
belief, both of which are protected characteristics, and could in my
view apply. So, how would you argue in your defence?
By experience. It's neither an observation or a religion; it's a con.
Flying back in business class from a meeting in the USA in 1995, I was sitting next to a very well-dressed, late middle-aged woman (covered in jewellery as it happens). She had a laptop open and I could see that she
was "generating" horoscopes. She was writing a few lines under each star sign, without recourse to any background information. What she wrote was
a work of fiction, with its source entirely in her mind. What came next
had me almost laughing out loud. Having finished all the horoscopes, she
read through them from top to bottom and then started cutting and
pasting the text from one horoscope to another until she was satisfied
with each "prediction"! When she had finished she saved the final
document. I assume it was sent to a newspaper - perhaps more than one if
it was syndicated.
On Fri, 09 May 2025 13:20:09 +0100, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 09/05/2025 11:04, Norman Wells wrote:
[quoted text muted]
By experience. It's neither an observation or a religion; it's a con.
Regardless of that, does it have any utility ?
All religion is obviously a crock of shit. However, isn't mutually exclusively with it having some use.
Probably. However that doesn't invalidate my observation that astrology
can be used for something.
I know a few counsellors who find it's a good tool for getting patients
to open up, regardless of any scientific basis.
On Fri, 9 May 2025 12:31:21 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2025 13:20:09 +0100, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 09/05/2025 11:04, Norman Wells wrote:
[quoted text muted]
By experience. It's neither an observation or a religion; it's a con.
Regardless of that, does it have any utility ?
All religion is obviously a crock of shit.
IME, there is a direct correlation between how convinced someone is
that religion is a crock of shit and how little they actually know
about religion.
However, isn't mutually
exclusively with it having some use.
"Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message news:il4s1kh0c8juppb0bnotjk08df88ki3krq@4ax.com...
On Fri, 9 May 2025 13:12:48 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
Who knows what anything is named after? Leo is a bit unimaginative and
repetitive though.
It's been reported that the current Pope Leo XIV chose the name as a mark of >> respect for the previous holder of that name, Leo XIII. Leo XIII had a
reputation for both intellectualism and favouring social justice, supporting >> the creation of trade unions and campaigns for fair wages and safe working >> conditions, while at the same time affirming the rights to property and free >> enterprise.
[...]
What's a slightly more plausible possibility is that some future Pope will >> choose to re-use one of the names that, until now, has only been used once. >> It wouldn't surprise me at all if Leo XIV's successor is Francis II. But you >> never know, we might end up with a Hilarius II, a Severinus II or a
Telesphorus II. Or, maybe, even, a Mark II.
But no Pope Normans so far. Not even one.
Or King Normans, for that matter.
Anywhere.
bb
On Fri, 9 May 2025 13:20:09 +0100, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 09/05/2025 11:04, Norman Wells wrote:
On 09/05/2025 09:53, Martin Brown wrote:
On 09/05/2025 07:51, Norman Wells wrote:The problem with that, despite the smiley and its possible truth, is
We all know that discrimination on the grounds of religion is not
allowed under the Equality Act. So, does that include astrology?
No. Astrologers are an abomination and *should* be persecuted today. ;-) >>>
that, if astrology is a religion or philosophical belief and therefore a >>> protected characteristic, your comment could be regarded as 'hate
speech', ie 'inciting hatred or hostility towards individuals or groups
based on protected characteristics like race, religion ...' etc, and
therefore criminal.
So, it comes down to whether astrology is a religion or a philosophical
belief, both of which are protected characteristics, and could in my
view apply. So, how would you argue in your defence?
By experience. It's neither an observation or a religion; it's a con.
I don't think astrology alone could be classed as a religion. Any more than fingering a rosary or bowing down on a mat could, in themselves, be classed as a religion. But astrology can be a part of the expression of some religions. Some branches of paganism, for example, practise astrology. In that context, it would be a religious activity, just like praying the rosary or praying in the direction of Mecca. But, in my experience, the people who do take it seriously in that context are just as dismissive of tabloid horoscopes as the rest of us.
Flying back in business class from a meeting in the USA in 1995, I was
sitting next to a very well-dressed, late middle-aged woman (covered in
jewellery as it happens). She had a laptop open and I could see that she
was "generating" horoscopes. She was writing a few lines under each star
sign, without recourse to any background information. What she wrote was
a work of fiction, with its source entirely in her mind. What came next
had me almost laughing out loud. Having finished all the horoscopes, she
read through them from top to bottom and then started cutting and
pasting the text from one horoscope to another until she was satisfied
with each "prediction"! When she had finished she saved the final
document. I assume it was sent to a newspaper - perhaps more than one if
it was syndicated.
I recall reading a diary article in a newspaper which described a situation where the regular astrology correspondant was unexpectedly away (I think
he'd been taken ill or something),
On 9 May 2025 at 17:48:40 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:il4s1kh0c8juppb0bnotjk08df88ki3krq@4ax.com...
On Fri, 9 May 2025 13:12:48 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>
Who knows what anything is named after? Leo is a bit unimaginative and >>>> repetitive though.
It's been reported that the current Pope Leo XIV chose the name as a mark of
respect for the previous holder of that name, Leo XIII. Leo XIII had a
reputation for both intellectualism and favouring social justice, supporting
the creation of trade unions and campaigns for fair wages and safe working >>> conditions, while at the same time affirming the rights to property and free
enterprise.
[...]
What's a slightly more plausible possibility is that some future Pope will >>> choose to re-use one of the names that, until now, has only been used once. >>> It wouldn't surprise me at all if Leo XIV's successor is Francis II. But you
never know, we might end up with a Hilarius II, a Severinus II or a
Telesphorus II. Or, maybe, even, a Mark II.
But no Pope Normans so far. Not even one.
Or King Normans, for that matter.
Anywhere.
bb
There were some Norman kings, though.
"Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message news:il4s1kh0c8juppb0bnotjk08df88ki3krq@4ax.com...
On Fri, 9 May 2025 13:12:48 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
Who knows what anything is named after? Leo is a bit unimaginative and
repetitive though.
It's been reported that the current Pope Leo XIV chose the name as a mark of >> respect for the previous holder of that name, Leo XIII. Leo XIII had a
reputation for both intellectualism and favouring social justice, supporting >> the creation of trade unions and campaigns for fair wages and safe working >> conditions, while at the same time affirming the rights to property and free >> enterprise.
[...]
What's a slightly more plausible possibility is that some future Pope will >> choose to re-use one of the names that, until now, has only been used once. >> It wouldn't surprise me at all if Leo XIV's successor is Francis II. But you >> never know, we might end up with a Hilarius II, a Severinus II or a
Telesphorus II. Or, maybe, even, a Mark II.
But no Pope Normans so far. Not even one.
Or King Normans, for that matter.
Anywhere.
On Fri, 9 May 2025 13:12:48 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
The very first Pope Leo was named that by his parents; he served as Pope before the tradition arose of choosing a pontifical name.
Pope Sagittarius the First would be much more
interesting. It would break the ice at parties if nothing else.
I'm sure the Pope doesn't need to break the ice at parties. More generally, Sagittarius isn't used as a given name anywhere else either.
On 09/05/2025 16:40, Jethro_uk wrote:
Probably. However that doesn't invalidate my observation that astrology
can be used for something.
I know a few counsellors who find it's a good tool for getting patients
to open up, regardless of any scientific basis.
There was a letter in The Times, a while back, where a Homeopathic practitioner claimed that Homeopathy was a very good way of triggering
the placebo effect.
I agree quite strongly with that. A Homeopath typically spends quite a
long time on a consultation. Far longer than the 10 mins you'll get at
the GP. And, most patients will respond positively to someone who
listens to them sympathetically.
I know that the Homeopathic 'remedy' is entirely useless, so it won't
work on me. But, someone more open to suggestion may well benefit.
On 9 May 2025 at 17:48:40 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:il4s1kh0c8juppb0bnotjk08df88ki3krq@4ax.com...
On Fri, 9 May 2025 13:12:48 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>
Who knows what anything is named after? Leo is a bit unimaginative and >>>> repetitive though.
It's been reported that the current Pope Leo XIV chose the name as a mark of
respect for the previous holder of that name, Leo XIII. Leo XIII had a
reputation for both intellectualism and favouring social justice, supporting
the creation of trade unions and campaigns for fair wages and safe working >>> conditions, while at the same time affirming the rights to property and free
enterprise.
[...]
What's a slightly more plausible possibility is that some future Pope will >>> choose to re-use one of the names that, until now, has only been used once. >>> It wouldn't surprise me at all if Leo XIV's successor is Francis II. But you
never know, we might end up with a Hilarius II, a Severinus II or a
Telesphorus II. Or, maybe, even, a Mark II.
But no Pope Normans so far. Not even one.
Or King Normans, for that matter.
Anywhere.
bb
There were some Norman kings, though.
On 09/05/2025 13:20, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 09/05/2025 11:04, Norman Wells wrote:
On 09/05/2025 09:53, Martin Brown wrote:
On 09/05/2025 07:51, Norman Wells wrote:The problem with that, despite the smiley and its possible truth, is
We all know that discrimination on the grounds of religion is not
allowed under the Equality Act. So, does that include astrology?
No. Astrologers are an abomination and *should* be persecuted today. ;-) >>>
that, if astrology is a religion or philosophical belief and therefore a >>> protected characteristic, your comment could be regarded as 'hate
speech', ie 'inciting hatred or hostility towards individuals or groups
based on protected characteristics like race, religion ...' etc, and
therefore criminal.
So, it comes down to whether astrology is a religion or a philosophical
belief, both of which are protected characteristics, and could in my
view apply. So, how would you argue in your defence?
By experience. It's neither an observation or a religion; it's a con.
I'm not sure that's actually a legal argument that would stand up in
court though. It sounds more like an unsubstantiated opinion.
Flying back in business class from a meeting in the USA in 1995, I was
sitting next to a very well-dressed, late middle-aged woman (covered in
jewellery as it happens). She had a laptop open and I could see that she
was "generating" horoscopes. She was writing a few lines under each star
sign, without recourse to any background information. What she wrote was
a work of fiction, with its source entirely in her mind. What came next
had me almost laughing out loud. Having finished all the horoscopes, she
read through them from top to bottom and then started cutting and
pasting the text from one horoscope to another until she was satisfied
with each "prediction"! When she had finished she saved the final
document. I assume it was sent to a newspaper - perhaps more than one if
it was syndicated.
On 09/05/2025 16:40, Jethro_uk wrote:
Probably. However that doesn't invalidate my observation that astrology
can be used for something.
I know a few counsellors who find it's a good tool for getting patients
to open up, regardless of any scientific basis.
There was a letter in The Times, a while back, where a Homeopathic >practitioner claimed that Homeopathy was a very good way of triggering
the placebo effect.
On Fri, 9 May 2025 17:07:10 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 09/05/2025 16:40, Jethro_uk wrote:
Probably. However that doesn't invalidate my observation that astrology
can be used for something.
I know a few counsellors who find it's a good tool for getting patients
to open up, regardless of any scientific basis.
There was a letter in The Times, a while back, where a Homeopathic >>practitioner claimed that Homeopathy was a very good way of triggering
the placebo effect.
An interesting fact about the placebo effect is that different coloured
pills "work" better for different ailments. And, even more interestingly,
the placebo effect works even when people taking the pills know that
they're placebos.
What that means in practice, therefore, is that with a tube of
Smarties and sufficient willpower it ought to be possible to cure any disease.
I recall reading a diary article in a newspaper which described a situation where the regular astrology correspondant was unexpectedly away (I think
he'd been taken ill or something), so one of the sports correspondants
dashed off a set of predictions in his lunch break and the newspaper published them. And nobody noticed any difference.
On 2025-05-09, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2025 17:07:10 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>> On 09/05/2025 16:40, Jethro_uk wrote:
Probably. However that doesn't invalidate my observation that astrology >>>> can be used for something.
I know a few counsellors who find it's a good tool for getting patients >>>> to open up, regardless of any scientific basis.
There was a letter in The Times, a while back, where a Homeopathic
practitioner claimed that Homeopathy was a very good way of triggering
the placebo effect.
An interesting fact about the placebo effect is that different coloured
pills "work" better for different ailments. And, even more interestingly,
the placebo effect works even when people taking the pills know that
they're placebos.
What that means in practice, therefore, is that with a tube of
Smarties and sufficient willpower it ought to be possible to cure any
disease.
I'm afraid your post contravenes the Cancer Act 1939 and you should
report to your nearest police station for arrest.
On 9 May 2025 at 15:50:10 BST, "Martin Harran"
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2025 12:31:21 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2025 13:20:09 +0100, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 09/05/2025 11:04, Norman Wells wrote:
[quoted text muted]
By experience. It's neither an observation or a religion; it's a
con.
Regardless of that, does it have any utility ?
All religion is obviously a crock of shit.
IME, there is a direct correlation between how convinced someone is
that religion is a crock of shit and how little they actually know
about religion.
I did RE in primary school; so I'm certainly not ignorant of the
finer points of Anglican theology. It's a god existing outside the
physics of the known universe that I don't accept.
On 09/05/2025 13:12, Norman Wells wrote:
Who knows what anything is named after? Leo is a bit unimaginative and
repetitive though. Pope Sagittarius the First would be much more
interesting. It would break the ice at parties if nothing else.
I recall that the first Pope John Paul was called John Paul I during his >(short pontifical) lifetime. Usually the first of the name is not
numbered, for example Queen Elizabeth. Or maybe it was all planned...
Bizarrely, the placebo effect is known to work even if the patient knows that they are receiving a placebo. Make of that what you will.
On 9 May 2025 at 17:07:10 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 09/05/2025 16:40, Jethro_uk wrote:
Probably. However that doesn't invalidate my observation that astrology
can be used for something.
I know a few counsellors who find it's a good tool for getting patients
to open up, regardless of any scientific basis.
There was a letter in The Times, a while back, where a Homeopathic
practitioner claimed that Homeopathy was a very good way of triggering
the placebo effect.
I agree quite strongly with that. A Homeopath typically spends quite a
long time on a consultation. Far longer than the 10 mins you'll get at
the GP. And, most patients will respond positively to someone who
listens to them sympathetically.
I know that the Homeopathic 'remedy' is entirely useless, so it won't
work on me. But, someone more open to suggestion may well benefit.
Bizarrely, the placebo effect is known to work even if the patient
knows that they are receiving a placebo. Make of that what you will.
On 9 May 2025 at 23:37:55 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-05-09, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2025 17:07:10 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:
On 09/05/2025 16:40, Jethro_uk wrote:
Probably. However that doesn't invalidate my observation that
astrology can be used for something.
I know a few counsellors who find it's a good tool for getting
patients to open up, regardless of any scientific basis.
There was a letter in The Times, a while back, where a Homeopathic
practitioner claimed that Homeopathy was a very good way of
triggering the placebo effect.
An interesting fact about the placebo effect is that different
coloured pills "work" better for different ailments. And, even more
interestingly, the placebo effect works even when people taking the
pills know that they're placebos.
What that means in practice, therefore, is that with a tube of
Smarties and sufficient willpower it ought to be possible to cure any
disease.
I'm afraid your post contravenes the Cancer Act 1939 and you should
report to your nearest police station for arrest.
Yes it was a little optimistic to suggest that the placebo effect very
often cures anything, as opposed to relieving symptoms and perhaps
slowing disease progression.
Similarly, no-one truly thinks God is an old man with a white beard
hiding behind a cloud. Or that when God "speaks", his words will be >understood by speakers of any language.
JP I's reasons for adopting an unnecessary ordinal are not entirely known.
It has given rise to conspiracy theories, in turn augmented by his untimely death. Alternatively - and supported by his own statement that "my reign
will be a short one" shortly after his election - he was a prophet who foresaw not only his own death but the name choice of his successor.
On 09/05/2025 15:30, Norman Wells wrote:
On 09/05/2025 13:20, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 09/05/2025 11:04, Norman Wells wrote:
On 09/05/2025 09:53, Martin Brown wrote:
On 09/05/2025 07:51, Norman Wells wrote:
We all know that discrimination on the grounds of religion is not
allowed under the Equality Act. So, does that include astrology?
No. Astrologers are an abomination and *should* be persecuted
today. ;-)
The problem with that, despite the smiley and its possible truth, is
that, if astrology is a religion or philosophical belief and
therefore a
protected characteristic, your comment could be regarded as 'hate
speech', ie 'inciting hatred or hostility towards individuals or groups >>>> based on protected characteristics like race, religion ...' etc, and
therefore criminal.
So, it comes down to whether astrology is a religion or a philosophical >>>> belief, both of which are protected characteristics, and could in my
view apply. So, how would you argue in your defence?
By experience. It's neither an observation or a religion; it's a con.
I'm not sure that's actually a legal argument that would stand up in
court though. It sounds more like an unsubstantiated opinion.
I believe that it would stand up. I was a witness to a certain activity.
It wasn't secondhand or hearsay. If required by a court, I would recount
the events exactly as noted below. Perhaps you could explain why you
think it was an unsubstantiated opinion; it would, of course be up to a
jury to decide whether or not it was unsubstantiated.
Flying back in business class from a meeting in the USA in 1995, I was
sitting next to a very well-dressed, late middle-aged woman (covered in
jewellery as it happens). She had a laptop open and I could see that she >>> was "generating" horoscopes. She was writing a few lines under each star >>> sign, without recourse to any background information. What she wrote was >>> a work of fiction, with its source entirely in her mind. What came next
had me almost laughing out loud. Having finished all the horoscopes, she >>> read through them from top to bottom and then started cutting and
pasting the text from one horoscope to another until she was satisfied
with each "prediction"! When she had finished she saved the final
document. I assume it was sent to a newspaper - perhaps more than one if >>> it was syndicated.
On Fri, 9 May 2025 17:07:10 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:
On 09/05/2025 16:40, Jethro_uk wrote:
Probably. However that doesn't invalidate my observation that
astrology can be used for something.
I know a few counsellors who find it's a good tool for getting
patients to open up, regardless of any scientific basis.
There was a letter in The Times, a while back, where a Homeopathic >>practitioner claimed that Homeopathy was a very good way of triggering
the placebo effect.
An interesting fact about the placebo effect is that different coloured
pills "work" better for different ailments. And, even more
interestingly, the placebo effect works even when people taking the
pills know that they're placebos.
What that means in practice, therefore, is that with a tube of Smarties
and sufficient willpower it ought to be possible to cure any disease.
Mark
We all know that discrimination on the grounds of religion is not
allowed under the Equality Act. So, does that include astrology?
Suppose that fourteen Leos had been appointed to be Pope but there had
never been a Pope Sagittarius, would that be illegal?
On Fri, 09 May 2025 22:55:32 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 9 May 2025 at 23:37:55 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-05-09, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2025 17:07:10 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:
On 09/05/2025 16:40, Jethro_uk wrote:
Probably. However that doesn't invalidate my observation that
astrology can be used for something.
I know a few counsellors who find it's a good tool for getting
patients to open up, regardless of any scientific basis.
There was a letter in The Times, a while back, where a Homeopathic
practitioner claimed that Homeopathy was a very good way of
triggering the placebo effect.
An interesting fact about the placebo effect is that different
coloured pills "work" better for different ailments. And, even more
interestingly, the placebo effect works even when people taking the
pills know that they're placebos.
What that means in practice, therefore, is that with a tube of
Smarties and sufficient willpower it ought to be possible to cure any
disease.
I'm afraid your post contravenes the Cancer Act 1939 and you should
report to your nearest police station for arrest.
Yes it was a little optimistic to suggest that the placebo effect very
often cures anything, as opposed to relieving symptoms and perhaps
slowing disease progression.
A lot depends on the complaint. You need to bear in mind we know much
less about disease than we could know. A lot more than a century ago,
yes. But not enough to explain 80% of what goes on.
My brother works in a very niche area of medical research (using massive
high powered computing resources). When pressed, he admits that there are loads of medicines that we do not understand. Which makes it more
puzzling when some just stop working (which is his area of interest) or
why the same medicine works for some and not for others.
Speaking for myself, my glaucoma eye drops were swapped around as the
just stopped working.
On Fri, 9 May 2025 22:45:58 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-05-09, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
I recall reading a diary article in a newspaper which described a situation >>> where the regular astrology correspondant was unexpectedly away (I think >>> he'd been taken ill or something), so one of the sports correspondants
dashed off a set of predictions in his lunch break and the newspaper
published them. And nobody noticed any difference.
I recall reading about an experiment whereby an offer was made for
free detailed horoscopes in return for feedback as to how accurate
the recipients felt the horoscopes to be. The feedback duly showed
the horoscopes to be widely regarded as highly accurate.
Of course the same horoscope had been sent to all the recipients.
That sort of thing doesn't just apply to astrology. I recall a
lecturer asking the class to each submit a sample of their handwriting
which he would send for personality analysis. The following week, he
gave the students their individual analysis and asked how many thought
it accurate.The vast majority thought the analysis was highly
accurate. He then asked them to swap their analysis with the student
beside them and they were taken aback to discover that everyone had an identical one.
This is achieved through vague generalisation. For example, how many
people would disagree that they "are inclined to be a bit lacking in confidence and wish they had more confidence when dealing with people
in authority"?
On 09/05/2025 07:51, Norman Wells wrote:
We all know that discrimination on the grounds of religion is not
allowed under the Equality Act. So, does that include astrology?
No.
Next.
Oh, you wanted an explanation?
Here you go:
The starting point is to acknowledge that the court is not concerned
with the truth or otherwise of the beliefs in question but will not
recognise as a religion everything that chooses to call itself a
religion. [^1] The courts have held that "to give [a] purpose the name
of "religious" or "education" is not to conclude the matter." [^2]
In short, for something to be considered as a religion for the purpose
of legislation, more is required than merely claiming "[x] is a
religion" for all values of [x], including, but not limited to, astrology.
Helpful in this regard is the Supreme Court's consideration of the
meaning of "religious worship" for registered places of worship [^3] in
the case of Hodkin. [^4]
Having reviewed the relevant case law, (including case law from other jurisdictions [^5]), Lord Toulson, who gave the leading judgment in
Hodkin, stated at paragraph [57] that:
"For the purposes of PWRA, I would describe religion in summary as a spiritual or non-secular belief system, held by a group of adherents,
which claims to explain mankind's place in the universe and relationship
with the infinite, and to teach its adherents how they are to live their lives in conformity with the spiritual understanding associated with the belief system. By spiritual or non-secular I mean a belief system which
goes beyond that which can be perceived by the senses or ascertained by
the application of science. I prefer not to use the word "supernatural"
to express this element, because it is a loaded word which can carry a variety of connotations. Such a belief system may or may not involve
belief in a supreme being, but it does involve a belief that there is
more to be understood about mankind's nature and relationship to the
universe than can be gained from the senses or from science. I emphasise
that this is intended to be a description and not a definitive formula."
On the subject of "religious worship", Lord Toulson interprets it as being:
"...wide enough to include religious services, whether or not the form
of service falls within the narrower definition adopted in Segerdal.
This broader interpretation accords with standard dictionary
definitions. The Chambers Dictionary, 12th ed (2011) defines the noun "worship" as including both "adoration paid to a deity, etc." and
"religious service", and it defines "worship" as an intransitive verb as
"to perform acts of adoration; to take part in religious service".
Similarly, the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 12th ed (2011),
defines "worship" as including both "the feeling and expression of
reverence and adoration of a deity" and "religious rites and
ceremonies". The broader interpretation accords with the purpose of the statute in permitting members of a religious congregation, who have a
meeting place where they perform their religious rites, to carry out religious ceremonies of marriage there.
"Their authorisation to do so should not depend on fine theological or liturgical niceties as to how precisely they see and express their relationship with the infinite (referred to by Scientologists as "God"
in their creed and universal prayer). Those matters, which have been
gone into in close detail in the evidence in this case, are more fitting
for theologians than for the Registrar General or the courts."
In Hodkin, the court has taken a broad view of what it means to be a
religion and the requirements of religious worship, recognising the
inherent difficulties of attempting to attach a narrowly circumscribed meaning to the word, including "the different context in which the issue
may arise, the variety of world religions, developments of new religions
and religious practices, and developments in the common understanding of
the concept of religion due to cultural changes" [^6]
It is noteworthy that in Hodkin, Lord Toulson distinguished and excluded secular belief systems from the description of religion.
Therefore, from both statute and case law, it is possible to draw the principles that religion is characterised by belief in one or more gods
or spiritual or non-secular principles or things, and a relationship
between the adherents of the religion and the gods, principles or things which is expressed by worship, reverence or adoration, veneration, intercession, or by some other religious rite or service.
Based on this, astrology may well be considered a secular belief system
but it falls some considerable way short of being considered a religion.
If you want to argue otherwise, please include references to relevant
statute and case law as I have done here.
Regards
S.P.
[^1] Re Coats Trusts, Coats v Gilmour [1948] Ch 340 (CA) 346-347
[^2] National Anti-Vivisection Society v IRC [1948] AC 31
[^3] Section 2 of the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855 (PWRA)
[^4] R (on the application of Hodkin and another) v Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages [2013] UKSC 77
[^5] He cites the judgments of Wilson and Deane JJ in Church of the New
Faith v Comr of Pay-Roll Tax (Victoria) (1983) 154 CLR as helpful on the question
[^6] Per Lord Toulson para 34
On 10 May 2025 at 08:33:30 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2025 22:55:32 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 9 May 2025 at 23:37:55 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>> wrote:
On 2025-05-09, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2025 17:07:10 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> >>>>> wrote:
On 09/05/2025 16:40, Jethro_uk wrote:
Probably. However that doesn't invalidate my observation that
astrology can be used for something.
I know a few counsellors who find it's a good tool for getting
patients to open up, regardless of any scientific basis.
There was a letter in The Times, a while back, where a Homeopathic >>>>>> practitioner claimed that Homeopathy was a very good way of
triggering the placebo effect.
An interesting fact about the placebo effect is that different
coloured pills "work" better for different ailments. And, even more
interestingly, the placebo effect works even when people taking the
pills know that they're placebos.
What that means in practice, therefore, is that with a tube of
Smarties and sufficient willpower it ought to be possible to cure any >>>>> disease.
I'm afraid your post contravenes the Cancer Act 1939 and you should
report to your nearest police station for arrest.
Yes it was a little optimistic to suggest that the placebo effect very
often cures anything, as opposed to relieving symptoms and perhaps
slowing disease progression.
A lot depends on the complaint. You need to bear in mind we know much
less about disease than we could know. A lot more than a century ago,
yes. But not enough to explain 80% of what goes on.
My brother works in a very niche area of medical research (using massive
high powered computing resources). When pressed, he admits that there are
loads of medicines that we do not understand. Which makes it more
puzzling when some just stop working (which is his area of interest) or
why the same medicine works for some and not for others.
Speaking for myself, my glaucoma eye drops were swapped around as the
just stopped working.
There are several known mechanisms that explain why drugs stop working, though
I agree we do not always know. Equally common is for a drug not to work in a particular individual. Sometimes we know why, sometimes we don't. In practice it is rare for any effort to be put into finding out why in a particular patient, as it is unlikely to be amenable to change. But I commend your brother's valuable research.
On 10/05/2025 11:54, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 10 May 2025 at 08:33:30 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2025 22:55:32 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 9 May 2025 at 23:37:55 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>>> wrote:
On 2025-05-09, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 9 May 2025 17:07:10 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 09/05/2025 16:40, Jethro_uk wrote:
Probably. However that doesn't invalidate my observation that
astrology can be used for something.
I know a few counsellors who find it's a good tool for getting >>>>>>>> patients to open up, regardless of any scientific basis.
There was a letter in The Times, a while back, where a Homeopathic >>>>>>> practitioner claimed that Homeopathy was a very good way of
triggering the placebo effect.
An interesting fact about the placebo effect is that different
coloured pills "work" better for different ailments. And, even more >>>>>> interestingly, the placebo effect works even when people taking the >>>>>> pills know that they're placebos.
What that means in practice, therefore, is that with a tube of
Smarties and sufficient willpower it ought to be possible to cure any >>>>>> disease.
I'm afraid your post contravenes the Cancer Act 1939 and you should
report to your nearest police station for arrest.
Yes it was a little optimistic to suggest that the placebo effect very >>>> often cures anything, as opposed to relieving symptoms and perhaps
slowing disease progression.
A lot depends on the complaint. You need to bear in mind we know much
less about disease than we could know. A lot more than a century ago,
yes. But not enough to explain 80% of what goes on.
My brother works in a very niche area of medical research (using massive >>> high powered computing resources). When pressed, he admits that there are >>> loads of medicines that we do not understand. Which makes it more
puzzling when some just stop working (which is his area of interest) or
why the same medicine works for some and not for others.
Speaking for myself, my glaucoma eye drops were swapped around as the
just stopped working.
There are several known mechanisms that explain why drugs stop working, though
I agree we do not always know. Equally common is for a drug not to work in a >> particular individual. Sometimes we know why, sometimes we don't. In practice
it is rare for any effort to be put into finding out why in a particular
patient, as it is unlikely to be amenable to change. But I commend your
brother's valuable research.
I don't think you could state it as a fact that homoeopathy is incapable
of curing or ameliorating medical conditions.
The main problem I think is that it is not possible to conduct proper clinical trials to prove or disprove the effect of homoeopathic
remedies, because the homoeopaths say that each person is an individual
and you are treating the whole person, with all that person's symptoms
and underlying personality traits, rather than treating a disease such
as Covid.
The two key precepts for homoeopaths are: (a) Like cures like. A
substance that can cause symptoms in a healthy person can also provoke a healing reaction in a person who has those symptoms. I don't think
that's an entirely irrational belief. (b) The more the remedy is
diluted, the more powerful it becomes. That, I think, must be contrary
to known science.
I grew up with a parent who kept a huge array of homoeopathic remedies
and was sure that they had more than just a placebo effect. But a
person's faith is no proof of anything.
On Fri, 09 May 2025 22:12:03 +0100, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2025 18:11:57 +0100, Max Demian
<max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 09/05/2025 13:12, Norman Wells wrote:
Who knows what anything is named after? Leo is a bit
unimaginative and repetitive though. Pope Sagittarius the First
would be much more interesting. It would break the ice at
parties if nothing else.
I recall that the first Pope John Paul was called John Paul I during
his (short pontifical) lifetime. Usually the first of the name is
not numbered, for example Queen Elizabeth. Or maybe it was all
planned...
John Paul I was the first Pope to deliberately adopt the ordinal
number despite it being unnecessary as he was, at the time, the only
one of that name.
Have you got a source for that? I thought the ordinal was only added
when John Paul II came along.
On Fri, 09 May 2025 13:20:09 +0100, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 09/05/2025 11:04, Norman Wells wrote:
[quoted text muted]
By experience. It's neither an observation or a religion; it's a con.
Regardless of that, does it have any utility ?
All religion is obviously a crock of shit. However, isn't mutually exclusively with it having some use.
On Fri, 09 May 2025 22:12:03 +0100, Mark Goodge ><usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2025 18:11:57 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> >>wrote:
On 09/05/2025 13:12, Norman Wells wrote:
Who knows what anything is named after? Leo is a bit unimaginative and >>>> repetitive though. Pope Sagittarius the First would be much more
interesting. It would break the ice at parties if nothing else.
I recall that the first Pope John Paul was called John Paul I during his >>>(short pontifical) lifetime. Usually the first of the name is not >>>numbered, for example Queen Elizabeth. Or maybe it was all planned...
John Paul I was the first Pope to deliberately adopt the ordinal number >>despite it being unnecessary as he was, at the time, the only one of that >>name.
Have you got a source for that? I thought the ordinal was only added
when John Paul II came along.
On 10 May 2025 at 12:32:17 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 10/05/2025 11:54, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 10 May 2025 at 08:33:30 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2025 22:55:32 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 9 May 2025 at 23:37:55 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>>>> wrote:
On 2025-05-09, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, 9 May 2025 17:07:10 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 09/05/2025 16:40, Jethro_uk wrote:
Probably. However that doesn't invalidate my observation that >>>>>>>>> astrology can be used for something.
I know a few counsellors who find it's a good tool for getting >>>>>>>>> patients to open up, regardless of any scientific basis.
There was a letter in The Times, a while back, where a Homeopathic >>>>>>>> practitioner claimed that Homeopathy was a very good way of
triggering the placebo effect.
An interesting fact about the placebo effect is that different
coloured pills "work" better for different ailments. And, even more >>>>>>> interestingly, the placebo effect works even when people taking the >>>>>>> pills know that they're placebos.
What that means in practice, therefore, is that with a tube of
Smarties and sufficient willpower it ought to be possible to cure any >>>>>>> disease.
I'm afraid your post contravenes the Cancer Act 1939 and you should >>>>>> report to your nearest police station for arrest.
Yes it was a little optimistic to suggest that the placebo effect very >>>>> often cures anything, as opposed to relieving symptoms and perhaps
slowing disease progression.
A lot depends on the complaint. You need to bear in mind we know much
less about disease than we could know. A lot more than a century ago,
yes. But not enough to explain 80% of what goes on.
My brother works in a very niche area of medical research (using massive >>>> high powered computing resources). When pressed, he admits that there are >>>> loads of medicines that we do not understand. Which makes it more
puzzling when some just stop working (which is his area of interest) or >>>> why the same medicine works for some and not for others.
Speaking for myself, my glaucoma eye drops were swapped around as the
just stopped working.
There are several known mechanisms that explain why drugs stop working, though
I agree we do not always know. Equally common is for a drug not to work in a
particular individual. Sometimes we know why, sometimes we don't. In practice
it is rare for any effort to be put into finding out why in a particular >>> patient, as it is unlikely to be amenable to change. But I commend your >>> brother's valuable research.
I don't think you could state it as a fact that homoeopathy is incapable
of curing or ameliorating medical conditions.
The main problem I think is that it is not possible to conduct proper
clinical trials to prove or disprove the effect of homoeopathic
remedies, because the homoeopaths say that each person is an individual
and you are treating the whole person, with all that person's symptoms
and underlying personality traits, rather than treating a disease such
as Covid.
It is easy. You get a homeopath to prescribe for the person and put the result
in a bottle and mark it. You also mark an identical bottle of pure water. A trial official keeps a record of which is which and the trial participant is randomly given one or the other. Neither the treating homeopath nor the person
assessing the trial participant (who may be the same person) know which the patient has received until after the trial. I believe it has been done. Though not often.
The two key precepts for homoeopaths are: (a) Like cures like. A
substance that can cause symptoms in a healthy person can also provoke a
healing reaction in a person who has those symptoms. I don't think
that's an entirely irrational belief. (b) The more the remedy is
diluted, the more powerful it becomes. That, I think, must be contrary
to known science.
I grew up with a parent who kept a huge array of homoeopathic remedies
and was sure that they had more than just a placebo effect. But a
person's faith is no proof of anything.
We all know that discrimination on the grounds of religion
is not allowed under the Equality Act. So, does that include astrology?
On 10/05/2025 13:24, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 10 May 2025 at 12:32:17 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 10/05/2025 11:54, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 10 May 2025 at 08:33:30 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2025 22:55:32 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 9 May 2025 at 23:37:55 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>>>>> wrote:
On 2025-05-09, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Fri, 9 May 2025 17:07:10 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 09/05/2025 16:40, Jethro_uk wrote:
Probably. However that doesn't invalidate my observation that >>>>>>>>>> astrology can be used for something.
I know a few counsellors who find it's a good tool for getting >>>>>>>>>> patients to open up, regardless of any scientific basis.
There was a letter in The Times, a while back, where a Homeopathic >>>>>>>>> practitioner claimed that Homeopathy was a very good way of
triggering the placebo effect.
An interesting fact about the placebo effect is that different >>>>>>>> coloured pills "work" better for different ailments. And, even more >>>>>>>> interestingly, the placebo effect works even when people taking the >>>>>>>> pills know that they're placebos.
What that means in practice, therefore, is that with a tube of >>>>>>>> Smarties and sufficient willpower it ought to be possible to cure any >>>>>>>> disease.
I'm afraid your post contravenes the Cancer Act 1939 and you should >>>>>>> report to your nearest police station for arrest.
Yes it was a little optimistic to suggest that the placebo effect very >>>>>> often cures anything, as opposed to relieving symptoms and perhaps >>>>>> slowing disease progression.
A lot depends on the complaint. You need to bear in mind we know much >>>>> less about disease than we could know. A lot more than a century ago, >>>>> yes. But not enough to explain 80% of what goes on.
My brother works in a very niche area of medical research (using massive >>>>> high powered computing resources). When pressed, he admits that there are >>>>> loads of medicines that we do not understand. Which makes it more
puzzling when some just stop working (which is his area of interest) or >>>>> why the same medicine works for some and not for others.
Speaking for myself, my glaucoma eye drops were swapped around as the >>>>> just stopped working.
There are several known mechanisms that explain why drugs stop working, though
I agree we do not always know. Equally common is for a drug not to work in a
particular individual. Sometimes we know why, sometimes we don't. In practice
it is rare for any effort to be put into finding out why in a particular >>>> patient, as it is unlikely to be amenable to change. But I commend your >>>> brother's valuable research.
I don't think you could state it as a fact that homoeopathy is incapable >>> of curing or ameliorating medical conditions.
The main problem I think is that it is not possible to conduct proper
clinical trials to prove or disprove the effect of homoeopathic
remedies, because the homoeopaths say that each person is an individual
and you are treating the whole person, with all that person's symptoms
and underlying personality traits, rather than treating a disease such
as Covid.
It is easy. You get a homeopath to prescribe for the person and put the result
in a bottle and mark it. You also mark an identical bottle of pure water. A >> trial official keeps a record of which is which and the trial participant is >> randomly given one or the other. Neither the treating homeopath nor the person
assessing the trial participant (who may be the same person) know which the >> patient has received until after the trial. I believe it has been done.
Though not often.
And if the condition is bronchitis, or headaches, or backache, or a UTI,
it's possible that the patient will make a speedy recovery no matter
which bottle they drink.
Measuring a patient's amelioration or recovery is unlikely to be an
exact science, in many cases.
The two key precepts for homoeopaths are: (a) Like cures like. A
substance that can cause symptoms in a healthy person can also provoke a >>> healing reaction in a person who has those symptoms. I don't think
that's an entirely irrational belief. (b) The more the remedy is
diluted, the more powerful it becomes. That, I think, must be contrary
to known science.
I grew up with a parent who kept a huge array of homoeopathic remedies
and was sure that they had more than just a placebo effect. But a
person's faith is no proof of anything.
On Fri, 9 May 2025 13:20:09 +0100, Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 09/05/2025 11:04, Norman Wells wrote:
On 09/05/2025 09:53, Martin Brown wrote:
On 09/05/2025 07:51, Norman Wells wrote:The problem with that, despite the smiley and its possible truth, is
We all know that discrimination on the grounds of religion is not
allowed under the Equality Act. So, does that include astrology?
No. Astrologers are an abomination and *should* be persecuted today. ;-) >>>
that, if astrology is a religion or philosophical belief and therefore a >>> protected characteristic, your comment could be regarded as 'hate
speech', ie 'inciting hatred or hostility towards individuals or groups
based on protected characteristics like race, religion ...' etc, and
therefore criminal.
So, it comes down to whether astrology is a religion or a philosophical
belief, both of which are protected characteristics, and could in my
view apply. So, how would you argue in your defence?
By experience. It's neither an observation or a religion; it's a con.
I don't think astrology alone could be classed as a religion. Any more than fingering a rosary or bowing down on a mat could, in themselves, be classed as a religion. But astrology can be a part of the expression of some religions. Some branches of paganism, for example, practise astrology. In that context, it would be a religious activity, just like praying the rosary or praying in the direction of Mecca. But, in my experience, the people who do take it seriously in that context are just as dismissive of tabloid horoscopes as the rest of us.
Flying back in business class from a meeting in the USA in 1995, I was
sitting next to a very well-dressed, late middle-aged woman (covered in
jewellery as it happens). She had a laptop open and I could see that she
was "generating" horoscopes. She was writing a few lines under each star
sign, without recourse to any background information. What she wrote was
a work of fiction, with its source entirely in her mind. What came next
had me almost laughing out loud. Having finished all the horoscopes, she
read through them from top to bottom and then started cutting and
pasting the text from one horoscope to another until she was satisfied
with each "prediction"! When she had finished she saved the final
document. I assume it was sent to a newspaper - perhaps more than one if
it was syndicated.
I recall reading a diary article in a newspaper which described a situation where the regular astrology correspondant was unexpectedly away (I think
he'd been taken ill or something), so one of the sports correspondants
dashed off a set of predictions in his lunch break and the newspaper published them. And nobody noticed any difference.
Mark
On 09/05/2025 13:12, Norman Wells wrote:
On 09/05/2025 12:49, Max Demian wrote:
On 09/05/2025 07:51, Norman Wells wrote:
We all know that discrimination on the grounds of religion is not
allowed under the Equality Act. So, does that include astrology?
Suppose that fourteen Leos had been appointed to be Pope but there
had never been a Pope Sagittarius, would that be illegal?
I'm not sure that Pope Leo is named after the constellation, though I
suppose they are both named after the lion.
Who knows what anything is named after? Leo is a bit unimaginative
and repetitive though. Pope Sagittarius the First would be much more
interesting. It would break the ice at parties if nothing else.
I recall that the first Pope John Paul was called John Paul I during his (short pontifical) lifetime. Usually the first of the name is not
numbered, for example Queen Elizabeth. Or maybe it was all planned...
It is easy. You get a homeopath to prescribe for the person and put the result
in a bottle and mark it. You also mark an identical bottle of pure water. A trial official keeps a record of which is which and the trial participant is randomly given one or the other. Neither the treating homeopath nor the person
assessing the trial participant (who may be the same person) know which the patient has received until after the trial. I believe it has been done. Though not often.
Note: this a repost of a post that never made it to Chiark
On 9 May 2025 18:18:00 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 9 May 2025 at 15:50:10 BST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2025 12:31:21 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2025 13:20:09 +0100, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 09/05/2025 11:04, Norman Wells wrote:Regardless of that, does it have any utility ?
[quoted text muted]
By experience. It's neither an observation or a religion; it's a con. >>>>
All religion is obviously a crock of shit.
IME, there is a direct correlation between how convinced someone is
that religion is a crock of shit and how little they actually know
about religion.
I did RE in primary school; so I'm certainly not ignorant of the finer points
of Anglican theology.
You must have been an exceptionally bright student to grasp the fine
points of theology as a primary school student. You must also have
been lucky to have teachers who could see that and encourage it.
Things may have changed since I was at primary school (Catholic) in
the late 50s/early 60s but at that stage, we were taught mostly
stories from the bible along with things we *had to believe* rather
than *why* we should believe them.
It's a god existing outside the physics of the known
universe that I don't accept.
My love for my wife and how I picked her out of a crowded room over 50
years ago is outside the physics of the known universe; does that mean
she did really stand out for me and my love for her does not exist?
However, isn't mutually
exclusively with it having some use.
On 10 May 2025 at 08:33:30 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2025 22:55:32 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 9 May 2025 at 23:37:55 BST, "Jon Ribbens"
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-05-09, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2025 17:07:10 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> >>>>> wrote:
On 09/05/2025 16:40, Jethro_uk wrote:
Probably. However that doesn't invalidate my observation that
astrology can be used for something.
I know a few counsellors who find it's a good tool for getting
patients to open up, regardless of any scientific basis.
There was a letter in The Times, a while back, where a Homeopathic >>>>>> practitioner claimed that Homeopathy was a very good way of
triggering the placebo effect.
An interesting fact about the placebo effect is that different
coloured pills "work" better for different ailments. And, even more
interestingly, the placebo effect works even when people taking the
pills know that they're placebos.
What that means in practice, therefore, is that with a tube of
Smarties and sufficient willpower it ought to be possible to cure
any disease.
I'm afraid your post contravenes the Cancer Act 1939 and you should
report to your nearest police station for arrest.
Yes it was a little optimistic to suggest that the placebo effect very
often cures anything, as opposed to relieving symptoms and perhaps
slowing disease progression.
A lot depends on the complaint. You need to bear in mind we know much
less about disease than we could know. A lot more than a century ago,
yes. But not enough to explain 80% of what goes on.
My brother works in a very niche area of medical research (using
massive high powered computing resources). When pressed, he admits that
there are loads of medicines that we do not understand. Which makes it
more puzzling when some just stop working (which is his area of
interest) or why the same medicine works for some and not for others.
Speaking for myself, my glaucoma eye drops were swapped around as the
just stopped working.
There are several known mechanisms that explain why drugs stop working, though I agree we do not always know. Equally common is for a drug not
to work in a particular individual. Sometimes we know why, sometimes we don't. In practice it is rare for any effort to be put into finding out
why in a particular patient, as it is unlikely to be amenable to change.
But I commend your brother's valuable research.
On 10/05/2025 12:01, Roger Hayter wrote:
Which leaves us with the question Norman didn't ask; could it be a
relevant philosophical belief within the meaning of the relevant protected >> characteristic in the Equality Act? No doubt there is a similar
weighty body of case law on this.
I would respectfully suggest that this is a much wider question than
that asked by Norman.
I would further suggest that astrology could be considered a
philosophical belief but whether or not that gave rise to a valid action under the Equality Act would very much depend upon the precise
circumstances of the case.
"Each case is judged on its own facts and its own merits", etc.
I am not aware of similar cases in the UK, but Victoria Brockley,
partner at law firm Laytons ETL, says such practices in the UK are
completely lawful. "Using a star sign to match job applicants isn't technically unlawful because star signs and astrology are not protected characteristics under the Equality Act," she says. "There could,
therefore, be no discrimination arising from choosing candidates in this way."
Similarly, Jim Moore, HR consultant at Hamilton Nash, says the practice
may be legal, but it comes with heavy reputational damage risk. "If
you're hiring team members based on the movements of Mars and Jupiter,
you're clearly talking out of Uranus." (which I think is a better joke
than that attempted by Norman when starting the thread).
Interestingly, I cannot find similar quotes for people claiming that astrology IS a protected characteristic under the Equality Act.
Make of that what you will, but I would suggest that without an actual
ruling on the matter, the only accurate answer to the question is: "It
might be but we cannot be dogmatic about it until a determination is
made by a tribunal."
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:m85mutFg1enU1@mid.individual.net...
We all know that discrimination on the grounds of religion
is not allowed under the Equality Act. So, does that include astrology?
How can it be a religion ?
The basis if all religions is that they set out a way to behave.
A set of rules to follow, to secure eternal life. Or whatever.
Whereas all that astrology sets out to do, is tell you what's
going to happen; regardless of whatever you may do.
Which if true, is maybe useful when it comes to betting on the
3.30 at Sandown Park ; but not much use when it comes to
securing eternal life.
On 09/05/2025 07:51, Norman Wells wrote:
We all know that discrimination on the grounds of religion is not
allowed under the Equality Act. So, does that include astrology?
No.
Next.
Oh, you wanted an explanation?
Here you go:
The starting point is to acknowledge that the court is not concerned
with the truth or otherwise of the beliefs in question but will not
recognise as a religion everything that chooses to call itself a
religion. [^1]Â The courts have held that "to give [a] purpose the name
of "religious" or "education" is not to conclude the matter." [^2]
In short, for something to be considered as a religion for the purpose
of legislation, more is required than merely claiming "[x] is a
religion" for all values of [x], including, but not limited to, astrology.
Helpful in this regard is the Supreme Court's consideration of the
meaning of "religious worship" for registered places of worship [^3] in
the case of Hodkin. [^4]
Having reviewed the relevant case law, (including case law from other jurisdictions [^5]), Lord Toulson, who gave the leading judgment in
Hodkin, stated at paragraph [57] that:
"For the purposes of PWRA, I would describe religion in summary as a spiritual or non-secular belief system, held by a group of adherents,
which claims to explain mankind's place in the universe and relationship
with the infinite, and to teach its adherents how they are to live their lives in conformity with the spiritual understanding associated with the belief system. By spiritual or non-secular I mean a belief system which
goes beyond that which can be perceived by the senses or ascertained by
the application of science. I prefer not to use the word "supernatural"
to express this element, because it is a loaded word which can carry a variety of connotations. Such a belief system may or may not involve
belief in a supreme being, but it does involve a belief that there is
more to be understood about mankind's nature and relationship to the
universe than can be gained from the senses or from science. I emphasise
that this is intended to be a description and not a definitive formula."
On the subject of "religious worship", Lord Toulson interprets it as being:
"...wide enough to include religious services, whether or not the form
of service falls within the narrower definition adopted in Segerdal.
This broader interpretation accords with standard dictionary
definitions. The Chambers Dictionary, 12th ed (2011) defines the noun "worship" as including both "adoration paid to a deity, etc." and
"religious service", and it defines "worship" as an intransitive verb as
"to perform acts of adoration; to take part in religious service".
Similarly, the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 12th ed (2011),
defines "worship" as including both "the feeling and expression of
reverence and adoration of a deity" and "religious rites and
ceremonies". The broader interpretation accords with the purpose of the statute in permitting members of a religious congregation, who have a
meeting place where they perform their religious rites, to carry out religious ceremonies of marriage there.
"Their authorisation to do so should not depend on fine theological or liturgical niceties as to how precisely they see and express their relationship with the infinite (referred to by Scientologists as "God"
in their creed and universal prayer). Those matters, which have been
gone into in close detail in the evidence in this case, are more fitting
for theologians than for the Registrar General or the courts."
In Hodkin, the court has taken a broad view of what it means to be a
religion and the requirements of religious worship, recognising the
inherent difficulties of attempting to attach a narrowly circumscribed meaning to the word, including "the different context in which the issue
may arise, the variety of world religions, developments of new religions
and religious practices, and developments in the common understanding of
the concept of religion due to cultural changes" [^6]
It is noteworthy that in Hodkin, Lord Toulson distinguished and excluded secular belief systems from the description of religion.
Therefore, from both statute and case law, it is possible to draw the principles that religion is characterised by belief in one or more gods
or spiritual or non-secular principles or things, and a relationship
between the adherents of the religion and the gods, principles or things which is expressed by worship, reverence or adoration, veneration, intercession, or by some other religious rite or service.
Based on this, astrology may well be considered a secular belief system
but it falls some considerable way short of being considered a religion.
If you want to argue otherwise, please include references to relevant
statute and case law as I have done here.
On Sat, 10 May 2025 13:02:02 +0100, Pamela
<uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 09:37 10 May 2025, Martin Harran said:
On Fri, 09 May 2025 22:12:03 +0100, Mark Goodge
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2025 18:11:57 +0100, Max Demian
<max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 09/05/2025 13:12, Norman Wells wrote:
Who knows what anything is named after? Leo is a bit
unimaginative and repetitive though. Pope Sagittarius the
First would be much more interesting. It would break the ice
at parties if nothing else.
I recall that the first Pope John Paul was called John Paul I
during his (short pontifical) lifetime. Usually the first of the
name is not numbered, for example Queen Elizabeth. Or maybe it was >>>>>all planned...
John Paul I was the first Pope to deliberately adopt the ordinal
number despite it being unnecessary as he was, at the time, the
only one of that name.
Have you got a source for that? I thought the ordinal was only
added when John Paul II came along.
Not only was Pope John Paul I the first to use the ordinal "I"
Same question that I put to Mark - do you have a source for him using
it during his pontificate?
On 09/05/2025 07:51, Norman Wells wrote:
We all know that discrimination on the grounds of religion is not
allowed under the Equality Act. So, does that include astrology?
Suppose that fourteen Leos had been appointed to be Pope but there had
never been a Pope Sagittarius, would that be illegal?
I would say no Norman.
Astrologers must have been our ancient astronomers, surely, who
collected empirical data to map out the heavens in their day and with considerable accuracy considering their tools were sticks and bits of
string.
Tales of the stars and planets describing our lives and/or our future
could well have been invented as mnemonic devices to make the hard nosed business of astronomy more interesting to their students.
Some people say Buddhism is not a religion but a philosophy but first
glance for me, it's as controlling as any other religion. Lead a good
life or you will not come back in another life or if you do, your status
will be greatly diminished. Christianity has hell for wrong doers, of course. Etc, Etc.
I'm not an expert on religions but most if not all have some form of punishment if the doctrine of their faith isn't followed.
Religion could be defined as having a doctrine of punishment for wrong
doing, somewhere in its teaching.
Astrology appears to have no such doctrine of punishment so I would say,
then not a Religion.
On 09/05/2025 07:51, Norman Wells wrote:
We all know that discrimination on the grounds of religion is not
allowed under the Equality Act. So, does that include astrology?
Suppose that fourteen Leos had been appointed to be Pope but there had
never been a Pope Sagittarius, would that be illegal?
I would say no Norman.
Astrologers must have been our ancient astronomers, surely, who
collected empirical data to map out the heavens in their day and with considerable accuracy considering their tools were sticks and bits of
string.
Tales of the stars and planets describing our lives and/or our future
could well have been invented as mnemonic devices to make the hard nosed business of astronomy more interesting to their students.
Some people say Buddhism is not a religion but a philosophy but first
glance for me, it's as controlling as any other religion. Lead a good
life or you will not come back in another life or if you do, your status
will be greatly diminished. Christianity has hell for wrong doers, of course. Etc, Etc.
I'm not an expert on religions but most if not all have some form of punishment if the doctrine of their faith isn't followed.
Religion could be defined as having a doctrine of punishment for wrong
doing, somewhere in its teaching.
Astrology appears to have no such doctrine of punishment so I would say,
then not a Religion.
On 13:38 10 May 2025, Martin Harran said:
Same question that I put to Mark - do you have a source for him using
it during his pontificate?
Search for his obituary, which will use the contemporaneous name. He
will be referred to as "John Paul I", before any John Paul II was >anticipated.
On 2025-05-09, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2025 17:07:10 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>> On 09/05/2025 16:40, Jethro_uk wrote:
Probably. However that doesn't invalidate my observation that astrology >>>> can be used for something.
I know a few counsellors who find it's a good tool for getting patients >>>> to open up, regardless of any scientific basis.
There was a letter in The Times, a while back, where a Homeopathic
practitioner claimed that Homeopathy was a very good way of triggering
the placebo effect.
An interesting fact about the placebo effect is that different coloured
pills "work" better for different ailments. And, even more interestingly,
the placebo effect works even when people taking the pills know that
they're placebos.
What that means in practice, therefore, is that with a tube of
Smarties and sufficient willpower it ought to be possible to cure any
disease.
I'm afraid your post contravenes the Cancer Act 1939 and you should
report to your nearest police station for arrest.
On 10 May 2025 14:30:24 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 10 May 2025 at 14:26:53 BST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com>
wrote:
Note: this a repost of a post that never made it to Chiark
On 9 May 2025 18:18:00 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 9 May 2025 at 15:50:10 BST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2025 12:31:21 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2025 13:20:09 +0100, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 09/05/2025 11:04, Norman Wells wrote:Regardless of that, does it have any utility ?
[quoted text muted]
By experience. It's neither an observation or a religion; it's a con. >>>>>>
All religion is obviously a crock of shit.
IME, there is a direct correlation between how convinced someone is
that religion is a crock of shit and how little they actually know
about religion.
I did RE in primary school; so I'm certainly not ignorant of the finer points
of Anglican theology.
You must have been an exceptionally bright student to grasp the fine
points of theology as a primary school student. You must also have
been lucky to have teachers who could see that and encourage it.
Things may have changed since I was at primary school (Catholic) in
the late 50s/early 60s but at that stage, we were taught mostly
stories from the bible along with things we *had to believe* rather
than *why* we should believe them.
You need someone to explain the hazards of literal interpretation of speech.
I took "not ignorant of" as being the same as "know something about".
feel free to explain where I went wrong.
It's a god existing outside the physics of the known
universe that I don't accept.
My love for my wife and how I picked her out of a crowded room over 50
years ago is outside the physics of the known universe; does that mean
she did really stand out for me and my love for her does not exist?
I see no reason to suppose that undoubtedly fortunate event cannot be
explained by the known physical laws of the universe.
The absence of even a guess at which physical laws speaks for itself.
I don't see much difference between that and someone saying
"Goddidit".
The fact that it is too
complicated to explain does not mean it is supernatural. OTOH, omniscience and
existence outside time *are* incompatible with the physical universe.
However, isn't mutually
exclusively with it having some use.
On 09/05/2025 23:37, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-05-09, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:Maybe not, but it would amount to practicing medicine without a licence.
On Fri, 9 May 2025 17:07:10 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>>> On 09/05/2025 16:40, Jethro_uk wrote:
Probably. However that doesn't invalidate my observation that astrology >>>>> can be used for something.
I know a few counsellors who find it's a good tool for getting patients >>>>> to open up, regardless of any scientific basis.
There was a letter in The Times, a while back, where a Homeopathic
practitioner claimed that Homeopathy was a very good way of triggering >>>> the placebo effect.
An interesting fact about the placebo effect is that different coloured
pills "work" better for different ailments. And, even more interestingly, >>> the placebo effect works even when people taking the pills know that
they're placebos.
What that means in practice, therefore, is that with a tube of
Smarties and sufficient willpower it ought to be possible to cure any
disease.
I'm afraid your post contravenes the Cancer Act 1939 and you should
report to your nearest police station for arrest.
On 10 May 2025 at 12:32:17 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 10/05/2025 11:54, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 10 May 2025 at 08:33:30 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2025 22:55:32 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 9 May 2025 at 23:37:55 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>>>> wrote:
On 2025-05-09, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, 9 May 2025 17:07:10 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 09/05/2025 16:40, Jethro_uk wrote:
Probably. However that doesn't invalidate my observation that >>>>>>>>> astrology can be used for something.
I know a few counsellors who find it's a good tool for getting >>>>>>>>> patients to open up, regardless of any scientific basis.
There was a letter in The Times, a while back, where a Homeopathic >>>>>>>> practitioner claimed that Homeopathy was a very good way of
triggering the placebo effect.
An interesting fact about the placebo effect is that different
coloured pills "work" better for different ailments. And, even more >>>>>>> interestingly, the placebo effect works even when people taking the >>>>>>> pills know that they're placebos.
What that means in practice, therefore, is that with a tube of
Smarties and sufficient willpower it ought to be possible to cure any >>>>>>> disease.
I'm afraid your post contravenes the Cancer Act 1939 and you should >>>>>> report to your nearest police station for arrest.
Yes it was a little optimistic to suggest that the placebo effect very >>>>> often cures anything, as opposed to relieving symptoms and perhaps
slowing disease progression.
A lot depends on the complaint. You need to bear in mind we know much
less about disease than we could know. A lot more than a century ago,
yes. But not enough to explain 80% of what goes on.
My brother works in a very niche area of medical research (using massive >>>> high powered computing resources). When pressed, he admits that there are >>>> loads of medicines that we do not understand. Which makes it more
puzzling when some just stop working (which is his area of interest) or >>>> why the same medicine works for some and not for others.
Speaking for myself, my glaucoma eye drops were swapped around as the
just stopped working.
There are several known mechanisms that explain why drugs stop working, though
I agree we do not always know. Equally common is for a drug not to work in a
particular individual. Sometimes we know why, sometimes we don't. In practice
it is rare for any effort to be put into finding out why in a particular >>> patient, as it is unlikely to be amenable to change. But I commend your >>> brother's valuable research.
I don't think you could state it as a fact that homoeopathy is incapable
of curing or ameliorating medical conditions.
The main problem I think is that it is not possible to conduct proper
clinical trials to prove or disprove the effect of homoeopathic
remedies, because the homoeopaths say that each person is an individual
and you are treating the whole person, with all that person's symptoms
and underlying personality traits, rather than treating a disease such
as Covid.
It is easy. You get a homeopath to prescribe for the person and put the result
in a bottle and mark it. You also mark an identical bottle of pure water. A trial official keeps a record of which is which and the trial participant is randomly given one or the other. Neither the treating homeopath nor the person
assessing the trial participant (who may be the same person) know which the patient has received until after the trial. I believe it has been done. Though not often.
On 10/05/2025 13:24, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 10 May 2025 at 12:32:17 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 10/05/2025 11:54, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 10 May 2025 at 08:33:30 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2025 22:55:32 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 9 May 2025 at 23:37:55 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>>>>> wrote:
On 2025-05-09, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Fri, 9 May 2025 17:07:10 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 09/05/2025 16:40, Jethro_uk wrote:
Probably. However that doesn't invalidate my observation that >>>>>>>>>> astrology can be used for something.
I know a few counsellors who find it's a good tool for getting >>>>>>>>>> patients to open up, regardless of any scientific basis.
There was a letter in The Times, a while back, where a Homeopathic >>>>>>>>> practitioner claimed that Homeopathy was a very good way of
triggering the placebo effect.
An interesting fact about the placebo effect is that different >>>>>>>> coloured pills "work" better for different ailments. And, even more >>>>>>>> interestingly, the placebo effect works even when people taking the >>>>>>>> pills know that they're placebos.
What that means in practice, therefore, is that with a tube of >>>>>>>> Smarties and sufficient willpower it ought to be possible to cure any >>>>>>>> disease.
I'm afraid your post contravenes the Cancer Act 1939 and you should >>>>>>> report to your nearest police station for arrest.
Yes it was a little optimistic to suggest that the placebo effect very >>>>>> often cures anything, as opposed to relieving symptoms and perhaps >>>>>> slowing disease progression.
A lot depends on the complaint. You need to bear in mind we know much >>>>> less about disease than we could know. A lot more than a century ago, >>>>> yes. But not enough to explain 80% of what goes on.
My brother works in a very niche area of medical research (using massive >>>>> high powered computing resources). When pressed, he admits that there are >>>>> loads of medicines that we do not understand. Which makes it more
puzzling when some just stop working (which is his area of interest) or >>>>> why the same medicine works for some and not for others.
Speaking for myself, my glaucoma eye drops were swapped around as the >>>>> just stopped working.
There are several known mechanisms that explain why drugs stop working, though
I agree we do not always know. Equally common is for a drug not to work in a
particular individual. Sometimes we know why, sometimes we don't. In practice
it is rare for any effort to be put into finding out why in a particular >>>> patient, as it is unlikely to be amenable to change. But I commend your >>>> brother's valuable research.
I don't think you could state it as a fact that homoeopathy is incapable >>> of curing or ameliorating medical conditions.
The main problem I think is that it is not possible to conduct proper
clinical trials to prove or disprove the effect of homoeopathic
remedies, because the homoeopaths say that each person is an individual
and you are treating the whole person, with all that person's symptoms
and underlying personality traits, rather than treating a disease such
as Covid.
It is easy. You get a homeopath to prescribe for the person and put the result
in a bottle and mark it. You also mark an identical bottle of pure water. A >> trial official keeps a record of which is which and the trial participant is >> randomly given one or the other. Neither the treating homeopath nor the person
assessing the trial participant (who may be the same person) know which the >> patient has received until after the trial. I believe it has been done.
Though not often.
Given the extreme levels of dilution used in the preparation of a
homeopathic remedy, I don't see how you could possibly produce "an
identical bottle of pure water" which is any more pure than the
homeopathic remedy itself.
P.S. How does a Homeopath acquire suitable water to carry out the
dilution process, and what level of 'contaminants' does it contain?
On 10/05/2025 14:13, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:m85mutFg1enU1@mid.individual.net...
We all know that discrimination on the grounds of religionHow can it be a religion ?
is not allowed under the Equality Act. So, does that include astrology? >>
The basis if all religions is that they set out a way to behave.
A set of rules to follow, to secure eternal life. Or whatever.
Whereas all that astrology sets out to do, is tell you what's
going to happen; regardless of whatever you may do.
Which if true, is maybe useful when it comes to betting on the
3.30 at Sandown Park ; but not much use when it comes to
securing eternal life.
Well, under the Equality Act, religion and philosophical belief are lumped together and
treated essentially as one thing so pedantic distinctions are unnecessary.
What dictionary or dictionaries are you using for your definition of religion? And
why, if you don't, do you not consider astrology to be a philosophical belief?
My love for my wife and how I picked her out of a crowded room over 50
years ago is outside the physics of the known universe; does that mean
she did really stand out for me and my love for her does not exist?
On Sat, 10 May 2025 10:54:13 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 10 May 2025 at 08:33:30 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2025 22:55:32 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 9 May 2025 at 23:37:55 BST, "Jon Ribbens"
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-05-09, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 9 May 2025 17:07:10 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 09/05/2025 16:40, Jethro_uk wrote:
Probably. However that doesn't invalidate my observation that
astrology can be used for something.
I know a few counsellors who find it's a good tool for getting >>>>>>>> patients to open up, regardless of any scientific basis.
There was a letter in The Times, a while back, where a Homeopathic >>>>>>> practitioner claimed that Homeopathy was a very good way of
triggering the placebo effect.
An interesting fact about the placebo effect is that different
coloured pills "work" better for different ailments. And, even more >>>>>> interestingly, the placebo effect works even when people taking the >>>>>> pills know that they're placebos.
What that means in practice, therefore, is that with a tube of
Smarties and sufficient willpower it ought to be possible to cure
any disease.
I'm afraid your post contravenes the Cancer Act 1939 and you should
report to your nearest police station for arrest.
Yes it was a little optimistic to suggest that the placebo effect very >>>> often cures anything, as opposed to relieving symptoms and perhaps
slowing disease progression.
A lot depends on the complaint. You need to bear in mind we know much
less about disease than we could know. A lot more than a century ago,
yes. But not enough to explain 80% of what goes on.
My brother works in a very niche area of medical research (using
massive high powered computing resources). When pressed, he admits that
there are loads of medicines that we do not understand. Which makes it
more puzzling when some just stop working (which is his area of
interest) or why the same medicine works for some and not for others.
Speaking for myself, my glaucoma eye drops were swapped around as the
just stopped working.
There are several known mechanisms that explain why drugs stop working,
though I agree we do not always know. Equally common is for a drug not
to work in a particular individual. Sometimes we know why, sometimes we
don't. In practice it is rare for any effort to be put into finding out
why in a particular patient, as it is unlikely to be amenable to change.
But I commend your brother's valuable research.
He thinks we are moving towards a world where drugs are genetically
matched to patients - a persons genome being the key to everything.
When I pointed out that medieval medicine was predicated on the idea that disease was specific to individuals (and thence the cure) and this isn't
a million miles away from that :)
Things got even more interesting when he commented that another factor in individual responses to medicines is when they are taken. Suggesting that biorhythms might just be something after all ....
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:m89gpqF3k1sU7@mid.individual.net...
On 10/05/2025 14:13, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:m85mutFg1enU1@mid.individual.net...
We all know that discrimination on the grounds of religionHow can it be a religion ?
is not allowed under the Equality Act. So, does that include astrology? >>>
The basis if all religions is that they set out a way to behave.
A set of rules to follow, to secure eternal life. Or whatever.
Whereas all that astrology sets out to do, is tell you what's
going to happen; regardless of whatever you may do.
Which if true, is maybe useful when it comes to betting on the
3.30 at Sandown Park ; but not much use when it comes to
securing eternal life.
Well, under the Equality Act, religion and philosophical belief are lumped together and
treated essentially as one thing so pedantic distinctions are unnecessary.
Except that's not the question you asked is it ?
What dictionary or dictionaries are you using for your definition of religion? And
why, if you don't, do you not consider astrology to be a philosophical belief?
I can't see why not. But simply because something is a philosophical
belief doesnt in itself qualify if for protrection; given that racism, totalitarianism etc are equally philosophical beliefs.
Like many old codgers, I take statins.
The usual recommendation is that you should take them 'in the evening' "because your body makes most cholesterol at night".
What about night-shift workers? (Or night-owls - or people with insomnia.)
I asked a pharmacist (they usually know more about drugs than the
average GP) but the (unspoken) answer seemed to be
"Dunno. I don't think anyone has thought about that."
Right now, one has to find one’s own route…
On 10/05/2025 20:17, billy bookcase wrote:
[quoted text muted]
According to Section 10 of the Equality Act:
"Belief means any religious or philosophical belief".
On 10 May 2025 at 22:12:37 BST, "Sam Plusnet" <not@home.com> wrote:
On 09/05/2025 23:37, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-05-09, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:Maybe not, but it would amount to practicing medicine without a
On Fri, 9 May 2025 17:07:10 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:
On 09/05/2025 16:40, Jethro_uk wrote:
Probably. However that doesn't invalidate my observation that
astrology can be used for something.
I know a few counsellors who find it's a good tool for getting
patients to open up, regardless of any scientific basis.
There was a letter in The Times, a while back, where a Homeopathic
practitioner claimed that Homeopathy was a very good way of
triggering the placebo effect.
An interesting fact about the placebo effect is that different
coloured pills "work" better for different ailments. And, even more
interestingly, the placebo effect works even when people taking the
pills know that they're placebos.
What that means in practice, therefore, is that with a tube of
Smarties and sufficient willpower it ought to be possible to cure any
disease.
I'm afraid your post contravenes the Cancer Act 1939 and you should
report to your nearest police station for arrest.
licence.
Anyone is allowed to practice medical treatment without a licence as
long as they don't pretend to be a medical doctor. The Cancer Act
(possibly as amended) makes exceptions. There are also risks of
negligence or assault but if you stick to homeopathy you should be ok.
Of course, when I’m up for my annual health check, I bias things in my favour by reducing saturated fat intake to a minimum for a few days beforehand (to lower cholesterol) but on the morning of the check I take
all the meds together and thus get a good reading. This keeps the incessant suggestions to go onto statins (sorry!) to a minimum.
On Fri, 09 May 2025 13:20:09 +0100, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 09/05/2025 11:04, Norman Wells wrote:
[quoted text muted]
By experience. It's neither an observation or a religion; it's a con.
Regardless of that, does [astrology] have any utility ?
All religion is obviously a crock of shit. However, isn't mutually exclusively with it having some use.
On 10/05/2025 20:17, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:m89gpqF3k1sU7@mid.individual.net...
On 10/05/2025 14:13, billy bookcase wrote:Except that's not the question you asked is it ?
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:m85mutFg1enU1@mid.individual.net...
We all know that discrimination on the grounds of religionHow can it be a religion ?
is not allowed under the Equality Act. So, does that include astrology? >>>>
The basis if all religions is that they set out a way to behave.
A set of rules to follow, to secure eternal life. Or whatever.
Whereas all that astrology sets out to do, is tell you what's
going to happen; regardless of whatever you may do.
Which if true, is maybe useful when it comes to betting on the
3.30 at Sandown Park ; but not much use when it comes to
securing eternal life.
Well, under the Equality Act, religion and philosophical belief are lumped together
and
treated essentially as one thing so pedantic distinctions are unnecessary. >>
What dictionary or dictionaries are you using for your definition of religion? And
why, if you don't, do you not consider astrology to be a philosophical belief?
I can't see why not. But simply because something is a philosophical
belief doesnt in itself qualify if for protrection; given that racism,
totalitarianism etc are equally philosophical beliefs.
According to Section 10 of the Equality Act:
"Belief means any religious or philosophical belief".
How can that be interpreted to include some and exclude others when it specifically and
very clearly says 'any'?
On 10 May 2025 at 22:25:13 BST, "Sam Plusnet" <not@home.com> wrote:
On 10/05/2025 13:24, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 10 May 2025 at 12:32:17 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>
On 10/05/2025 11:54, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 10 May 2025 at 08:33:30 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2025 22:55:32 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 9 May 2025 at 23:37:55 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-05-09, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 9 May 2025 17:07:10 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 09/05/2025 16:40, Jethro_uk wrote:
Probably. However that doesn't invalidate my observation that >>>>>>>>>>> astrology can be used for something.
I know a few counsellors who find it's a good tool for getting >>>>>>>>>>> patients to open up, regardless of any scientific basis.
There was a letter in The Times, a while back, where a Homeopathic >>>>>>>>>> practitioner claimed that Homeopathy was a very good way of >>>>>>>>>> triggering the placebo effect.
An interesting fact about the placebo effect is that different >>>>>>>>> coloured pills "work" better for different ailments. And, even more >>>>>>>>> interestingly, the placebo effect works even when people taking the >>>>>>>>> pills know that they're placebos.
What that means in practice, therefore, is that with a tube of >>>>>>>>> Smarties and sufficient willpower it ought to be possible to cure any >>>>>>>>> disease.
I'm afraid your post contravenes the Cancer Act 1939 and you should >>>>>>>> report to your nearest police station for arrest.
Yes it was a little optimistic to suggest that the placebo effect very >>>>>>> often cures anything, as opposed to relieving symptoms and perhaps >>>>>>> slowing disease progression.
A lot depends on the complaint. You need to bear in mind we know much >>>>>> less about disease than we could know. A lot more than a century ago, >>>>>> yes. But not enough to explain 80% of what goes on.
My brother works in a very niche area of medical research (using massive >>>>>> high powered computing resources). When pressed, he admits that there are
loads of medicines that we do not understand. Which makes it more
puzzling when some just stop working (which is his area of interest) or >>>>>> why the same medicine works for some and not for others.
Speaking for myself, my glaucoma eye drops were swapped around as the >>>>>> just stopped working.
There are several known mechanisms that explain why drugs stop working, though
I agree we do not always know. Equally common is for a drug not to work in a
particular individual. Sometimes we know why, sometimes we don't. In practice
it is rare for any effort to be put into finding out why in a particular >>>>> patient, as it is unlikely to be amenable to change. But I commend your >>>>> brother's valuable research.
I don't think you could state it as a fact that homoeopathy is incapable >>>> of curing or ameliorating medical conditions.
The main problem I think is that it is not possible to conduct proper
clinical trials to prove or disprove the effect of homoeopathic
remedies, because the homoeopaths say that each person is an individual >>>> and you are treating the whole person, with all that person's symptoms >>>> and underlying personality traits, rather than treating a disease such >>>> as Covid.
It is easy. You get a homeopath to prescribe for the person and put the result
in a bottle and mark it. You also mark an identical bottle of pure water. A >>> trial official keeps a record of which is which and the trial participant is
randomly given one or the other. Neither the treating homeopath nor the person
assessing the trial participant (who may be the same person) know which the >>> patient has received until after the trial. I believe it has been done.
Though not often.
Given the extreme levels of dilution used in the preparation of a
homeopathic remedy, I don't see how you could possibly produce "an
identical bottle of pure water" which is any more pure than the
homeopathic remedy itself.
P.S. How does a Homeopath acquire suitable water to carry out the
dilution process, and what level of 'contaminants' does it contain?
The important thing is that the active homeopathic remedy is prepared according to his or her rules by the homeopathist. Worrying about the chemical
difference from the placebo is futile.
On 11/05/2025 09:11, Spike wrote:
Of course, when I’m up for my annual health check, I bias things in my
favour by reducing saturated fat intake to a minimum for a few days
beforehand (to lower cholesterol) but on the morning of the check I take
all the meds together and thus get a good reading. This keeps the
incessant
suggestions to go onto statins (sorry!) to a minimum.
I don't see why you are trying to manipulate the data? The advice to go
onto a statin is undoubtedly well meant, but you don't have to take it.
Out of interest, what do you have against statins?
Of course, when I’m up for my annual health check, I bias things in my favour by reducing saturated fat intake to a minimum for a few days beforehand (to lower cholesterol) but on the morning of the check I take
all the meds together and thus get a good reading. This keeps the incessant suggestions to go onto statins (sorry!) to a minimum. But there seems
little doubt that the timing of the meds has a benefit, and it isn’t what is written in the Patient Information Leaflet that is necessarily the best. Right now, one has to find one’s own route…
On 10/05/2025 22:32, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 10 May 2025 at 22:25:13 BST, "Sam Plusnet" <not@home.com> wrote:
On 10/05/2025 13:24, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 10 May 2025 at 12:32:17 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 10/05/2025 11:54, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 10 May 2025 at 08:33:30 BST, "Jethro_uk"
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2025 22:55:32 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 9 May 2025 at 23:37:55 BST, "Jon Ribbens"
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-05-09, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2025 17:07:10 +0100, GB
<NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:
On 09/05/2025 16:40, Jethro_uk wrote:
Probably. However that doesn't invalidate my observation that >>>>>>>>>>>> astrology can be used for something.There was a letter in The Times, a while back, where a
I know a few counsellors who find it's a good tool for getting >>>>>>>>>>>> patients to open up, regardless of any scientific basis. >>>>>>>>>>>
Homeopathic
practitioner claimed that Homeopathy was a very good way of >>>>>>>>>>> triggering the placebo effect.
An interesting fact about the placebo effect is that different >>>>>>>>>> coloured pills "work" better for different ailments. And, even >>>>>>>>>> more
interestingly, the placebo effect works even when people
taking the
pills know that they're placebos.
What that means in practice, therefore, is that with a tube of >>>>>>>>>> Smarties and sufficient willpower it ought to be possible to >>>>>>>>>> cure any
disease.
I'm afraid your post contravenes the Cancer Act 1939 and you >>>>>>>>> should
report to your nearest police station for arrest.
Yes it was a little optimistic to suggest that the placebo
effect very
often cures anything, as opposed to relieving symptoms and perhaps >>>>>>>> slowing disease progression.
A lot depends on the complaint. You need to bear in mind we know >>>>>>> much
less about disease than we could know. A lot more than a century >>>>>>> ago,
yes. But not enough to explain 80% of what goes on.
My brother works in a very niche area of medical research (using >>>>>>> massive
high powered computing resources). When pressed, he admits that
there are
loads of medicines that we do not understand. Which makes it more >>>>>>> puzzling when some just stop working (which is his area of
interest) or
why the same medicine works for some and not for others.
Speaking for myself, my glaucoma eye drops were swapped around as >>>>>>> the
just stopped working.
There are several known mechanisms that explain why drugs stop
working, though
I agree we do not always know. Equally common is for a drug not to >>>>>> work in a
particular individual. Sometimes we know why, sometimes we don't.
In practice
it is rare for any effort to be put into finding out why in a
particular
patient, as it is unlikely to be amenable to change. But I
commend your
brother's valuable research.
I don't think you could state it as a fact that homoeopathy is
incapable
of curing or ameliorating medical conditions.
The main problem I think is that it is not possible to conduct proper >>>>> clinical trials to prove or disprove the effect of homoeopathic
remedies, because the homoeopaths say that each person is an
individual
and you are treating the whole person, with all that person's symptoms >>>>> and underlying personality traits, rather than treating a disease such >>>>> as Covid.
It is easy. You get a homeopath to prescribe for the person and put
the result
in a bottle and mark it. You also mark an identical bottle of pure
water. A
trial official keeps a record of which is which and the trial
participant is
randomly given one or the other. Neither the treating homeopath nor
the person
assessing the trial participant (who may be the same person) know
which the
patient has received until after the trial. I believe it has been done. >>>> Though not often.
Given the extreme levels of dilution used in the preparation of a
homeopathic remedy, I don't see how you could possibly produce "an
identical bottle of pure water" which is any more pure than the
homeopathic remedy itself.
P.S. How does a Homeopath acquire suitable water to carry out the
dilution process, and what level of 'contaminants' does it contain?
The important thing is that the active homeopathic remedy is prepared
according to his or her rules by the homeopathist. Worrying about the
chemical
difference from the placebo is futile.
You show a healthy scepticism, worthy of any person who is accustomed to scientific rigour in one's profession.
But now we know that chronic fatigue syndrome can be cured, yes cured,
by homoeopathy. Which presents us with a difficult choice. Do we say
that homoeopathy is hokum, or do we say that CFS is hokum? Sometimes a respectful silence is preferable to watching a deputation of pitchfork- wielding stranger marching (or propelling their wheelchairs with an unexpected energy) up your drive.
https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/30/treatment-cfs
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15016577/
https://me-pedia.org/wiki/ Chronic_Fatigue_Syndrome:_A_Guide_to_the_Homeopathic_Treatment_of_CFS/M.E.
On 11/05/2025 09:11, Spike wrote:
Of course, when I’m up for my annual health check, I bias things in my
favour by reducing saturated fat intake to a minimum for a few days
beforehand (to lower cholesterol) but on the morning of the check I take
all the meds together and thus get a good reading. This keeps the
incessant
suggestions to go onto statins (sorry!) to a minimum. But there seems
little doubt that the timing of the meds has a benefit, and it isn’t what >> is written in the Patient Information Leaflet that is necessarily the
best.
Right now, one has to find one’s own route…
I don't see the point in trying to manipulate figures relating to your
own health. There are no prizes for that. If your cholesterol levels
are normally high, not just on the day of your test, it's only sensible
to reduce it long term.
It's like misleading your lawyer. If you do that all you get is bad
advice.
But now we know that chronic fatigue syndrome can be cured, yes cured,
by homoeopathy.
that homoeopathy is hokum, or do we say that CFS is hokum? Sometimes a respectful silence is preferable to watching a deputation of pitchfork- wielding stranger marching (or propelling their wheelchairs with an unexpected energy) up your drive.
https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/30/treatment-cfs
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15016577/
https://me-pedia.org/wiki/ Chronic_Fatigue_Syndrome:_A_Guide_to_the_Homeopathic_Treatment_of_CFS/M.E.
On 11 May 2025 at 12:18:32 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 11/05/2025 12:08, The Todal wrote:
On 10/05/2025 22:32, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 10 May 2025 at 22:25:13 BST, "Sam Plusnet" <not@home.com> wrote:
On 10/05/2025 13:24, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 10 May 2025 at 12:32:17 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On 10/05/2025 11:54, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 10 May 2025 at 08:33:30 BST, "Jethro_uk"
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2025 22:55:32 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 9 May 2025 at 23:37:55 BST, "Jon Ribbens"
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-05-09, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2025 17:07:10 +0100, GB
<NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:
On 09/05/2025 16:40, Jethro_uk wrote:
Probably. However that doesn't invalidate my observation that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> astrology can be used for something.There was a letter in The Times, a while back, where a >>>>>>>>>>>>> Homeopathic
I know a few counsellors who find it's a good tool for getting >>>>>>>>>>>>>> patients to open up, regardless of any scientific basis. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
practitioner claimed that Homeopathy was a very good way of >>>>>>>>>>>>> triggering the placebo effect.
An interesting fact about the placebo effect is that different >>>>>>>>>>>> coloured pills "work" better for different ailments. And, even >>>>>>>>>>>> more
interestingly, the placebo effect works even when people >>>>>>>>>>>> taking the
pills know that they're placebos.
What that means in practice, therefore, is that with a tube of >>>>>>>>>>>> Smarties and sufficient willpower it ought to be possible to >>>>>>>>>>>> cure any
disease.
I'm afraid your post contravenes the Cancer Act 1939 and you >>>>>>>>>>> should
report to your nearest police station for arrest.
Yes it was a little optimistic to suggest that the placebo >>>>>>>>>> effect very
often cures anything, as opposed to relieving symptoms and perhaps >>>>>>>>>> slowing disease progression.
A lot depends on the complaint. You need to bear in mind we know >>>>>>>>> much
less about disease than we could know. A lot more than a century >>>>>>>>> ago,
yes. But not enough to explain 80% of what goes on.
My brother works in a very niche area of medical research (using >>>>>>>>> massive
high powered computing resources). When pressed, he admits that >>>>>>>>> there are
loads of medicines that we do not understand. Which makes it more >>>>>>>>> puzzling when some just stop working (which is his area of
interest) or
why the same medicine works for some and not for others.
Speaking for myself, my glaucoma eye drops were swapped around as >>>>>>>>> the
just stopped working.
There are several known mechanisms that explain why drugs stop >>>>>>>> working, though
I agree we do not always know. Equally common is for a drug not to >>>>>>>> work in a
particular individual. Sometimes we know why, sometimes we don't. >>>>>>>> In practice
it is rare for any effort to be put into finding out why in a
particular
patient, as it is unlikely to be amenable to change. But I
commend your
brother's valuable research.
I don't think you could state it as a fact that homoeopathy is
incapable
of curing or ameliorating medical conditions.
The main problem I think is that it is not possible to conduct proper >>>>>>> clinical trials to prove or disprove the effect of homoeopathic
remedies, because the homoeopaths say that each person is an
individual
and you are treating the whole person, with all that person's symptoms >>>>>>> and underlying personality traits, rather than treating a disease such >>>>>>> as Covid.
It is easy. You get a homeopath to prescribe for the person and put >>>>>> the result
in a bottle and mark it. You also mark an identical bottle of pure >>>>>> water. A
trial official keeps a record of which is which and the trial
participant is
randomly given one or the other. Neither the treating homeopath nor >>>>>> the person
assessing the trial participant (who may be the same person) know
which the
patient has received until after the trial. I believe it has been done. >>>>>> Though not often.
Given the extreme levels of dilution used in the preparation of a
homeopathic remedy, I don't see how you could possibly produce "an
identical bottle of pure water" which is any more pure than the
homeopathic remedy itself.
P.S. How does a Homeopath acquire suitable water to carry out the
dilution process, and what level of 'contaminants' does it contain?
The important thing is that the active homeopathic remedy is prepared
according to his or her rules by the homeopathist. Worrying about the
chemical
difference from the placebo is futile.
You show a healthy scepticism, worthy of any person who is accustomed to >>> scientific rigour in one's profession.
But now we know that chronic fatigue syndrome can be cured, yes cured,
by homoeopathy. Which presents us with a difficult choice. Do we say
that homoeopathy is hokum, or do we say that CFS is hokum? Sometimes a
respectful silence is preferable to watching a deputation of pitchfork-
wielding stranger marching (or propelling their wheelchairs with an
unexpected energy) up your drive.
https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/30/treatment-cfs
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15016577/
https://me-pedia.org/wiki/
Chronic_Fatigue_Syndrome:_A_Guide_to_the_Homeopathic_Treatment_of_CFS/M.E. >>
That last one should be
https://solomonhealing.wordpress.com/2023/10/26/introduction-to-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-book/
The open trial in the BMJ report is inconclusive. Almost anything can be shown
to work on almost enything.
You will note I described how to do a homeopathy blind trial. I didn't predict
the result (although another poster claime homeopaths were reluctant to do them).
The blind trial showed:
quote:
Conclusions: There is weak but equivocal evidence that the effects of homeopathic medicine are superior to placebo. Results also suggest that there may be nonspecific benefits from the homeopathic consultation. Further studies
are needed to determine whether these differences hold in larger samples
unquote:
Actually it was only positive on a subgroup analysis, at less than the generally accepted degree of confidence.
So not as conclusive as you suggest.
But I am quite happy to see proper homeopathy trials. If it turns out to work we will have to pick apart why. In my mind I am considering a trial with an LLM as the homeopathic prescriber.
On 11/05/2025 12:01, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/05/2025 09:11, Spike wrote:
Of course, when I’m up for my annual health check, I bias things in my >>> favour by reducing saturated fat intake to a minimum for a few days
beforehand (to lower cholesterol) but on the morning of the check I take >>> all the meds together and thus get a good reading. This keeps the
incessant
suggestions to go onto statins (sorry!) to a minimum. But there seems
little doubt that the timing of the meds has a benefit, and it isn’t what >>> is written in the Patient Information Leaflet that is necessarily the
best.
Right now, one has to find one’s own route…
I don't see the point in trying to manipulate figures relating to your
own health. There are no prizes for that. If your cholesterol levels
are normally high, not just on the day of your test, it's only sensible
to reduce it long term.
It's like misleading your lawyer. If you do that all you get is bad
advice.
An alternative approach would be, instead of continuing to eat an
unhealthy diet which raises your blood cholesterol and relying on
statins to mitigate the effects, try to change your diet because we
should be on as few daily medicines as possible and every medicine
carries a risk of side effects.
On 11/05/2025 09:11, Spike wrote:
Of course, when I’m up for my annual health check, I bias things in my
favour by reducing saturated fat intake to a minimum for a few days
beforehand (to lower cholesterol) but on the morning of the check I take
all the meds together and thus get a good reading. This keeps the incessant >> suggestions to go onto statins (sorry!) to a minimum.
I don't see why you are trying to manipulate the data?
The advice to go
onto a statin is undoubtedly well meant, but you don't have to take it.
Out of interest, what do you have against statins?
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:m8b0jqFb9olU1@mid.individual.net...
On 10/05/2025 20:17, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:m89gpqF3k1sU7@mid.individual.net...
On 10/05/2025 14:13, billy bookcase wrote:Except that's not the question you asked is it ?
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:m85mutFg1enU1@mid.individual.net...
We all know that discrimination on the grounds of religion
is not allowed under the Equality Act. So, does that include astrology?
How can it be a religion ?
The basis if all religions is that they set out a way to behave.
A set of rules to follow, to secure eternal life. Or whatever.
Whereas all that astrology sets out to do, is tell you what's
going to happen; regardless of whatever you may do.
Which if true, is maybe useful when it comes to betting on the
3.30 at Sandown Park ; but not much use when it comes to
securing eternal life.
Well, under the Equality Act, religion and philosophical belief are lumped together
and
treated essentially as one thing so pedantic distinctions are unnecessary. >>>
What dictionary or dictionaries are you using for your definition of religion? And
why, if you don't, do you not consider astrology to be a philosophical belief?
I can't see why not. But simply because something is a philosophical
belief doesnt in itself qualify if for protrection; given that racism,
totalitarianism etc are equally philosophical beliefs.
According to Section 10 of the Equality Act:
"Belief means any religious or philosophical belief".
How can that be interpreted to include some and exclude others when it specifically and
very clearly says 'any'?
Because the "any" refers to the kind of beliefs which "could" in theory be covered
by the act; which could be considered for inclusion. Not specific beliefs, all of
which "would" necessarily be included
The purpose of the Act is simply to establish the principle, that in Law, *in some
specific cases* its illegal to discriminate on the grounds of belief. But not in
"all" cases.
Where previously no such Law existed. And it was perfectly legal presumably to
discriminate against people on such grounds *in all cases*.
On 11/05/2025 12:08, The Todal wrote:
But now we know that chronic fatigue syndrome can be cured, yes cured,
by homoeopathy.
That's a very bold statement, given that there are around 300k people
with the condition in the UK.
On 11/05/2025 12:08, The Todal wrote:
On 10/05/2025 22:32, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 10 May 2025 at 22:25:13 BST, "Sam Plusnet" <not@home.com> wrote:
On 10/05/2025 13:24, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 10 May 2025 at 12:32:17 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 10/05/2025 11:54, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 10 May 2025 at 08:33:30 BST, "Jethro_uk"
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2025 22:55:32 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 9 May 2025 at 23:37:55 BST, "Jon Ribbens"
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-05-09, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2025 17:07:10 +0100, GB
<NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:
On 09/05/2025 16:40, Jethro_uk wrote:
Probably. However that doesn't invalidate my observation that >>>>>>>>>>>>> astrology can be used for something.There was a letter in The Times, a while back, where a >>>>>>>>>>>> Homeopathic
I know a few counsellors who find it's a good tool for getting >>>>>>>>>>>>> patients to open up, regardless of any scientific basis. >>>>>>>>>>>>
practitioner claimed that Homeopathy was a very good way of >>>>>>>>>>>> triggering the placebo effect.
An interesting fact about the placebo effect is that different >>>>>>>>>>> coloured pills "work" better for different ailments. And, even >>>>>>>>>>> more
interestingly, the placebo effect works even when people >>>>>>>>>>> taking the
pills know that they're placebos.
What that means in practice, therefore, is that with a tube of >>>>>>>>>>> Smarties and sufficient willpower it ought to be possible to >>>>>>>>>>> cure any
disease.
I'm afraid your post contravenes the Cancer Act 1939 and you >>>>>>>>>> should
report to your nearest police station for arrest.
Yes it was a little optimistic to suggest that the placebo
effect very
often cures anything, as opposed to relieving symptoms and perhaps >>>>>>>>> slowing disease progression.
A lot depends on the complaint. You need to bear in mind we know >>>>>>>> much
less about disease than we could know. A lot more than a century >>>>>>>> ago,
yes. But not enough to explain 80% of what goes on.
My brother works in a very niche area of medical research (using >>>>>>>> massive
high powered computing resources). When pressed, he admits that >>>>>>>> there are
loads of medicines that we do not understand. Which makes it more >>>>>>>> puzzling when some just stop working (which is his area of
interest) or
why the same medicine works for some and not for others.
Speaking for myself, my glaucoma eye drops were swapped around as >>>>>>>> the
just stopped working.
There are several known mechanisms that explain why drugs stop
working, though
I agree we do not always know. Equally common is for a drug not to >>>>>>> work in a
particular individual. Sometimes we know why, sometimes we don't. >>>>>>> In practice
it is rare for any effort to be put into finding out why in a
particular
patient, as it is unlikely to be amenable to change. But I
commend your
brother's valuable research.
I don't think you could state it as a fact that homoeopathy is
incapable
of curing or ameliorating medical conditions.
The main problem I think is that it is not possible to conduct proper >>>>>> clinical trials to prove or disprove the effect of homoeopathic
remedies, because the homoeopaths say that each person is an
individual
and you are treating the whole person, with all that person's symptoms >>>>>> and underlying personality traits, rather than treating a disease such >>>>>> as Covid.
It is easy. You get a homeopath to prescribe for the person and put
the result
in a bottle and mark it. You also mark an identical bottle of pure
water. A
trial official keeps a record of which is which and the trial
participant is
randomly given one or the other. Neither the treating homeopath nor
the person
assessing the trial participant (who may be the same person) know
which the
patient has received until after the trial. I believe it has been done. >>>>> Though not often.
Given the extreme levels of dilution used in the preparation of a
homeopathic remedy, I don't see how you could possibly produce "an
identical bottle of pure water" which is any more pure than the
homeopathic remedy itself.
P.S. How does a Homeopath acquire suitable water to carry out the
dilution process, and what level of 'contaminants' does it contain?
The important thing is that the active homeopathic remedy is prepared
according to his or her rules by the homeopathist. Worrying about the
chemical
difference from the placebo is futile.
You show a healthy scepticism, worthy of any person who is accustomed to
scientific rigour in one's profession.
But now we know that chronic fatigue syndrome can be cured, yes cured,
by homoeopathy. Which presents us with a difficult choice. Do we say
that homoeopathy is hokum, or do we say that CFS is hokum? Sometimes a
respectful silence is preferable to watching a deputation of pitchfork-
wielding stranger marching (or propelling their wheelchairs with an
unexpected energy) up your drive.
https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/30/treatment-cfs
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15016577/
https://me-pedia.org/wiki/
Chronic_Fatigue_Syndrome:_A_Guide_to_the_Homeopathic_Treatment_of_CFS/M.E.
That last one should be https://solomonhealing.wordpress.com/2023/10/26/introduction-to-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-book/
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 11/05/2025 09:11, Spike wrote:
Of course, when I’m up for my annual health check, I bias things in my >>> favour by reducing saturated fat intake to a minimum for a few days
beforehand (to lower cholesterol) but on the morning of the check I take >>> all the meds together and thus get a good reading. This keeps the incessant >>> suggestions to go onto statins (sorry!) to a minimum.
I don't see why you are trying to manipulate the data?
I’m trying to keep to a minimum the bombardment of suggestions that I take this pill or have that jab, based on the pleas from my surgery to take
these because it helps them to provide services (unspecified) to the community (unspecified). I find it unacceptable to be pressured to fill my body with stuff so the surgery can do good works. If they want money why don’t they try crowdfunding?
The advice to go
onto a statin is undoubtedly well meant, but you don't have to take it.
Oh, that’s quite correct, but if I can put myself in a position such that I can say that my data suggests little or no benefit to me, that makes it an objective reason to refuse the stuff.
Out of interest, what do you have against statins?
I’ve seen two friends who were given statins. One was a 200lb fit-as-a-fiddle ex-paratrooper who was reduced essentially to a shambling wreck, and the other was looking after his ‘forgetful’ 90yo mother, who almost became unable to take care of her due to aches, pains, and lack of energy.
After my last health check I got a message from a nurse saying my
cholesterol level was high, and recommended statins. I went on to the
online QRISK calculator, put in the data, and it turned out that I was at less risk of a heart attack or stroke than a normally-healthy person of my age and characteristics. So I told her this and refused the offer.
You show a healthy scepticism, worthy of any person who is accustomed to scientific rigour in one's profession.
But now we know that chronic fatigue syndrome can be cured, yes cured,
by homoeopathy. Which presents us with a difficult choice. Do we say
that homoeopathy is hokum, or do we say that CFS is hokum?
On 11/05/2025 12:01, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/05/2025 09:11, Spike wrote:
Of course, when I’m up for my annual health check, I bias things in my >>> favour by reducing saturated fat intake to a minimum for a few days
beforehand (to lower cholesterol) but on the morning of the check I take >>> all the meds together and thus get a good reading. This keeps the
incessant
suggestions to go onto statins (sorry!) to a minimum. But there seems
little doubt that the timing of the meds has a benefit, and it isn’t
what
is written in the Patient Information Leaflet that is necessarily the
best.
Right now, one has to find one’s own route…
I don't see the point in trying to manipulate figures relating to your
own health. There are no prizes for that. If your cholesterol levels
are normally high, not just on the day of your test, it's only
sensible to reduce it long term.
It's like misleading your lawyer. If you do that all you get is bad
advice.
An alternative approach would be, instead of continuing to eat an
unhealthy diet which raises your blood cholesterol and relying on
statins to mitigate the effects, try to change your diet because we
should be on as few daily medicines as possible and every medicine
carries a risk of side effects.
I appreciate that you don't personally subscribe to the notion that some diets are unhealthy, but some people do.
But I am quite happy to see proper homeopathy trials. If it turns out to work we will have to pick apart why. In my mind I am considering a trial with an LLM as the homeopathic prescriber.
We all know that discrimination on the grounds of religion is not
allowed under the Equality Act. So, does that include astrology?
Suppose that fourteen Leos had been appointed to be Pope but there had
never been a Pope Sagittarius, would that be illegal?
On 11/05/2025 09:11, Spike wrote:
Of course, when I’m up for my annual health check, I bias things in my
favour by reducing saturated fat intake to a minimum for a few days
beforehand (to lower cholesterol) but on the morning of the check I
take all the meds together and thus get a good reading. This keeps the
incessant suggestions to go onto statins (sorry!) to a minimum.
I don't see why you are trying to manipulate the data? The advice to go
onto a statin is undoubtedly well meant, but you don't have to take it.
Out of interest, what do you have against statins?
On 10/05/2025 22:32, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
You show a healthy scepticism, worthy of any person who is accustomed to scientific rigour in one's profession.
But now we know that chronic fatigue syndrome can be cured, yes cured,
by homoeopathy. Which presents us with a difficult choice. Do we say
that homoeopathy is hokum, or do we say that CFS is hokum?
On 11/05/2025 12:08, The Todal wrote:
On 10/05/2025 22:32, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 10 May 2025 at 22:25:13 BST, "Sam Plusnet" <not@home.com> wrote:
On 10/05/2025 13:24, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 10 May 2025 at 12:32:17 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 10/05/2025 11:54, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 10 May 2025 at 08:33:30 BST, "Jethro_uk"
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2025 22:55:32 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 9 May 2025 at 23:37:55 BST, "Jon Ribbens"
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-05-09, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2025 17:07:10 +0100, GB
<NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:
On 09/05/2025 16:40, Jethro_uk wrote:
Probably. However that doesn't invalidate my observation that >>>>>>>>>>>>> astrology can be used for something.There was a letter in The Times, a while back, where a >>>>>>>>>>>> Homeopathic
I know a few counsellors who find it's a good tool for getting >>>>>>>>>>>>> patients to open up, regardless of any scientific basis. >>>>>>>>>>>>
practitioner claimed that Homeopathy was a very good way of >>>>>>>>>>>> triggering the placebo effect.
An interesting fact about the placebo effect is that different >>>>>>>>>>> coloured pills "work" better for different ailments. And, >>>>>>>>>>> even more
interestingly, the placebo effect works even when people >>>>>>>>>>> taking the
pills know that they're placebos.
What that means in practice, therefore, is that with a tube of >>>>>>>>>>> Smarties and sufficient willpower it ought to be possible to >>>>>>>>>>> cure any
disease.
I'm afraid your post contravenes the Cancer Act 1939 and you >>>>>>>>>> should
report to your nearest police station for arrest.
Yes it was a little optimistic to suggest that the placebo
effect very
often cures anything, as opposed to relieving symptoms and perhaps >>>>>>>>> slowing disease progression.
A lot depends on the complaint. You need to bear in mind we know >>>>>>>> much
less about disease than we could know. A lot more than a century >>>>>>>> ago,
yes. But not enough to explain 80% of what goes on.
My brother works in a very niche area of medical research (using >>>>>>>> massive
high powered computing resources). When pressed, he admits that >>>>>>>> there are
loads of medicines that we do not understand. Which makes it more >>>>>>>> puzzling when some just stop working (which is his area of
interest) or
why the same medicine works for some and not for others.
Speaking for myself, my glaucoma eye drops were swapped around >>>>>>>> as the
just stopped working.
There are several known mechanisms that explain why drugs stop
working, though
I agree we do not always know. Equally common is for a drug not
to work in a
particular individual. Sometimes we know why, sometimes we don't. >>>>>>> In practice
it is rare for any effort to be put into finding out why in a
particular
patient, as it is unlikely to be amenable to change. But I
commend your
brother's valuable research.
I don't think you could state it as a fact that homoeopathy is
incapable
of curing or ameliorating medical conditions.
The main problem I think is that it is not possible to conduct proper >>>>>> clinical trials to prove or disprove the effect of homoeopathic
remedies, because the homoeopaths say that each person is an
individual
and you are treating the whole person, with all that person's
symptoms
and underlying personality traits, rather than treating a disease
such
as Covid.
It is easy. You get a homeopath to prescribe for the person and put
the result
in a bottle and mark it. You also mark an identical bottle of pure
water. A
trial official keeps a record of which is which and the trial
participant is
randomly given one or the other. Neither the treating homeopath nor
the person
assessing the trial participant (who may be the same person) know
which the
patient has received until after the trial. I believe it has been
done.
Though not often.
Given the extreme levels of dilution used in the preparation of a
homeopathic remedy, I don't see how you could possibly produce "an
identical bottle of pure water" which is any more pure than the
homeopathic remedy itself.
P.S. How does a Homeopath acquire suitable water to carry out the
dilution process, and what level of 'contaminants' does it contain?
The important thing is that the active homeopathic remedy is prepared
according to his or her rules by the homeopathist. Worrying about the
chemical
difference from the placebo is futile.
You show a healthy scepticism, worthy of any person who is accustomed
to scientific rigour in one's profession.
But now we know that chronic fatigue syndrome can be cured, yes cured,
by homoeopathy. Which presents us with a difficult choice. Do we say
that homoeopathy is hokum, or do we say that CFS is hokum? Sometimes
a respectful silence is preferable to watching a deputation of
pitchfork- wielding stranger marching (or propelling their wheelchairs
with an unexpected energy) up your drive.
https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/30/treatment-cfs
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15016577/
https://me-pedia.org/wiki/
Chronic_Fatigue_Syndrome:_A_Guide_to_the_Homeopathic_Treatment_of_CFS/
M.E.
That last one should be https://solomonhealing.wordpress.com/2023/10/26/introduction-to-chronic- fatigue-syndrome-book/
They would have to involve a control group who are given something
identical with the homeopathic treatment except that it doesn't contain
the magic ingredient that the homeopathic remedy does.
On 11/05/2025 12:08, The Todal wrote:
[quoted text muted]
That's a very bold statement, given that there are around 300k people
with the condition in the UK.
On 11/05/2025 12:08, The Todal wrote:
You show a healthy scepticism, worthy of any person who is accustomed
to scientific rigour in one's profession.
But now we know that chronic fatigue syndrome can be cured, yes cured,
by homoeopathy. Which presents us with a difficult choice. Do we say
that homoeopathy is hokum, or do we say that CFS is hokum?
"We" could say that the cure is an example of the placebo effect.
On 11 May 2025 at 12:50:14 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
I’m trying to keep to a minimum the bombardment of suggestions that I take >> this pill or have that jab, based on the pleas from my surgery to take
these because it helps them to provide services (unspecified) to the
community (unspecified). I find it unacceptable to be pressured to fill my >> body with stuff so the surgery can do good works. If they want money why
don’t they try crowdfunding?
They are not trying to do good works, they are trying to avoid financial penalties from their paymasters for failure to achieve their quota of preventive tasks. I don't know if this makes you feel better or worse about resisting their blandishments.
The advice to go
onto a statin is undoubtedly well meant, but you don't have to take it.
Oh, that’s quite correct, but if I can put myself in a position such that I
can say that my data suggests little or no benefit to me, that makes it an >> objective reason to refuse the stuff.
After my last health check I got a message from a nurse saying my
cholesterol level was high, and recommended statins. I went on to the
online QRISK calculator, put in the data, and it turned out that I was at
less risk of a heart attack or stroke than a normally-healthy person of my >> age and characteristics. So I told her this and refused the offer.
As another poster said, once you reach a certain age the baseline risk is really pretty high. Absolute risks make more sense than relative risks - but I
thought that was what qrisk did?
On 11/05/2025 11:45, GB wrote:
On 11/05/2025 09:11, Spike wrote:
Of course, when I’m up for my annual health check, I bias things in my >>> favour by reducing saturated fat intake to a minimum for a few days
beforehand (to lower cholesterol) but on the morning of the check I take >>> all the meds together and thus get a good reading. This keeps the
incessant
suggestions to go onto statins (sorry!) to a minimum.
I don't see why you are trying to manipulate the data? The advice to
go onto a statin is undoubtedly well meant, but you don't have to take
it.
Out of interest, what do you have against statins?
Arguably, statins are prescribed too freely and mainly benefit Big
Pharma. Seemingly the algorithm recommends that just about everyone over
a certain age should be on statins to reduce your risk of heart attacks
from miniscule to half miniscule.
On 11/05/2025 11:45, GB wrote:"Big Pharma" would have far more interest is pushing expensive products.
On 11/05/2025 09:11, Spike wrote:
Of course, when I’m up for my annual health check, I bias things in my >>> favour by reducing saturated fat intake to a minimum for a few days
beforehand (to lower cholesterol) but on the morning of the check I take >>> all the meds together and thus get a good reading. This keeps the
incessant
suggestions to go onto statins (sorry!) to a minimum.
I don't see why you are trying to manipulate the data? The advice to
go onto a statin is undoubtedly well meant, but you don't have to take
it.
Out of interest, what do you have against statins?
Arguably, statins are prescribed too freely and mainly benefit Big
Pharma.
On 11/05/2025 12:31, GB wrote:Nonsense! You have been badly misled.
On 11/05/2025 12:08, The Todal wrote:
But now we know that chronic fatigue syndrome can be cured, yes
cured, by homoeopathy.
That's a very bold statement, given that there are around 300k people
with the condition in the UK.
And how wonderful it would be if they can be cured by a form of
medication that is extremely cheap to produce and is effectively open- source.
Each and every patient could be cured, and deprived of disability
benefits and PIPs and sent back to work in order to boost our national economic growth.
You question the efficacy of homoeopathy? How can you callously stamp
out the flickering flame of hope? And what's the alternative for these unfortunate patients? Physiotherapy which they regard as a form of
additional torture? SSRI antidepressants which are habit forming and can increase suicidal ideation? Tricyclic antidepressants which have side effects? All to enrich Big Pharma?Nonsense! The correct answer to this problem is...
On 11/05/2025 12:55, The Todal wrote:
On 11/05/2025 12:31, GB wrote:Nonsense! You have been badly misled.
On 11/05/2025 12:08, The Todal wrote:
But now we know that chronic fatigue syndrome can be cured, yes
cured, by homoeopathy.
That's a very bold statement, given that there are around 300k people
with the condition in the UK.
And how wonderful it would be if they can be cured by a form of
medication that is extremely cheap to produce and is effectively open-
source.
Each and every patient could be cured, and deprived of disability
benefits and PIPs and sent back to work in order to boost our national
economic growth.
You question the efficacy of homoeopathy? How can you callously stamp
out the flickering flame of hope? And what's the alternative for these
unfortunate patients? Physiotherapy which they regard as a form of
additional torture? SSRI antidepressants which are habit forming and can
increase suicidal ideation? Tricyclic antidepressants which have side
effects? All to enrich Big Pharma?Nonsense! The correct answer to this
problem is...
The correct answer to this problem is...
Leaches!
On 10 May 2025 at 22:12:37 BST, "Sam Plusnet" <not@home.com> wrote:
On 09/05/2025 23:37, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-05-09, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:Maybe not, but it would amount to practicing medicine without a licence.
On Fri, 9 May 2025 17:07:10 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 09/05/2025 16:40, Jethro_uk wrote:
Probably. However that doesn't invalidate my observation that astrology >>>>>> can be used for something.
I know a few counsellors who find it's a good tool for getting patients >>>>>> to open up, regardless of any scientific basis.
There was a letter in The Times, a while back, where a Homeopathic
practitioner claimed that Homeopathy was a very good way of triggering >>>>> the placebo effect.
An interesting fact about the placebo effect is that different coloured >>>> pills "work" better for different ailments. And, even more interestingly, >>>> the placebo effect works even when people taking the pills know that
they're placebos.
What that means in practice, therefore, is that with a tube of
Smarties and sufficient willpower it ought to be possible to cure any
disease.
I'm afraid your post contravenes the Cancer Act 1939 and you should
report to your nearest police station for arrest.
Anyone is allowed to practice medical treatment without a licence as long as they don't pretend to be a medical doctor. The Cancer Act (possibly as amended) makes exceptions. There are also risks of negligence or assault but if you stick to homeopathy you should be ok.
On 11/05/2025 12:25, The Todal wrote:
On 11/05/2025 12:01, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/05/2025 09:11, Spike wrote:
Of course, when I’m up for my annual health check, I bias things in my >>>> favour by reducing saturated fat intake to a minimum for a few days
beforehand (to lower cholesterol) but on the morning of the check I
take
all the meds together and thus get a good reading. This keeps the
incessant
suggestions to go onto statins (sorry!) to a minimum. But there seems
little doubt that the timing of the meds has a benefit, and it isn’t >>>> what
is written in the Patient Information Leaflet that is necessarily
the best.
Right now, one has to find one’s own route…
I don't see the point in trying to manipulate figures relating to
your own health. There are no prizes for that. If your cholesterol
levels are normally high, not just on the day of your test, it's only
sensible to reduce it long term.
It's like misleading your lawyer. If you do that all you get is bad
advice.
An alternative approach would be, instead of continuing to eat an
unhealthy diet which raises your blood cholesterol and relying on
statins to mitigate the effects, try to change your diet because we
should be on as few daily medicines as possible and every medicine
carries a risk of side effects.
The vast, vast majority of those on statins suffer no side-effects whatsoever. And that enables them to eat pretty much what they fancy, thereby increasing happiness and reducing misery. For them it's a win- win. For those who think they must eat what they don't like, it's a
recipe for the mental health issues that are currently in vogue.
I appreciate that you don't personally subscribe to the notion that
some diets are unhealthy, but some people do.
It's getting fat that's the problem, not generally what you eat at all.
On 11/05/2025 13:13, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/05/2025 12:25, The Todal wrote:
On 11/05/2025 12:01, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/05/2025 09:11, Spike wrote:An alternative approach would be, instead of continuing to eat an
Of course, when I’m up for my annual health check, I bias things in >>>>> my favour by reducing saturated fat intake to a minimum for a few
days beforehand (to lower cholesterol) but on the morning of the
check I take all the meds together and thus get a good reading. This >>>>> keeps the incessant suggestions to go onto statins (sorry!) to a
minimum. But there seems little doubt that the timing of the meds
has a benefit, and it isn’t what is written in the Patient
Information Leaflet that is necessarily the best.
Right now, one has to find one’s own route…
I don't see the point in trying to manipulate figures relating to
your own health. There are no prizes for that. If your cholesterol >>>> levels are normally high, not just on the day of your test, it's only
sensible to reduce it long term.
It's like misleading your lawyer. If you do that all you get is bad
advice.
unhealthy diet which raises your blood cholesterol and relying on
statins to mitigate the effects, try to change your diet because we
should be on as few daily medicines as possible and every medicine
carries a risk of side effects.
The vast, vast majority of those on statins suffer no side-effects
whatsoever. And that enables them to eat pretty much what they fancy,
thereby increasing happiness and reducing misery. For them it's a win-
win. For those who think they must eat what they don't like, it's a
recipe for the mental health issues that are currently in vogue.
I appreciate that you don't personally subscribe to the notion that
some diets are unhealthy, but some people do.
It's getting fat that's the problem, not generally what you eat at all.
What you eat determines much about your health and longevity.
On 11 May 2025 at 19:26:00 BST, "Sam Plusnet" <not@home.com> wrote:
On 11/05/2025 12:55, The Todal wrote:
On 11/05/2025 12:31, GB wrote:Nonsense! You have been badly misled.
On 11/05/2025 12:08, The Todal wrote:
But now we know that chronic fatigue syndrome can be cured, yes
cured, by homoeopathy.
That's a very bold statement, given that there are around 300k people
with the condition in the UK.
And how wonderful it would be if they can be cured by a form of
medication that is extremely cheap to produce and is effectively open-
source.
Each and every patient could be cured, and deprived of disability
benefits and PIPs and sent back to work in order to boost our national
economic growth.
You question the efficacy of homoeopathy? How can you callously stamp
out the flickering flame of hope? And what's the alternative for these
unfortunate patients? Physiotherapy which they regard as a form of
additional torture? SSRI antidepressants which are habit forming and can >>> increase suicidal ideation? Tricyclic antidepressants which have side
effects? All to enrich Big Pharma?Nonsense! The correct answer to this
problem is...
The correct answer to this problem is...
Leaches!
Or possibly even leeches?
On 11/05/2025 13:13, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/05/2025 12:25, The Todal wrote:
On 11/05/2025 12:01, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/05/2025 09:11, Spike wrote:
Of course, when I’m up for my annual health check, I bias things in my >>>>> favour by reducing saturated fat intake to a minimum for a few days
beforehand (to lower cholesterol) but on the morning of the check I
take
all the meds together and thus get a good reading. This keeps the
incessant
suggestions to go onto statins (sorry!) to a minimum. But there seems >>>>> little doubt that the timing of the meds has a benefit, and it isn’t >>>>> what
is written in the Patient Information Leaflet that is necessarily
the best.
Right now, one has to find one’s own route…
I don't see the point in trying to manipulate figures relating to
your own health. There are no prizes for that. If your cholesterol
levels are normally high, not just on the day of your test, it's only
sensible to reduce it long term.
It's like misleading your lawyer. If you do that all you get is bad
advice.
An alternative approach would be, instead of continuing to eat an
unhealthy diet which raises your blood cholesterol and relying on
statins to mitigate the effects, try to change your diet because we
should be on as few daily medicines as possible and every medicine
carries a risk of side effects.
The vast, vast majority of those on statins suffer no side-effects
whatsoever. And that enables them to eat pretty much what they fancy,
thereby increasing happiness and reducing misery. For them it's a win-
win. For those who think they must eat what they don't like, it's a
recipe for the mental health issues that are currently in vogue.
I appreciate that you don't personally subscribe to the notion that
some diets are unhealthy, but some people do.
It's getting fat that's the problem, not generally what you eat at all.
What you eat determines much about your health and longevity.
On 11/05/2025 13:13, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/05/2025 12:25, The Todal wrote:
On 11/05/2025 12:01, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/05/2025 09:11, Spike wrote:
Of course, when I’m up for my annual health check, I bias things in my >>>>> favour by reducing saturated fat intake to a minimum for a few days
beforehand (to lower cholesterol) but on the morning of the check I
take
all the meds together and thus get a good reading. This keeps the
incessant
suggestions to go onto statins (sorry!) to a minimum. But there seems >>>>> little doubt that the timing of the meds has a benefit, and it
isn’t what
is written in the Patient Information Leaflet that is necessarily
the best.
Right now, one has to find one’s own route…
I don't see the point in trying to manipulate figures relating to
your own health. There are no prizes for that. If your cholesterol >>>> levels are normally high, not just on the day of your test, it's
only sensible to reduce it long term.
It's like misleading your lawyer. If you do that all you get is bad
advice.
An alternative approach would be, instead of continuing to eat an
unhealthy diet which raises your blood cholesterol and relying on
statins to mitigate the effects, try to change your diet because we
should be on as few daily medicines as possible and every medicine
carries a risk of side effects.
The vast, vast majority of those on statins suffer no side-effects
whatsoever. And that enables them to eat pretty much what they fancy,
thereby increasing happiness and reducing misery. For them it's a
win- win. For those who think they must eat what they don't like,
it's a recipe for the mental health issues that are currently in vogue.
I appreciate that you don't personally subscribe to the notion that
some diets are unhealthy, but some people do.
It's getting fat that's the problem, not generally what you eat at all.
What you eat determines much about your health and longevity.
For a while, I was allergic to cat hair and experienced rhinitis when entering a room where a cat had been. Fortunately I was able to obtain homoeopathic cat hair, in the form of tiny white sugary pilules, from my homeopathic pharmacy. I am pleased to say that I currently have a cat
and have no allergic symptoms. I haven't yet tried the pilules though.
They don't seem to have a use-by date.
On 11/05/2025 10:18, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:m8b0jqFb9olU1@mid.individual.net...
On 10/05/2025 20:17, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:m89gpqF3k1sU7@mid.individual.net...
On 10/05/2025 14:13, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:m85mutFg1enU1@mid.individual.net...
We all know that discrimination on the grounds of religion
is not allowed under the Equality Act. So, does that include astrology?
How can it be a religion ?
The basis if all religions is that they set out a way to behave.
A set of rules to follow, to secure eternal life. Or whatever.
Whereas all that astrology sets out to do, is tell you what's
going to happen; regardless of whatever you may do.
Which if true, is maybe useful when it comes to betting on the
3.30 at Sandown Park ; but not much use when it comes to
securing eternal life.
Well, under the Equality Act, religion and philosophical belief are lumped together
and
treated essentially as one thing so pedantic distinctions are unnecessary.
Except that's not the question you asked is it ?
What dictionary or dictionaries are you using for your definition of religion? And
why, if you don't, do you not consider astrology to be a philosophical belief?
I can't see why not. But simply because something is a philosophical
belief doesnt in itself qualify if for protrection; given that racism, >>>> totalitarianism etc are equally philosophical beliefs.
According to Section 10 of the Equality Act:
"Belief means any religious or philosophical belief".
How can that be interpreted to include some and exclude others when it specifically
and
very clearly says 'any'?
Because the "any" refers to the kind of beliefs which "could" in theory be covered
by the act; which could be considered for inclusion. Not specific beliefs, all of
which "would" necessarily be included
No, it doesn't. It is a statement of what the law *is* not what it might be if someone
thought about it.
It has that in common with all laws. It's not a wish list or a number of suggestions.
What it says goes.
The purpose of the Act is simply to establish the principle, that in Law, *in some
specific cases* its illegal to discriminate on the grounds of belief. But not in
"all" cases.
Again, not so. It says what it says, and what it says is that it's illegal to
discriminate against anyone on the grounds of *any* philosophical belief. It has to be
a philosophical belief, and you can perhaps argue about what the word philosophical
means there, but *all* beliefs that are philosophical beliefs are protected characteristics.
Where previously no such Law existed. And it was perfectly legal presumably to
discriminate against people on such grounds *in all cases*.
Again, no. That applies only where there were no earlier laws that would be broken.
And there obviously were several that need not concern us now. As the introduction to
the Equality Acts states, it is an Act:
"... to reform and harmonise equality law and restate the greater part of the enactments relating to discrimination and harassment related to certain personal
characteristics ...'.
On 11 May 2025 at 19:44:56 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
What you eat determines much about your health and longevity.
The only practical problem being that what you *should* eat for health changes
every few years. The recommendations have changed radically at least half a dozen times that I can remember.
On Sun, 11 May 2025 20:18:23 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
According to Fredxx's link, even Jedi are protected
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1258365/Jedi-believer-wins-apology-Jobcentre-kicked-wearing-hood.html
Although at that stage he had only received a grovelling apology from the Job
Centre. Who had had him escorted from the premises, on account of his hood.
However, subsequent decisions appear to cast doubt on that interpretation:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38368526
More generally, I think it would be hard to successfully argue in court that being a Jedi is a belief that is genuinely held and has a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion, and importance[1]. Given that the Jedi are a group of people in a well-known fictional series, it would, I think, be hard for someone claiming to be a Jedi to successfully assert that they did not know it was fiction.
[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/10/notes
Mark
According to Fredxx's link, even Jedi are protected
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1258365/Jedi-believer-wins-apology-Jobcentre-kicked-wearing-hood.html
Although at that stage he had only received a grovelling apology from the Job >Centre. Who had had him escorted from the premises, on account of his hood.
On 11 May 2025 at 19:44:56 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 11/05/2025 13:13, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/05/2025 12:25, The Todal wrote:
On 11/05/2025 12:01, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/05/2025 09:11, Spike wrote:
Of course, when I'm up for my annual health check, I bias things in my >>>>>> favour by reducing saturated fat intake to a minimum for a few days >>>>>> beforehand (to lower cholesterol) but on the morning of the check I >>>>>> take
all the meds together and thus get a good reading. This keeps the
incessant
suggestions to go onto statins (sorry!) to a minimum. But there seems >>>>>> little doubt that the timing of the meds has a benefit, and it isn't >>>>>> what
is written in the Patient Information Leaflet that is necessarily
the best.
Right now, one has to find one's own route.
I don't see the point in trying to manipulate figures relating to
your own health. There are no prizes for that. If your cholesterol >>>>> levels are normally high, not just on the day of your test, it's only >>>>> sensible to reduce it long term.
It's like misleading your lawyer. If you do that all you get is bad >>>>> advice.
An alternative approach would be, instead of continuing to eat an
unhealthy diet which raises your blood cholesterol and relying on
statins to mitigate the effects, try to change your diet because we
should be on as few daily medicines as possible and every medicine
carries a risk of side effects.
The vast, vast majority of those on statins suffer no side-effects
whatsoever. And that enables them to eat pretty much what they fancy,
thereby increasing happiness and reducing misery. For them it's a win-
win. For those who think they must eat what they don't like, it's a
recipe for the mental health issues that are currently in vogue.
I appreciate that you don't personally subscribe to the notion that
some diets are unhealthy, but some people do.
It's getting fat that's the problem, not generally what you eat at all.
What you eat determines much about your health and longevity.
The only practical problem being that what you *should* eat for health changes
every few years. The recommendations have changed radically at least half a dozen times that I can remember.
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:9383392131.db8ff989@uninhabited.net...
On 11 May 2025 at 19:44:56 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 11/05/2025 13:13, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/05/2025 12:25, The Todal wrote:What you eat determines much about your health and longevity.
On 11/05/2025 12:01, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/05/2025 09:11, Spike wrote:
Of course, when I'm up for my annual health check, I bias things in my >>>>>>> favour by reducing saturated fat intake to a minimum for a few days >>>>>>> beforehand (to lower cholesterol) but on the morning of the check I >>>>>>> take
all the meds together and thus get a good reading. This keeps the >>>>>>> incessant
suggestions to go onto statins (sorry!) to a minimum. But there seems >>>>>>> little doubt that the timing of the meds has a benefit, and it isn't >>>>>>> what
is written in the Patient Information Leaflet that is necessarily >>>>>>> the best.
Right now, one has to find one's own route.
I don't see the point in trying to manipulate figures relating to
your own health. There are no prizes for that. If your cholesterol >>>>>> levels are normally high, not just on the day of your test, it's only >>>>>> sensible to reduce it long term.
It's like misleading your lawyer. If you do that all you get is bad >>>>>> advice.
An alternative approach would be, instead of continuing to eat an
unhealthy diet which raises your blood cholesterol and relying on
statins to mitigate the effects, try to change your diet because we
should be on as few daily medicines as possible and every medicine
carries a risk of side effects.
The vast, vast majority of those on statins suffer no side-effects
whatsoever. And that enables them to eat pretty much what they fancy, >>>> thereby increasing happiness and reducing misery. For them it's a win- >>>> win. For those who think they must eat what they don't like, it's a
recipe for the mental health issues that are currently in vogue.
I appreciate that you don't personally subscribe to the notion that
some diets are unhealthy, but some people do.
It's getting fat that's the problem, not generally what you eat at all. >>>
The only practical problem being that what you *should* eat for health changes
every few years. The recommendations have changed radically at least half a >> dozen times that I can remember.
Although presumably the results of the long term population studies on which many such recommendations are made haven't similarly altered.
Thus *countries* which over decades, eat a greater amount of vegetables, fish,
rice etc *per capita* had a lower incidence of heart disease, or whatever.
On Sun, 11 May 2025 13:13:26 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 11/05/2025 12:25, The Todal wrote:
On 11/05/2025 12:01, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/05/2025 09:11, Spike wrote:
Of course, when I’m up for my annual health check, I bias things in my >>>>> favour by reducing saturated fat intake to a minimum for a few days
beforehand (to lower cholesterol) but on the morning of the check I take >>>>> all the meds together and thus get a good reading. This keeps the
incessant
suggestions to go onto statins (sorry!) to a minimum. But there seems >>>>> little doubt that the timing of the meds has a benefit, and it isn’t >>>>> what
is written in the Patient Information Leaflet that is necessarily the >>>>> best.
Right now, one has to find one’s own route…
I don't see the point in trying to manipulate figures relating to your >>>> own health. There are no prizes for that. If your cholesterol levels >>>> are normally high, not just on the day of your test, it's only
sensible to reduce it long term.
It's like misleading your lawyer. If you do that all you get is bad
advice.
An alternative approach would be, instead of continuing to eat an
unhealthy diet which raises your blood cholesterol and relying on
statins to mitigate the effects, try to change your diet because we
should be on as few daily medicines as possible and every medicine
carries a risk of side effects.
The vast, vast majority of those on statins suffer no side-effects
whatsoever. And that enables them to eat pretty much what they fancy,
thereby increasing happiness and reducing misery. For them it's a
win-win. For those who think they must eat what they don't like, it's a
recipe for the mental health issues that are currently in vogue.
I appreciate that you don't personally subscribe to the notion that some >>> diets are unhealthy, but some people do.
It's getting fat that's the problem, not generally what you eat at all.
Where do you think "getting fat" comes from?
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 11 May 2025 at 19:44:56 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
[…]
What you eat determines much about your health and longevity.
The only practical problem being that what you *should* eat for health changes
every few years. The recommendations have changed radically at least half a >> dozen times that I can remember.
The medical profession covers that by recommending that one eats a balanced diet.
The only problem being that they don’t know what a balanced diet is…
On Sun, 11 May 2025 20:18:23 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
According to Fredxx's link, even Jedi are protected
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1258365/Jedi-believer-wins-apology-Jobcentre-kicked-wearing-hood.html
Although at that stage he had only received a grovelling apology from the Job >>Centre. Who had had him escorted from the premises, on account of his hood.
However, subsequent decisions appear to cast doubt on that interpretation:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38368526
More generally, I think it would be hard to successfully argue in court that being a Jedi is a belief that is genuinely held and has a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion, and importance[1]. Given that the Jedi are a group of people in a well-known fictional series, it would, I think, be hard for someone claiming to be a Jedi to successfully assert that they did not know it was fiction.
[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/10/notes
On Sun, 11 May 2025 20:18:23 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
According to Fredxx's link, even Jedi are protected
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1258365/Jedi-believer-wins-apology-Jobcentre-kicked-wearing-hood.html
Although at that stage he had only received a grovelling apology from the Job
Centre. Who had had him escorted from the premises, on account of his hood.
However, subsequent decisions appear to cast doubt on that interpretation:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38368526
More generally, I think it would be hard to successfully argue in court that being a Jedi is a belief that is genuinely held and has a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion, and importance[1]. Given that the Jedi are a group of people in a well-known fictional series, it would, I think, be hard for someone claiming to be a Jedi to successfully assert that they did not know it was fiction.
[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/10/notes
On 11 May 2025 at 19:44:56 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 11/05/2025 13:13, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/05/2025 12:25, The Todal wrote:
On 11/05/2025 12:01, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/05/2025 09:11, Spike wrote:An alternative approach would be, instead of continuing to eat an
Of course, when I’m up for my annual health check, I bias things in >>>>>> my favour by reducing saturated fat intake to a minimum for a few
days beforehand (to lower cholesterol) but on the morning of the
check I take all the meds together and thus get a good reading.
This keeps the incessant suggestions to go onto statins (sorry!) to >>>>>> a minimum. But there seems little doubt that the timing of the meds >>>>>> has a benefit, and it isn’t what is written in the Patient
Information Leaflet that is necessarily the best.
Right now, one has to find one’s own route…
I don't see the point in trying to manipulate figures relating to
your own health. There are no prizes for that. If your cholesterol >>>>> levels are normally high, not just on the day of your test, it's
only sensible to reduce it long term.
It's like misleading your lawyer. If you do that all you get is bad >>>>> advice.
unhealthy diet which raises your blood cholesterol and relying on
statins to mitigate the effects, try to change your diet because we
should be on as few daily medicines as possible and every medicine
carries a risk of side effects.
The vast, vast majority of those on statins suffer no side-effects
whatsoever. And that enables them to eat pretty much what they fancy,
thereby increasing happiness and reducing misery. For them it's a
win-
win. For those who think they must eat what they don't like, it's a
recipe for the mental health issues that are currently in vogue.
I appreciate that you don't personally subscribe to the notion that
some diets are unhealthy, but some people do.
It's getting fat that's the problem, not generally what you eat at
all.
What you eat determines much about your health and longevity.
The only practical problem being that what you *should* eat for health changes every few years. The recommendations have changed radically at
least half a dozen times that I can remember.
On 12 May 2025 at 09:49:32 BST, "Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2025 20:18:23 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>
According to Fredxx's link, even Jedi are protectedHowever, subsequent decisions appear to cast doubt on that interpretation: >>
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1258365/Jedi-believer-wins-apology-Jobcentre-kicked-wearing-hood.html
Although at that stage he had only received a grovelling apology from the Job
Centre. Who had had him escorted from the premises, on account of his hood. >>
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38368526
More generally, I think it would be hard to successfully argue in court that >> being a Jedi is a belief that is genuinely held and has a certain level of >> cogency, seriousness, cohesion, and importance[1]. Given that the Jedi are a >> group of people in a well-known fictional series, it would, I think, be hard >> for someone claiming to be a Jedi to successfully assert that they did not >> know it was fiction.
[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/10/notes
Mark
I don't really see your point. All religion is fiction. And the Scientologists
proved you can base a religion on recent totally unreasonable fiction.
(I think your body just gets used to the allergen after a while of
constant exposure.)
On 12/05/2025 09:49, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2025 20:18:23 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
According to Fredxx's link, even Jedi are protected
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1258365/Jedi-believer-wins-apology-Jobcentre-kicked-wearing-hood.html
Although at that stage he had only received a grovelling apology from
the Job
Centre. Who had had him escorted from the premises, on account of his
hood.
However, subsequent decisions appear to cast doubt on that
interpretation:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38368526
More generally, I think it would be hard to successfully argue in
court that
being a Jedi is a belief that is genuinely held and has a certain
level of
cogency, seriousness, cohesion, and importance[1]. Given that the Jedi
are a
group of people in a well-known fictional series, it would, I think,
be hard
for someone claiming to be a Jedi to successfully assert that they did
not
know it was fiction.
[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/10/notes
I would hope that such an argument would be successful. We cannot judge
a personal belief.
Indeed I recall at the time the concept of an unknown power that
permeated across the universe was one some people accepted. The fact it
was later given the name of Jedi by an author is of less importance. It
is simply a name.
I suppose if the religion had a single entity at its head such it might
be seen as a god, such as Gozer, it would conform to more regular beliefs.
On Sun, 11 May 2025 21:02:45 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
(I think your body just gets used to the allergen after a while of
constant exposure.)
Well, evolutionarily, it's either that or extinction.
On Sun, 11 May 2025 19:44:56 +0100, Fredxx wrote:
On 11/05/2025 13:13, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/05/2025 12:25, The Todal wrote:
On 11/05/2025 12:01, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/05/2025 09:11, Spike wrote:An alternative approach would be, instead of continuing to eat an
Of course, when I’m up for my annual health check, I bias things in >>>>>> my favour by reducing saturated fat intake to a minimum for a few
days beforehand (to lower cholesterol) but on the morning of the
check I take all the meds together and thus get a good reading. This >>>>>> keeps the incessant suggestions to go onto statins (sorry!) to a
minimum. But there seems little doubt that the timing of the meds
has a benefit, and it isn’t what is written in the Patient
Information Leaflet that is necessarily the best.
Right now, one has to find one’s own route…
I don't see the point in trying to manipulate figures relating to
your own health. There are no prizes for that. If your cholesterol >>>>> levels are normally high, not just on the day of your test, it's only >>>>> sensible to reduce it long term.
It's like misleading your lawyer. If you do that all you get is bad >>>>> advice.
unhealthy diet which raises your blood cholesterol and relying on
statins to mitigate the effects, try to change your diet because we
should be on as few daily medicines as possible and every medicine
carries a risk of side effects.
The vast, vast majority of those on statins suffer no side-effects
whatsoever. And that enables them to eat pretty much what they fancy,
thereby increasing happiness and reducing misery. For them it's a win- >>> win. For those who think they must eat what they don't like, it's a
recipe for the mental health issues that are currently in vogue.
I appreciate that you don't personally subscribe to the notion that
some diets are unhealthy, but some people do.
It's getting fat that's the problem, not generally what you eat at all.
What you eat determines much about your health and longevity.
If you want to live a long time, choose your parents carefully ...
Jehovah's Witnesses are still active in my neighbourhood, and quite
recently a father and child called at my door with leaflets. The child
looked about 10 and did all the talking while his father watched
approvingly, presumably to make sure the child followed the script and
was not upset by any aggressive response from the householder. I
privately thought it rather despicable to use a child for evangelism purposees.
I think the opening gambit was something like "do you think our world is doomed?" which does not really offer much scope for a useful discussion.
I assured him that there was no God, but obviously he and his dad were unfazed by this and saw it as a chance to preach their gospel. I had to
say I was too busy to talk. What do others do? I suppose if you live
alone you might welcome a cosy chat and invite them in. There's quite a
good scary thriller called "Heretic" starring Hugh Grant, in which this scenario turns rather nasty.
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
The only practical problem being that what you *should* eat for health changes
every few years. The recommendations have changed radically at least half a >> dozen times that I can remember.
Although presumably the results of the long term population studies on which many such recommendations are made haven't similarly altered.
Thus *countries* which over decades, eat a greater amount of vegetables, fish,
rice etc *per capita* had a lower incidence of heart disease, or whatever.
While here in the UK, the beneficial effects of the restricted war time diet which resulted from rationing, have never seriously been questioned.*
Does that mean we should only eat food that is likely to go mouldy
within a few days because it contains no preservatives?
On 2025-05-12, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2025 21:02:45 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
(I think your body just gets used to the allergen after a while of
constant exposure.)
Well, evolutionarily, it's either that or extinction.
Or live with it, or move away from the allergen?
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
The only practical problem being that what you *should* eat for health changes
every few years. The recommendations have changed radically at least half a >>> dozen times that I can remember.
Although presumably the results of the long term population studies on which >> many such recommendations are made haven't similarly altered.
Thus *countries* which over decades, eat a greater amount of vegetables, fish,
rice etc *per capita* had a lower incidence of heart disease, or whatever.
While here in the UK, the beneficial effects of the restricted war time diet >> which resulted from rationing, have never seriously been questioned.*
I would have to say that I thought similarly about the beneficial aspects
of rationing in WWII, based on a report I read in a scientific journal some 50 years ago.
However, a swift web search turned up research papers that did not agree
with this view, this being one of them:
Quote:
Diet and coronary heart disease in England and Wales during and after the second world war.
D J Barker, C Osmond
Copyright and License information
PMCID: PMC1052486 PMID: 3711768
Abstract
During the second world war there were large changes in consumption of
fats, fibre, and sugar in Britain. These changes matched recent recommendations made by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy (COMA) with the object of reducing the incidence of coronary heart disease (CHD). It is widely believed that CHD mortality fell during the war.
This paper re-examines CHD mortality among middle-aged people in England
and Wales from 1931 to 1967. After allowance for changes in the rules for coding cause of death, and for the sharp increase in all-causes mortality
in 1940, there is little to suggest that time trends in CHD were much influenced by the war.
Because of confounding variables, this does not argue against the COMA report. However, it gives no support to the view that compliance with the recommendations on fat, fibre, and sugar will lead, by itself, to an appreciable fall in CHD mortality in middle-aged people.
Unquote
<https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1052486/>
On 12/05/2025 09:17, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 11 May 2025 at 19:44:56 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
[…]
What you eat determines much about your health and longevity.
The only practical problem being that what you *should* eat for
health changes
every few years. The recommendations have changed radically at least
half a
dozen times that I can remember.
The medical profession covers that by recommending that one eats a
balanced
diet.
The only problem being that they don’t know what a balanced diet is…
I think the public is justifiably confused. The latest fad is to reject "ultra processed" food. Food that contains ingredients that you wouldn't
find in your average kitchen, or something of that sort.
Does that mean we should only eat food that is likely to go mouldy
within a few days because it contains no preservatives? With the result
that more food gets thrown away?
It would benefit the nation's health if each supermarket was required to provide a section of cook-chill food that contains a good balance of vegetables, roughage, protein and calories without excessive salt or saturated fat. labelled "eat this every day and you'll be healthier". So
that people didn't have to figure out where to get their five a day or
how to keep their blood pressure under control.
On 12/05/2025 10:21 AM, Fredxx wrote:
On 12/05/2025 09:49, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2025 20:18:23 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
According to Fredxx's link, even Jedi are protected
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1258365/Jedi-believer-wins-
apology-Jobcentre-kicked-wearing-hood.html
Although at that stage he had only received a grovelling apology from
the Job
Centre. Who had had him escorted from the premises, on account of his
hood.
However, subsequent decisions appear to cast doubt on that
interpretation:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38368526
More generally, I think it would be hard to successfully argue in
court that
being a Jedi is a belief that is genuinely held and has a certain
level of
cogency, seriousness, cohesion, and importance[1]. Given that the Jedi
are a
group of people in a well-known fictional series, it would, I think,
be hard
for someone claiming to be a Jedi to successfully assert that they did
not
know it was fiction.
[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/10/notes
I would hope that such an argument would be successful. We cannot judge
a personal belief.
We *can* and *may* judge it when it is clearly based on relatively
recent fiction and adopted as what its adherents obviously see as a joke.
Indeed I recall at the time the concept of an unknown power that
permeated across the universe was one some people accepted. The fact it
was later given the name of Jedi by an author is of less importance. It
is simply a name.
You have just described the God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
I have never heard or read anything which limits the power of that God
to only a region of the universe. The doctrine is that God created the universe.
I suppose if the religion had a single entity at its head such it might
be seen as a god, such as Gozer, it would conform to more regular
beliefs.
Only if it is believed in the first place. And there is no reason to
suppose or accept that it is. Seperated from its fictional source, it's
a joke, though perhaps one that some people have taken seriously for
reasons of their own.
On Sun, 11 May 2025 20:18:23 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
According to Fredxx's link, even Jedi are protected
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1258365/Jedi-believer-wins-apology-Jobcentre-kicked-wearing-hood.html
Although at that stage he had only received a grovelling apology from the Job
Centre. Who had had him escorted from the premises, on account of his hood.
However, subsequent decisions appear to cast doubt on that interpretation:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38368526
More generally, I think it would be hard to successfully argue in court that being a Jedi is a belief that is genuinely held and has a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion, and importance[1]. Given that the Jedi are a group of people in a well-known fictional series, it would, I think, be hard for someone claiming to be a Jedi to successfully assert that they did not know it was fiction.
[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/10/notes
Seemingly the algorithm recommends that just about everyone over
a certain age should be on statins to reduce your risk of heart attacks
from miniscule to half miniscule.
This is the less than reassuring message from the Mayo Clinic website.
On 12 May 2025 at 07:22:32 BST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2025 13:13:26 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>The amount you eat, not what you eat. Which, to be fair, may be the
wrote:
On 11/05/2025 12:25, The Todal wrote:
On 11/05/2025 12:01, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/05/2025 09:11, Spike wrote:An alternative approach would be, instead of continuing to eat an
Of course, when I’m up for my annual health check, I bias things in >>>>>> my favour by reducing saturated fat intake to a minimum for a few
days beforehand (to lower cholesterol) but on the morning of the
check I take all the meds together and thus get a good reading.
This keeps the incessant suggestions to go onto statins (sorry!) to >>>>>> a minimum. But there seems little doubt that the timing of the meds >>>>>> has a benefit, and it isn’t what is written in the Patient
Information Leaflet that is necessarily the best.
Right now, one has to find one’s own route…
I don't see the point in trying to manipulate figures relating to
your own health. There are no prizes for that. If your cholesterol >>>>> levels are normally high, not just on the day of your test, it's
only sensible to reduce it long term.
It's like misleading your lawyer. If you do that all you get is bad >>>>> advice.
unhealthy diet which raises your blood cholesterol and relying on
statins to mitigate the effects, try to change your diet because we
should be on as few daily medicines as possible and every medicine
carries a risk of side effects.
The vast, vast majority of those on statins suffer no side-effects
whatsoever. And that enables them to eat pretty much what they fancy,
thereby increasing happiness and reducing misery. For them it's a
win-win. For those who think they must eat what they don't like, it's
a recipe for the mental health issues that are currently in vogue.
I appreciate that you don't personally subscribe to the notion that
some diets are unhealthy, but some people do.
It's getting fat that's the problem, not generally what you eat at
all.
Where do you think "getting fat" comes from?
result of genetic as well as psychological factors.
On Mon, 12 May 2025 09:24:53 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 12 May 2025 at 07:22:32 BST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2025 13:13:26 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>The amount you eat, not what you eat. Which, to be fair, may be the
wrote:
On 11/05/2025 12:25, The Todal wrote:
On 11/05/2025 12:01, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/05/2025 09:11, Spike wrote:An alternative approach would be, instead of continuing to eat an
Of course, when I’m up for my annual health check, I bias things in >>>>>>> my favour by reducing saturated fat intake to a minimum for a few >>>>>>> days beforehand (to lower cholesterol) but on the morning of the >>>>>>> check I take all the meds together and thus get a good reading.
This keeps the incessant suggestions to go onto statins (sorry!) to >>>>>>> a minimum. But there seems little doubt that the timing of the meds >>>>>>> has a benefit, and it isn’t what is written in the Patient
Information Leaflet that is necessarily the best.
Right now, one has to find one’s own route…
I don't see the point in trying to manipulate figures relating to
your own health. There are no prizes for that. If your cholesterol >>>>>> levels are normally high, not just on the day of your test, it's
only sensible to reduce it long term.
It's like misleading your lawyer. If you do that all you get is bad >>>>>> advice.
unhealthy diet which raises your blood cholesterol and relying on
statins to mitigate the effects, try to change your diet because we
should be on as few daily medicines as possible and every medicine
carries a risk of side effects.
The vast, vast majority of those on statins suffer no side-effects
whatsoever. And that enables them to eat pretty much what they fancy, >>>> thereby increasing happiness and reducing misery. For them it's a
win-win. For those who think they must eat what they don't like, it's >>>> a recipe for the mental health issues that are currently in vogue.
I appreciate that you don't personally subscribe to the notion that
some diets are unhealthy, but some people do.
It's getting fat that's the problem, not generally what you eat at
all.
Where do you think "getting fat" comes from?
result of genetic as well as psychological factors.
It is considered very bad form in the 21st century to imply that eating
less is the key to loosing weight.
On 2025-05-12, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2025 09:24:53 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 12 May 2025 at 07:22:32 BST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> >>> wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2025 13:13:26 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>The amount you eat, not what you eat. Which, to be fair, may be the
wrote:
On 11/05/2025 12:25, The Todal wrote:
On 11/05/2025 12:01, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/05/2025 09:11, Spike wrote:An alternative approach would be, instead of continuing to eat an
Of course, when I’m up for my annual health check, I bias things in >>>>>>>> my favour by reducing saturated fat intake to a minimum for a few >>>>>>>> days beforehand (to lower cholesterol) but on the morning of the >>>>>>>> check I take all the meds together and thus get a good reading. >>>>>>>> This keeps the incessant suggestions to go onto statins (sorry!) to >>>>>>>> a minimum. But there seems little doubt that the timing of the meds >>>>>>>> has a benefit, and it isn’t what is written in the Patient
Information Leaflet that is necessarily the best.
Right now, one has to find one’s own route…
I don't see the point in trying to manipulate figures relating to >>>>>>> your own health. There are no prizes for that. If your cholesterol >>>>>>> levels are normally high, not just on the day of your test, it's >>>>>>> only sensible to reduce it long term.
It's like misleading your lawyer. If you do that all you get is bad >>>>>>> advice.
unhealthy diet which raises your blood cholesterol and relying on
statins to mitigate the effects, try to change your diet because we >>>>>> should be on as few daily medicines as possible and every medicine >>>>>> carries a risk of side effects.
The vast, vast majority of those on statins suffer no side-effects
whatsoever. And that enables them to eat pretty much what they fancy, >>>>> thereby increasing happiness and reducing misery. For them it's a
win-win. For those who think they must eat what they don't like, it's >>>>> a recipe for the mental health issues that are currently in vogue.
I appreciate that you don't personally subscribe to the notion that >>>>>> some diets are unhealthy, but some people do.
It's getting fat that's the problem, not generally what you eat at
all.
Where do you think "getting fat" comes from?
result of genetic as well as psychological factors.
It is considered very bad form in the 21st century to imply that eating
less is the key to loosing weight.
Eh? No it isn't. "Better diet and more exercise" is the standard advice
for losing weight.
Of course if what you mean is that if someone whose health you know
nothing about complains about their weight and you reply "well stop
stuffing your face then" you receive an unappreciative response, then
perhaps you need to modify your approach.
On 11/05/2025 12:13, The Todal wrote:
Seemingly the algorithm recommends that just about everyone over a
certain age should be on statins to reduce your risk of heart attacks
from miniscule to half miniscule.
I'm really interested in what you regard as miniscule. Have you
calculated your own Qrisk3 score?
This thread has, running through it, a sort of conspiracy theory:
GPs only prescribe statins to meet targets. But, that's where the conspiracy theory ends. The theorists haven't considered why those
targets were set.
This is the less than reassuring message from the Mayo Clinic website.
We all know that drugs have side effects. You need to weigh those
against the benefits.
On Mon, 12 May 2025 09:24:53 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 12 May 2025 at 07:22:32 BST, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2025 13:13:26 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>The amount you eat, not what you eat. Which, to be fair, may be the
wrote:
On 11/05/2025 12:25, The Todal wrote:
On 11/05/2025 12:01, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/05/2025 09:11, Spike wrote:An alternative approach would be, instead of continuing to eat an
Of course, when I’m up for my annual health check, I bias things in >>>>>>> my favour by reducing saturated fat intake to a minimum for a few >>>>>>> days beforehand (to lower cholesterol) but on the morning of the >>>>>>> check I take all the meds together and thus get a good reading.
This keeps the incessant suggestions to go onto statins (sorry!) to >>>>>>> a minimum. But there seems little doubt that the timing of the meds >>>>>>> has a benefit, and it isn’t what is written in the Patient
Information Leaflet that is necessarily the best.
Right now, one has to find one’s own route…
I don't see the point in trying to manipulate figures relating to
your own health. There are no prizes for that. If your cholesterol >>>>>> levels are normally high, not just on the day of your test, it's
only sensible to reduce it long term.
It's like misleading your lawyer. If you do that all you get is bad >>>>>> advice.
unhealthy diet which raises your blood cholesterol and relying on
statins to mitigate the effects, try to change your diet because we
should be on as few daily medicines as possible and every medicine
carries a risk of side effects.
The vast, vast majority of those on statins suffer no side-effects
whatsoever. And that enables them to eat pretty much what they fancy, >>>> thereby increasing happiness and reducing misery. For them it's a
win-win. For those who think they must eat what they don't like, it's >>>> a recipe for the mental health issues that are currently in vogue.
I appreciate that you don't personally subscribe to the notion that
some diets are unhealthy, but some people do.
It's getting fat that's the problem, not generally what you eat at
all.
Where do you think "getting fat" comes from?
result of genetic as well as psychological factors.
It is considered very bad form in the 21st century to imply that eating
less is the key to loosing weight.
In fact the only other area where people are so fucking stupid is when it comes to speeding and refusing to accept that the only way to avoid being caught for speeding is ... not to speed.
On 12/05/2025 10:21 AM, Fredxx wrote:
Indeed I recall at the time the concept of an unknown power that
permeated across the universe was one some people accepted. The fact it
was later given the name of Jedi by an author is of less importance. It
is simply a name.
You have just described the God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
I have never heard or read anything which limits the power of that God to only a region of the universe. The doctrine is that God created the universe.
On 12 May 2025 09:24:53 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 12 May 2025 at 07:22:32 BST, "Martin Harran"
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2025 13:13:26 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 11/05/2025 12:25, The Todal wrote:
On 11/05/2025 12:01, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/05/2025 09:11, Spike wrote:
Of course, when I’m up for my annual health check, I bias
things in my favour by reducing saturated fat intake to a
minimum for a few days beforehand (to lower cholesterol) but on
the morning of the check I take all the meds together and thus
get a good reading. This keeps the incessant
suggestions to go onto statins (sorry!) to a minimum. But there
seems little doubt that the timing of the meds has a benefit,
and it isn’t what
is written in the Patient Information Leaflet that is
necessarily the best.
Right now, one has to find one’s own route…
I don't see the point in trying to manipulate figures relating
to your own health. There are no prizes for that. If your
cholesterol levels are normally high, not just on the day of
your test, it's only sensible to reduce it long term.
It's like misleading your lawyer. If you do that all you get is
bad advice.
An alternative approach would be, instead of continuing to eat an
unhealthy diet which raises your blood cholesterol and relying on
statins to mitigate the effects, try to change your diet because
we should be on as few daily medicines as possible and every
medicine carries a risk of side effects.
The vast, vast majority of those on statins suffer no side-effects
whatsoever. And that enables them to eat pretty much what they
fancy, thereby increasing happiness and reducing misery. For them
it's a win-win. For those who think they must eat what they don't
like, it's a recipe for the mental health issues that are
currently in vogue.
I appreciate that you don't personally subscribe to the notion
that some diets are unhealthy, but some people do.
It's getting fat that's the problem, not generally what you eat at
all.
Where do you think "getting fat" comes from?
The amount you eat, not what you eat. Which, to be fair, may be the
result of genetic as well as psychological factors.
Overeating can contribute but what you eat is far more significant. I
speak from personal experience. A few years ago, I was seriously
overweight. I joined Slimming World and over a period of a year, I
took off 4 stone. I did not reduce the amount of food I was eating
but changed the mix of food I was eating - a big emphasise on low-fat
and high-bulk food. Having 6 cardiac stents,
I get a checkup every
six months and there was a corresponding improvement in my
cholesterol, blood pressure and general well-being. I have seen
numerous people achieve similar or even better results whilst
adhering to the Slimming World maxim that if you are hungry you are
not eating enough!
<div id="editor" contenteditable="false">>> It is considered very bad form in the 21st century to imply that eating
less is the key to loosing weight.
Eh? No it isn't. "Better diet and more exercise" is the standard advice
for losing weight.
Of course if what you mean is that if someone whose health you know
nothing about complains about their weight and you reply "well stop
stuffing your face then" you receive an unappreciative response, then
perhaps you need to modify your approach.
Nowadays these conversations should be much easier. "It isn't your
fault. It's virtually impossible to reduce your weight by trying to eat
less and being hungry most of the time. Why put yourself through all
that pain, all that frustrated hope? But why not just do what all my
friends do? Get a prescription of Mounjaro and you'll quickly lose
weight without getting hunger pains, and you'll be healthier and have
more energy..."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy75dk8kjr1o
</div>
<div class="footer" onclick="setCursorToBottom()"></div>
On 12 May 2025 at 11:46:24 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2025 09:24:53 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 12 May 2025 at 07:22:32 BST, "Martin Harran"
<martinharran@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2025 13:13:26 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>The amount you eat, not what you eat. Which, to be fair, may be the
wrote:
On 11/05/2025 12:25, The Todal wrote:
On 11/05/2025 12:01, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/05/2025 09:11, Spike wrote:An alternative approach would be, instead of continuing to eat an
Of course, when I’m up for my annual health check, I bias things >>>>>>>> in my favour by reducing saturated fat intake to a minimum for a >>>>>>>> few days beforehand (to lower cholesterol) but on the morning of >>>>>>>> the check I take all the meds together and thus get a good
reading.
This keeps the incessant suggestions to go onto statins (sorry!) >>>>>>>> to a minimum. But there seems little doubt that the timing of the >>>>>>>> meds has a benefit, and it isn’t what is written in the Patient >>>>>>>> Information Leaflet that is necessarily the best.
Right now, one has to find one’s own route…
I don't see the point in trying to manipulate figures relating to >>>>>>> your own health. There are no prizes for that. If your
cholesterol levels are normally high, not just on the day of your >>>>>>> test, it's only sensible to reduce it long term.
It's like misleading your lawyer. If you do that all you get is >>>>>>> bad advice.
unhealthy diet which raises your blood cholesterol and relying on
statins to mitigate the effects, try to change your diet because we >>>>>> should be on as few daily medicines as possible and every medicine >>>>>> carries a risk of side effects.
The vast, vast majority of those on statins suffer no side-effects
whatsoever. And that enables them to eat pretty much what they
fancy,
thereby increasing happiness and reducing misery. For them it's a
win-win. For those who think they must eat what they don't like,
it's a recipe for the mental health issues that are currently in
vogue.
I appreciate that you don't personally subscribe to the notion that >>>>>> some diets are unhealthy, but some people do.
It's getting fat that's the problem, not generally what you eat at
all.
Where do you think "getting fat" comes from?
result of genetic as well as psychological factors.
It is considered very bad form in the 21st century to imply that eating
less is the key to loosing weight.
I think it is implying that eating less is a) easy, and b) a purely
moral choice which is bad form. For good reasons.
On 12/05/2025 09:49, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2025 20:18:23 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
According to Fredxx's link, even Jedi are protected
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1258365/Jedi-believer-wins-
apology-Jobcentre-kicked-wearing-hood.html
Although at that stage he had only received a grovelling apology from
the Job
Centre. Who had had him escorted from the premises, on account of his
hood.
However, subsequent decisions appear to cast doubt on that
interpretation:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38368526
More generally, I think it would be hard to successfully argue in
court that
being a Jedi is a belief that is genuinely held and has a certain
level of
cogency, seriousness, cohesion, and importance[1]. Given that the Jedi
are a
group of people in a well-known fictional series, it would, I think,
be hard
for someone claiming to be a Jedi to successfully assert that they did
not
know it was fiction.
[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/10/notes
Notes do not form any part of the law.
On 12/05/2025 10:31, The Todal wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I may be alone in saying this, but I don't want the nanny state and its
food police on my case dictating what I can eat or should eat to be
virtuous. I don't want pre-prepared plane meals. I don't want
diet-plan meals. I don't want food with all the taste removed,
Which doesn't say what you think it says as will be explored in another
post shortly. (Free: Clue: "Grainger Criteria".)
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:m8duhoFpnsdU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
The only practical problem being that what you *should* eat for health changes
every few years. The recommendations have changed radically at least half a
dozen times that I can remember.
Although presumably the results of the long term population studies on which
many such recommendations are made haven't similarly altered.
Thus *countries* which over decades, eat a greater amount of vegetables, fish,
rice etc *per capita* had a lower incidence of heart disease, or whatever. >>
While here in the UK, the beneficial effects of the restricted war time diet
which resulted from rationing, have never seriously been questioned.*
I would have to say that I thought similarly about the beneficial aspects
of rationing in WWII, based on a report I read in a scientific journal some >> 50 years ago.
However, a swift web search turned up research papers that did not agree
with this view, this being one of them:
Quote:
Diet and coronary heart disease in England and Wales during and after the
second world war.
D J Barker, C Osmond
Copyright and License information
PMCID: PMC1052486 PMID: 3711768
Abstract
During the second world war there were large changes in consumption of
fats, fibre, and sugar in Britain. These changes matched recent
recommendations made by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy
(COMA) with the object of reducing the incidence of coronary heart disease >> (CHD). It is widely believed that CHD mortality fell during the war.
This paper re-examines CHD mortality among middle-aged people in England
and Wales from 1931 to 1967. After allowance for changes in the rules for
coding cause of death, and for the sharp increase in all-causes mortality
in 1940, there is little to suggest that time trends in CHD were much
influenced by the war.
Because of confounding variables, this does not argue against the COMA
report. However, it gives no support to the view that compliance with the
recommendations on fat, fibre, and sugar will lead, by itself, to an
appreciable fall in CHD mortality in middle-aged people.
Unquote
<https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1052486/>
It could be argued though, that with middle aged people the damage will already have
been done.
Whereas the taller heavier children who resulted from rationing weren't the result of
a restricted diet * but of a more varied diet (plus cod liver oil and orange juice)
in the case of poorer children, who might otherwise have been raised on bread and dripping
On Mon, 12 May 2025 13:04:22 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 12 May 2025 at 11:46:24 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2025 09:24:53 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 12 May 2025 at 07:22:32 BST, "Martin Harran"
<martinharran@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2025 13:13:26 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>The amount you eat, not what you eat. Which, to be fair, may be the
wrote:
On 11/05/2025 12:25, The Todal wrote:
On 11/05/2025 12:01, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/05/2025 09:11, Spike wrote:An alternative approach would be, instead of continuing to eat an >>>>>>> unhealthy diet which raises your blood cholesterol and relying on >>>>>>> statins to mitigate the effects, try to change your diet because we >>>>>>> should be on as few daily medicines as possible and every medicine >>>>>>> carries a risk of side effects.
Of course, when I’m up for my annual health check, I bias things >>>>>>>>> in my favour by reducing saturated fat intake to a minimum for a >>>>>>>>> few days beforehand (to lower cholesterol) but on the morning of >>>>>>>>> the check I take all the meds together and thus get a good
reading.
This keeps the incessant suggestions to go onto statins (sorry!) >>>>>>>>> to a minimum. But there seems little doubt that the timing of the >>>>>>>>> meds has a benefit, and it isn’t what is written in the Patient >>>>>>>>> Information Leaflet that is necessarily the best.
Right now, one has to find one’s own route…
I don't see the point in trying to manipulate figures relating to >>>>>>>> your own health. There are no prizes for that. If your
cholesterol levels are normally high, not just on the day of your >>>>>>>> test, it's only sensible to reduce it long term.
It's like misleading your lawyer. If you do that all you get is >>>>>>>> bad advice.
The vast, vast majority of those on statins suffer no side-effects >>>>>> whatsoever. And that enables them to eat pretty much what they
fancy,
thereby increasing happiness and reducing misery. For them it's a >>>>>> win-win. For those who think they must eat what they don't like,
it's a recipe for the mental health issues that are currently in
vogue.
I appreciate that you don't personally subscribe to the notion that >>>>>>> some diets are unhealthy, but some people do.
It's getting fat that's the problem, not generally what you eat at >>>>>> all.
Where do you think "getting fat" comes from?
result of genetic as well as psychological factors.
It is considered very bad form in the 21st century to imply that eating
less is the key to loosing weight.
I think it is implying that eating less is a) easy, and b) a purely
moral choice which is bad form. For good reasons.
See the problem is I lost 4 stone by the dastardly tactic of .... just
eating less. Without a single extra step of exercise on top of the fuck
all I usually do.
Yes, it took 4 years. Yes, it required being hungry and focussed. But it worked. And throwing out 42" waist trousers and needing a belt for 32"
ones is a nice reward. As well as dropping from XXL to L.
best thing was not only was it "free", it must have saved a few quid on
the way.
My Damascene moment was idly seeing that a latte was c. 250(K)calories
while an americano was 3 :)
On Mon, 12 May 2025 14:58:06 +0100, Simon Parker wrote:
Which doesn't say what you think it says as will be explored in another
post shortly. (Free: Clue: "Grainger Criteria".)
Would it fair to summarise that as a list of subjective criteria ?
Leading us back to where we began, only less wiser ?
Ultimately it is impossible to objectively state whether some is a
religion or not without either undermining our present condition, or
opening the door to others that are inconsistent with todays.
Even "no conflict with rights" requires all parties in discussion have an agreed idea of what "rights" these are. If one parties belief system
requires a priori that people called "Norman" have less rights than
people called "Simon" then the framework itself is incapable of resolving anything without having to start with some assumptions.
On 12 May 2025 at 15:47:46 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2025 13:04:22 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 12 May 2025 at 11:46:24 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2025 09:24:53 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 12 May 2025 at 07:22:32 BST, "Martin Harran"
<martinharran@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2025 13:13:26 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> >>>>>> wrote:The amount you eat, not what you eat. Which, to be fair, may be the
On 11/05/2025 12:25, The Todal wrote:
On 11/05/2025 12:01, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/05/2025 09:11, Spike wrote:An alternative approach would be, instead of continuing to eat an >>>>>>>> unhealthy diet which raises your blood cholesterol and relying on >>>>>>>> statins to mitigate the effects, try to change your diet because >>>>>>>> we should be on as few daily medicines as possible and every
Of course, when I’m up for my annual health check, I bias >>>>>>>>>> things in my favour by reducing saturated fat intake to a
minimum for a few days beforehand (to lower cholesterol) but on >>>>>>>>>> the morning of the check I take all the meds together and thus >>>>>>>>>> get a good reading.
This keeps the incessant suggestions to go onto statins
(sorry!) to a minimum. But there seems little doubt that the >>>>>>>>>> timing of the meds has a benefit, and it isn’t what is written >>>>>>>>>> in the Patient Information Leaflet that is necessarily the >>>>>>>>>> best.
Right now, one has to find one’s own route…
I don't see the point in trying to manipulate figures relating >>>>>>>>> to your own health. There are no prizes for that. If your
cholesterol levels are normally high, not just on the day of >>>>>>>>> your test, it's only sensible to reduce it long term.
It's like misleading your lawyer. If you do that all you get is >>>>>>>>> bad advice.
medicine carries a risk of side effects.
The vast, vast majority of those on statins suffer no side-effects >>>>>>> whatsoever. And that enables them to eat pretty much what they
fancy,
thereby increasing happiness and reducing misery. For them it's a >>>>>>> win-win. For those who think they must eat what they don't like, >>>>>>> it's a recipe for the mental health issues that are currently in >>>>>>> vogue.
I appreciate that you don't personally subscribe to the notion >>>>>>>> that some diets are unhealthy, but some people do.
It's getting fat that's the problem, not generally what you eat at >>>>>>> all.
Where do you think "getting fat" comes from?
result of genetic as well as psychological factors.
It is considered very bad form in the 21st century to imply that
eating less is the key to loosing weight.
I think it is implying that eating less is a) easy, and b) a purely
moral choice which is bad form. For good reasons.
See the problem is I lost 4 stone by the dastardly tactic of .... just
eating less. Without a single extra step of exercise on top of the fuck
all I usually do.
Yes, it took 4 years. Yes, it required being hungry and focussed. But
it worked. And throwing out 42" waist trousers and needing a belt for
32" ones is a nice reward. As well as dropping from XXL to L.
best thing was not only was it "free", it must have saved a few quid on
the way.
My Damascene moment was idly seeing that a latte was c. 250(K)calories
while an americano was 3 :)
Well done! But I don't think that works for everyone.
On 12/05/2025 12:18, Norman Wells wrote:
On 12/05/2025 09:49, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2025 20:18:23 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
According to Fredxx's link, even Jedi are protected
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1258365/Jedi-believer-wins-
apology-Jobcentre-kicked-wearing-hood.html
Although at that stage he had only received a grovelling apology from
the Job
Centre. Who had had him escorted from the premises, on account of his
hood.
However, subsequent decisions appear to cast doubt on that
interpretation:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38368526
More generally, I think it would be hard to successfully argue in
court that
being a Jedi is a belief that is genuinely held and has a certain
level of
cogency, seriousness, cohesion, and importance[1]. Given that the Jedi
are a
group of people in a well-known fictional series, it would, I think,
be hard
for someone claiming to be a Jedi to successfully assert that they did
not
know it was fiction.
[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/10/notes
Notes do not form any part of the law.
Wrong. They can be helpful when it comes to the Act's interpretation and areas of potential ambiguity. I suggest you do your homework.
On Mon, 12 May 2025 14:44:57 +0100, Pamela
<uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 11:47 12 May 2025, Martin Harran said:
On 12 May 2025 09:24:53 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org>:
[SNIP]
The amount you eat, not what you eat. Which, to be fair, may be the >>>>result of genetic as well as psychological factors.
Overeating can contribute but what you eat is far more significant.
I speak from personal experience. A few years ago, I was seriously
overweight. I joined Slimming World and over a period of a year, I
took off 4 stone. I did not reduce the amount of food I was eating
but changed the mix of food I was eating - a big emphasise on
low-fat and high-bulk food. Having 6 cardiac stents,
Six cardiac stents is a lot! Presumably, the narrowing wasn't severe
enough to warrant a bypass.
I got my first 4 way back in 2007 when I was 56. Two of my main
arteries were over 90% blocked which warranted a bypass but one of
the doctors explained to me that whilst a bypass would be arguably
better, the estimated lifespan of a bypass at that time was 15 years
so I would possibly need a second one by the time I was in my 70s and
they really, really don't like doing second bypasses! Their thinking
was that if stents could get me to my 70s and I'd get a bypass then,
that would see me out - they don't worry much about what might happen
to you when you pass 80 :)
I got #5 in 2010 and #6 in 2020. They warned me at the last one that
I am likely to need further stents in the near future (though I have
managed 5 years) and I have a hunch they will recommend a bypass at
that stage.
On 12/05/2025 12:18, Norman Wells wrote:
On 12/05/2025 09:49, Mark Goodge wrote:
More generally, I think it would be hard to successfully argue in
court that
being a Jedi is a belief that is genuinely held and has a certain
level of
cogency, seriousness, cohesion, and importance[1]. Given that the
Jedi are a
group of people in a well-known fictional series, it would, I think,
be hard
for someone claiming to be a Jedi to successfully assert that they
did not
know it was fiction.
[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/10/notes
Notes do not form any part of the law.
Wrong. They can be helpful when it comes to the Act's interpretation and areas of potential ambiguity. I suggest you do your homework.
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:m8duhoFpnsdU1@mid.individual.net...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
The only practical problem being that what you *should* eat for health changes
every few years. The recommendations have changed radically at least half a
dozen times that I can remember.
Although presumably the results of the long term population studies on which
many such recommendations are made haven't similarly altered.
Thus *countries* which over decades, eat a greater amount of vegetables, fish,
rice etc *per capita* had a lower incidence of heart disease, or whatever. >>>
While here in the UK, the beneficial effects of the restricted war time diet
which resulted from rationing, have never seriously been questioned.*
I would have to say that I thought similarly about the beneficial aspects >>> of rationing in WWII, based on a report I read in a scientific journal some >>> 50 years ago.
However, a swift web search turned up research papers that did not agree >>> with this view, this being one of them:
Quote:
Diet and coronary heart disease in England and Wales during and after the >>> second world war.
D J Barker, C Osmond
Copyright and License information
PMCID: PMC1052486 PMID: 3711768
Abstract
During the second world war there were large changes in consumption of
fats, fibre, and sugar in Britain. These changes matched recent
recommendations made by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy
(COMA) with the object of reducing the incidence of coronary heart disease >>> (CHD). It is widely believed that CHD mortality fell during the war.
This paper re-examines CHD mortality among middle-aged people in England >>> and Wales from 1931 to 1967. After allowance for changes in the rules for >>> coding cause of death, and for the sharp increase in all-causes mortality >>> in 1940, there is little to suggest that time trends in CHD were much
influenced by the war.
Because of confounding variables, this does not argue against the COMA
report. However, it gives no support to the view that compliance with the >>> recommendations on fat, fibre, and sugar will lead, by itself, to an
appreciable fall in CHD mortality in middle-aged people.
Unquote
<https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1052486/>
It could be argued though, that with middle aged people the damage will already have
been done.
Whereas the taller heavier children who resulted from rationing weren't the result of
a restricted diet * but of a more varied diet (plus cod liver oil and orange juice)
in the case of poorer children, who might otherwise have been raised on
bread and dripping
My top-junior class photo, taken not long after rationing finally ended, shows thirty kids, the teacher, and a trainee teacher, and the kids are all as thin as rakes with skinny arms and legs. Only two of them wore glasses. For good or ill, it’s a bit different today.
It could be argued though, that with middle aged people the damage will already have
been done.
Whereas the taller heavier children who resulted from rationing weren't the result of
a restricted diet * but of a more varied diet (plus cod liver oil and orange juice)
in the case of poorer children, who might otherwise have been raised on bread and dripping
On 10/05/2025 18:22, Norman Wells wrote:
On 10/05/2025 11:35, Simon Parker wrote:
Based on this, astrology may well be considered a secular belief
system but it falls some considerable way short of being considered a
religion.
If you want to argue otherwise, please include references to relevant
statute and case law as I have done here.
There's no need. You've just destroyed your own argument by saying
astrology may well be considered a secular belief system.
"Secular Belief System" <> "Religion".
"May well be" <> "Most certainly is"
Apart from those two minor issues, you are as right as is to be expected
in one of your posts.
In the Subject of your original post, you posed the question: "Is
Astrology a Religion?". Similarly, in the body of your post you said:
"We all know that discrimination on the grounds of religion is not
allowed under the Equality Act. So, does that include astrology?"
Note your use of the word "religion" in both instances.
Unfortunately, my crystal ball is away being recharged at present and my powers of telepathy are somewhat weakened currently owing to a chaotic
Mars in Taurus meaning I can only answer questions as posed not those
you intended posing, wanted to pose, might have posed, or imagined you
had posed.
You asked if astrology is considered a religion under the Equality Act
and the answer is, as I have demonstrated with references to relevant
case law, no, it is not.
If you now want to reframe the original question or ask a different
question then that is a different matter and may well have a different answer. (Or it may not.) The answer will almost certainly be arrived
at by traversing a different train of thought and completely different
case law.
You see, it's not only religions that are protected under the Equality
Act, but also philosophical beliefs, which of course your 'secular
belief system' undoubtedly is.
"Undoubtedly" because you claim it to be so. Your difficulty now is in evidencing the claim.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/10
Which doesn't say what you think it says as will be explored in another
post shortly. (Free: Clue: "Grainger Criteria".)
Astrology seems to be covered one way or the other even if not
strictly a religion.
I note that you are falling back to your preferred tactic of proof by assertion. Assume for a second that I do not agree with your claim,
which is far from certain in your mind as evidenced by your use of the
phrase "seems to be covered one way or the other".
Do you have any case law upon which you are relying in making the claim?
Failing that, do you have anything that supports your claim that
"astrology seems to be covered"?
On 12/05/2025 11:42, GB wrote:
On 11/05/2025 12:13, The Todal wrote:
Seemingly the algorithm recommends that just about everyone over a
certain age should be on statins to reduce your risk of heart attacks
from miniscule to half miniscule.
I'm really interested in what you regard as miniscule. Have you
calculated your own Qrisk3 score?
Of course.
There's an online facility.
Your 10-year QRISK®3 score   16.3%
The score of a healthy person with the same age, sex, and ethnicity*
14.6%
The only health issue I answered yes to, was "do you have migraines?".
If it hadn't been for that, I'd be 14.9% which is still marginally in
excess of "a healthy person with the same age..."
So the fact that I have migraines about twice a year for a few hours
each time evidently increases my risk by a lot, which I regard as
bullshit. Evidently the online calculator "estimates" a lot of factors
in order to achieve the desired result, which is that most people of my
age should be on statins.
I have a high BMI, making me in the clinically obese category, but it
makes no difference to my score whether I input those values or leave
them blank.
This thread has, running through it, a sort of conspiracy theory:
GPs only prescribe statins to meet targets. But, that's where the
conspiracy theory ends. The theorists haven't considered why those
targets were set.
I don't say it's a conspiracy theory.
Perhaps one could also encourage most people to take longterm
antidepressants by providing an online calculator showing their chances
of making a suicide attempt. It would probably make even more sense than statins.
When you started the thread, it is understandable that you had no
knowledge, much less understanding, of the so-called "Grainger Criteria".
However, in a post in UNNM The Todal both detailed them and provided a reference to case law establishing them as a set of standards used to determine if a belief is a protected philosophical belief under the
Equality Act 2010.
Roger Hayter wrote:>>> Jethro_uk wrote:>>>>> I lost 4 stone by the dastardly tactic of.... just
Everybody "knows" that essentiallyeating less. Without a single extra step of exercise on top of the fuck
all I usually do.
Well done! But I don't think that works for everyone.
What part of "eating less" doesn't work for everybody ?
On 12/05/2025 14:23, The Todal wrote:
On 12/05/2025 11:42, GB wrote:
On 11/05/2025 12:13, The Todal wrote:
Seemingly the algorithm recommends that just about everyone over a
certain age should be on statins to reduce your risk of heart
attacks from miniscule to half miniscule.
I'm really interested in what you regard as miniscule. Have you
calculated your own Qrisk3 score?
Of course.
There's an online facility.
Your 10-year QRISK®3 score   16.3%
The score of a healthy person with the same age, sex, and ethnicity*
14.6%
For a sample case (well, me, actually) the Qrisk score is 20%.
That's based on my current Cholesterol/HDL ratio of 1.7.
However, before starting statins 20 years ago, my ratio was 6. If it
were still 6, my Q-score would be 39%.
So, just through taking a pill each morning, I've reduced my risk of
having a heart attack or stroke within the next 10 years from 39% to 20%.
YMMV, but I don't think either of those risk figures is miniscule. If I could reduce my risk by another 19% by taking 50 pills every morning,
I'd do that like a shot.
Frankly, I don't think your figure of 16.3% is miniscule. And, if you
can halve it by taking a statin ... well, you know my view.
Changes in diet don't have all that much effect on cholesterol. Besides
that, it's clear that statins also help by reducing inflammation.
The only health issue I answered yes to, was "do you have migraines?".
If it hadn't been for that, I'd be 14.9% which is still marginally in
excess of "a healthy person with the same age..."
So the fact that I have migraines about twice a year for a few hours
each time evidently increases my risk by a lot, which I regard as
bullshit. Evidently the online calculator "estimates" a lot of
factors in order to achieve the desired result, which is that most
people of my age should be on statins.
The Qrisk calculator is based on statistical evidence. There's no
'desired result'. That's conspiracy bollocks.
Here's an explanation of some of the evidence: https://www.issuesandanswers.org/migraines-and-cardiovascular-disease/
Perhaps one could also encourage most people to take longterm
antidepressants by providing an online calculator showing their
chances of making a suicide attempt. It would probably make even more
sense than statins.
You are obviously not being serious, but the side effects from SSRIs are really quite significant. Most people tolerate statins very well indeed.
On Mon, 12 May 2025 09:24:53 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
The amount you eat, not what you eat. Which, to be fair, may be the
result of genetic as well as psychological factors.
It is considered very bad form in the 21st century to imply that eating
less is the key to loosing weight.
In fact the only other area where people are so fucking stupid is when it comes to speeding and refusing to accept that the only way to avoid being caught for speeding is ... not to speed.
If I could halve my risk of a heart attack by having a daily statin
pill, I still wouldn't take it. Statins carry warnings that memory loss, mental confusion, neuropathy, high blood sugar, and type 2 diabetes are possible side effects. It's easy for you to say that for you personally
the side effects are non-existent or negligible. But you don't know what
the long term effects are for you or for other people.
On 10/05/2025 18:46, Norman Wells wrote:
On 10/05/2025 13:07, Simon Parker wrote:
On 10/05/2025 12:01, Roger Hayter wrote:
Which leaves us with the question Norman didn't ask; could it be a
relevant philosophical belief within the meaning of the relevant
protected
characteristic in the Equality Act? No doubt there is a similar
weighty body of case law on this.
I would respectfully suggest that this is a much wider question than
that asked by Norman.
I would further suggest that astrology could be considered a
philosophical belief but whether or not that gave rise to a valid
action under the Equality Act would very much depend upon the precise
circumstances of the case.
"Each case is judged on its own facts and its own merits", etc.
Not so. It's a matter of fact to be determined whether astrology is a
philosophical belief. It either is or it isn't. It doesn't depend on
the circumstances of any particular case.
Thank you for providing the latest example in a long line of regular demonstrations you seem intent on making to prove that you haven't the
first clue about many of the legal matters upon which you pontificate.
When you started the thread, it is understandable that you had no
knowledge, much less understanding, of the so-called "Grainger Criteria".
However, in a post in UNNM The Todal both detailed them and provided a reference to case law establishing them as a set of standards used to determine if a belief is a protected philosophical belief under the
Equality Act 2010.
Please read the judgments in Forstater [^1], Bailey [^3], and Mackereth
[5] to see, for example, that on the subject of gender critical views
there are occasions where the Grainger test will be met and others where
it will not, despite the same "philosophical belief", namely a gender- critical belief, applying in all three cases.
In any reply to this thread, please give a clear and unequivocal
indication that you have read and understood the three judgments in
their entirety as it is impossible to continue the discussion without
you having done so.
<irrelevant foreign cases not decided under the Equality Act snipped)
And yet Lord Coulson cited the judgments of Wilson and Deane JJ in
Church of the New Faith v Comr of Pay-Roll Tax (Victoria) (1983) 154 CLR
as helpful on the question under consideration in Hodkin.
Are you suggesting that he was wrong to do so?
I am not aware of similar cases in the UK, but Victoria Brockley,
partner at law firm Laytons ETL, says such practices in the UK are
completely lawful. "Using a star sign to match job applicants isn't
technically unlawful because star signs and astrology are not
protected characteristics under the Equality Act," she says. "There
could, therefore, be no discrimination arising from choosing
candidates in this way."
But that's very dubious advice.
...because...
And we're discussing here exactly why it's dubious. A bald statement
or unargued proposition that astrology is not a protected
characteristic, doesn't cut it when there are clearly arguments that
it is.
And yet you demand that your 'bald statement and unargued proposition'
that a "'secular belief system' undoubtedly is protected under the
Equality Act" must be accepted despite proffering no evidence whatsoever
in support of it. [^7]
Similarly, Jim Moore, HR consultant at Hamilton Nash, says the
practice may be legal, but it comes with heavy reputational damage
risk. "If you're hiring team members based on the movements of Mars
and Jupiter, you're clearly talking out of Uranus." (which I think is
a better joke than that attempted by Norman when starting the thread).
So, he hasn't considered it in any depth either, nor it seems has he
come to any conclusion. It 'may' be legal. Then again it may not.
And yet in Message-ID <m89gbcF3k1sU6@mid.individual.net> you demand that
my statement that "astrology *MAY* well be considered a secular belief system" (emphasis mine) can only be read to mean that it "undoubtedly
is" a philosophical belief.
Astrology may be considered a secular belief system. Then again, it may not.
Interestingly, I cannot find similar quotes for people claiming that
astrology IS a protected characteristic under the Equality Act.
That is precisely why we're discussing it. It's what legal
discussions are for.
As expected, I don't actually see much discussion from you. I see you dismissing case law that disagrees with your stated position as if it
doesn't exist and continually restating your position without evidencing
it.
For the record, very few people, or possibly only one that I know of,
would consider that such behaviour constitutes 'a discussion'.
Make of that what you will, but I would suggest that without an
actual ruling on the matter, the only accurate answer to the question
is: "It might be but we cannot be dogmatic about it until a
determination is made by a tribunal."
The idea is to have a rational debate about it such as may be had in
court when the matter eventually comes up, and to form our own
conclusions.
I am all for having a rational debate. However, in a post in UNNM, The Todal outlined the Grainger Criteria as referenced above. Having been
made aware of that test, it is incumbent upon you to modify your understanding of the matter in line with Grainger [^8] as failure to do
so means you are arguing from a position you know to be wrong which
cannot be considered useful when one claims to be attempting to have a "rational debate".
That you have failed to adjust your understanding so that it aligns with stated case law demonstrates that you are not interested in "rational
debate" but rather in insisting that you are right, regardless of
anything and everything said to the contrary with no consideration
whatsoever for any evidence which undermines your position, regardless
of the strength of that evidence, (in this case-established case law).
I invite you to look at the number and quality of the references
including at the foot of this post and my previous post to this thread
and then ask yourself when you last made a post that evidenced your
position to a similar degree as befits one claiming to want a "rational debate" and "legal discussion".
On 12/05/2025 11:46, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2025 09:24:53 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
The amount you eat, not what you eat. Which, to be fair, may be the
result of genetic as well as psychological factors.
It is considered very bad form in the 21st century to imply that eating
less is the key to loosing weight.
In fact the only other area where people are so fucking stupid is when it
comes to speeding and refusing to accept that the only way to avoid being
caught for speeding is ... not to speed.
I can think of other areas where people are as stupid, specifically ones involving unwise copulation.
On 12/05/2025 17:59, The Todal wrote:
If I could halve my risk of a heart attack by having a daily statin
pill, I still wouldn't take it. Statins carry warnings that memory
loss, mental confusion, neuropathy, high blood sugar, and type 2
diabetes are possible side effects. It's easy for you to say that for
you personally the side effects are non-existent or negligible. But
you don't know what the long term effects are for you or for other
people.
Well, we do actually. Millions of people have taken then for over 30
years, and they've been comprehensively evaluated.
"Long-term statin treatment is remarkably safe with a low risk of
clinically relevant adverse effects as defined above; ... Importantly,
the established cardiovascular benefits of statin therapy far outweigh
the risk of adverse effects."
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6047411/ #:~:text=Long%2Dterm%20statin%20treatment%20is,the%20risk%20of%20adverse%20effects.
And of course you could actually stop taking them.
On Mon, 12 May 2025 16:00:41 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 12 May 2025 at 15:47:46 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2025 13:04:22 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 12 May 2025 at 11:46:24 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> >>>> wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2025 09:24:53 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 12 May 2025 at 07:22:32 BST, "Martin Harran"
<martinharran@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2025 13:13:26 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> >>>>>>> wrote:The amount you eat, not what you eat. Which, to be fair, may be the >>>>>> result of genetic as well as psychological factors.
On 11/05/2025 12:25, The Todal wrote:
On 11/05/2025 12:01, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/05/2025 09:11, Spike wrote:An alternative approach would be, instead of continuing to eat an >>>>>>>>> unhealthy diet which raises your blood cholesterol and relying on >>>>>>>>> statins to mitigate the effects, try to change your diet because >>>>>>>>> we should be on as few daily medicines as possible and every >>>>>>>>> medicine carries a risk of side effects.
Of course, when I’m up for my annual health check, I bias >>>>>>>>>>> things in my favour by reducing saturated fat intake to a >>>>>>>>>>> minimum for a few days beforehand (to lower cholesterol) but on >>>>>>>>>>> the morning of the check I take all the meds together and thus >>>>>>>>>>> get a good reading.
This keeps the incessant suggestions to go onto statins
(sorry!) to a minimum. But there seems little doubt that the >>>>>>>>>>> timing of the meds has a benefit, and it isn’t what is written >>>>>>>>>>> in the Patient Information Leaflet that is necessarily the >>>>>>>>>>> best.
Right now, one has to find one’s own route…
I don't see the point in trying to manipulate figures relating >>>>>>>>>> to your own health. There are no prizes for that. If your >>>>>>>>>> cholesterol levels are normally high, not just on the day of >>>>>>>>>> your test, it's only sensible to reduce it long term.
It's like misleading your lawyer. If you do that all you get is >>>>>>>>>> bad advice.
The vast, vast majority of those on statins suffer no side-effects >>>>>>>> whatsoever. And that enables them to eat pretty much what they >>>>>>>> fancy,
thereby increasing happiness and reducing misery. For them it's a >>>>>>>> win-win. For those who think they must eat what they don't like, >>>>>>>> it's a recipe for the mental health issues that are currently in >>>>>>>> vogue.
I appreciate that you don't personally subscribe to the notion >>>>>>>>> that some diets are unhealthy, but some people do.
It's getting fat that's the problem, not generally what you eat at >>>>>>>> all.
Where do you think "getting fat" comes from?
It is considered very bad form in the 21st century to imply that
eating less is the key to loosing weight.
I think it is implying that eating less is a) easy, and b) a purely
moral choice which is bad form. For good reasons.
See the problem is I lost 4 stone by the dastardly tactic of .... just
eating less. Without a single extra step of exercise on top of the fuck
all I usually do.
Yes, it took 4 years. Yes, it required being hungry and focussed. But
it worked. And throwing out 42" waist trousers and needing a belt for
32" ones is a nice reward. As well as dropping from XXL to L.
best thing was not only was it "free", it must have saved a few quid on
the way.
My Damascene moment was idly seeing that a latte was c. 250(K)calories
while an americano was 3 :)
Well done! But I don't think that works for everyone.
What part of "eating less" doesn't work for everybody ?
On 12 May 2025 at 17:13:34 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2025 16:00:41 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 12 May 2025 at 15:47:46 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2025 13:04:22 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 12 May 2025 at 11:46:24 BST, "Jethro_uk"
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2025 09:24:53 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 12 May 2025 at 07:22:32 BST, "Martin Harran"
<martinharran@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2025 13:13:26 +0100, Norman WellsThe amount you eat, not what you eat. Which, to be fair, may be
<hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 11/05/2025 12:25, The Todal wrote:
On 11/05/2025 12:01, Norman Wells wrote:
On 11/05/2025 09:11, Spike wrote:An alternative approach would be, instead of continuing to eat >>>>>>>>>> an unhealthy diet which raises your blood cholesterol and
Of course, when I’m up for my annual health check, I bias >>>>>>>>>>>> things in my favour by reducing saturated fat intake to a >>>>>>>>>>>> minimum for a few days beforehand (to lower cholesterol) but >>>>>>>>>>>> on the morning of the check I take all the meds together and >>>>>>>>>>>> thus get a good reading.
This keeps the incessant suggestions to go onto statins >>>>>>>>>>>> (sorry!) to a minimum. But there seems little doubt that the >>>>>>>>>>>> timing of the meds has a benefit, and it isn’t what is >>>>>>>>>>>> written in the Patient Information Leaflet that is
necessarily the best.
Right now, one has to find one’s own route…
I don't see the point in trying to manipulate figures relating >>>>>>>>>>> to your own health. There are no prizes for that. If your >>>>>>>>>>> cholesterol levels are normally high, not just on the day of >>>>>>>>>>> your test, it's only sensible to reduce it long term.
It's like misleading your lawyer. If you do that all you get >>>>>>>>>>> is bad advice.
relying on statins to mitigate the effects, try to change your >>>>>>>>>> diet because we should be on as few daily medicines as possible >>>>>>>>>> and every medicine carries a risk of side effects.
The vast, vast majority of those on statins suffer no
side-effects whatsoever. And that enables them to eat pretty >>>>>>>>> much what they fancy,
thereby increasing happiness and reducing misery. For them it's >>>>>>>>> a win-win. For those who think they must eat what they don't >>>>>>>>> like, it's a recipe for the mental health issues that are
currently in vogue.
I appreciate that you don't personally subscribe to the notion >>>>>>>>>> that some diets are unhealthy, but some people do.
It's getting fat that's the problem, not generally what you eat >>>>>>>>> at all.
Where do you think "getting fat" comes from?
the result of genetic as well as psychological factors.
It is considered very bad form in the 21st century to imply that
eating less is the key to loosing weight.
I think it is implying that eating less is a) easy, and b) a purely
moral choice which is bad form. For good reasons.
See the problem is I lost 4 stone by the dastardly tactic of ....
just eating less. Without a single extra step of exercise on top of
the fuck all I usually do.
Yes, it took 4 years. Yes, it required being hungry and focussed. But
it worked. And throwing out 42" waist trousers and needing a belt for
32" ones is a nice reward. As well as dropping from XXL to L.
best thing was not only was it "free", it must have saved a few quid
on the way.
My Damascene moment was idly seeing that a latte was c.
250(K)calories while an americano was 3 :)
Well done! But I don't think that works for everyone.
What part of "eating less" doesn't work for everybody ?
Managing to do it.
If someone claims that his religion required him to publicly demand that Marjory in accounts be stoned for adultery in the staff canteen then it is unlikely that his belief system would be recognised to the extent that he would win a claim for unfair dismissal, regardless of whether a very similar belief system certainly amounted to a religion in other circumstances.
What part of "eating less" doesn't work for everybody ?
On 12/05/2025 13:49, billy bookcase wrote:
It could be argued though, that with middle aged people the damage will already have
been done.
Whereas the taller heavier children who resulted from rationing weren't the result of
a restricted diet * but of a more varied diet (plus cod liver oil and orange juice)
in the case of poorer children, who might otherwise have been raised on
bread and dripping
Pretty nutritious stuff actually. Beef dripping is rich in vitamins and minerals. It's
a source of vitamins A, D, E, and K. It also contains omega-3, fats and essential fatty
acids which aid the absorption of fat-soluble vitamins from other foods. Because it
contains goodly amounts of vitamins A and D, it obviates the need to take ghastly cod
liver oil.
And the bread provides the carbohydrates needed for energy, B vitamins and roughage.
Just a bit more protein and some vitamin C, and you're well set up actually.
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:m8el91FsuglU3@mid.individual.net...
On 12/05/2025 13:49, billy bookcase wrote:
It could be argued though, that with middle aged people the damage will already have
been done.
Whereas the taller heavier children who resulted from rationing weren't the result of
a restricted diet * but of a more varied diet (plus cod liver oil and orange juice)
in the case of poorer children, who might otherwise have been raised on >>> bread and dripping
Pretty nutritious stuff actually. Beef dripping is rich in vitamins and minerals. It's
a source of vitamins A, D, E, and K. It also contains omega-3, fats and essential fatty
acids which aid the absorption of fat-soluble vitamins from other foods. Because it
contains goodly amounts of vitamins A and D, it obviates the need to take ghastly cod
liver oil.
And the bread provides the carbohydrates needed for energy, B vitamins and roughage.
Just a bit more protein and some vitamin C, and you're well set up actually.
Oh alright !
Bread and jam then.!
Picky !
On 12/05/2025 18:18, Norman Wells wrote:
On 12/05/2025 17:59, The Todal wrote:
If I could halve my risk of a heart attack by having a daily statin
pill, I still wouldn't take it. Statins carry warnings that memory
loss, mental confusion, neuropathy, high blood sugar, and type 2
diabetes are possible side effects. It's easy for you to say that for
you personally the side effects are non-existent or negligible. But
you don't know what the long term effects are for you or for other
people.
Well, we do actually. Millions of people have taken then for over 30
years, and they've been comprehensively evaluated.
"Long-term statin treatment is remarkably safe with a low risk of
clinically relevant adverse effects as defined above; ... Importantly,
the established cardiovascular benefits of statin therapy far outweigh
the risk of adverse effects."
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6047411/
#:~:text=Long%2Dterm%20statin%20treatment%20is,the%20risk%20of%20adverse%20effects.
And of course you could actually stop taking them.
A 2018 article assessing the evidence to date at that time.
No doubt it
reassures practitioners that they are not diverging from current medical thinking if they recommend their patients to take statins. Unless and
until more patients report side effects that their doctors have
previously sworn blind have nothing to do with statins.
Do you take statins, Norman?
You don't want the nanny state to supervise your eating habits. If you
were told you had type 2 diabetes would you follow medical advice or
continue to enjoy all your favourite food in the same quantities as before?
On 12/05/2025 10:50, JNugent wrote:
On 12/05/2025 10:21 AM, Fredxx wrote:
On 12/05/2025 09:49, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2025 20:18:23 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
According to Fredxx's link, even Jedi are protected
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1258365/Jedi-believer-wins- apology-Jobcentre-kicked-wearing-hood.html
Although at that stage he had only received a grovelling apology from >>>>> the Job
Centre. Who had had him escorted from the premises, on account of his >>>>> hood.
However, subsequent decisions appear to cast doubt on that
interpretation:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38368526
More generally, I think it would be hard to successfully argue in
court that
being a Jedi is a belief that is genuinely held and has a certain
level of
cogency, seriousness, cohesion, and importance[1]. Given that the Jedi >>>> are a
group of people in a well-known fictional series, it would, I think,
be hard
for someone claiming to be a Jedi to successfully assert that they did >>>> not
know it was fiction.
[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/10/notes
I would hope that such an argument would be successful. We cannot judge
a personal belief.
We *can* and *may* judge it when it is clearly based on relatively
recent fiction and adopted as what its adherents obviously see as a joke.
All religious adherents are jokers, hell, belief in a mythical being?
Many religious observants attend a religious house just the once in a
year. What's more to like.
Indeed I recall at the time the concept of an unknown power that
permeated across the universe was one some people accepted. The fact it
was later given the name of Jedi by an author is of less importance. It
is simply a name.
You have just described the God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
Quite so agreed nonsense and baseless. Jedi was based on numerous
religions such as Buddhism and Taoism.
I have never heard or read anything which limits the power of that God
to only a region of the universe. The doctrine is that God created the
universe.
Then you're missing the point of the true Jedi belief.
I suppose if the religion had a single entity at its head such it might
be seen as a god, such as Gozer, it would conform to more regular
beliefs.
Only if it is believed in the first place. And there is no reason to
suppose or accept that it is. Seperated from its fictional source,
it's a joke, though perhaps one that some people have taken seriously
for reasons of their own.
Quite, many think The Force is a true influence in the universe.
After
all it is a belief and has more credence than a pervasive mythic being
you might call god.
On 12/05/2025 10:50, JNugent wrote:
On 12/05/2025 10:21 AM, Fredxx wrote:
Indeed I recall at the time the concept of an unknown power that
permeated across the universe was one some people accepted. The fact it
was later given the name of Jedi by an author is of less importance. It
is simply a name.
You have just described the God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
I have never heard or read anything which limits the power of that God
to only a region of the universe. The doctrine is that God created the
universe.
"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the maker of heaven and earth"
We seem to be free to believe Coruscant was created by an unknown dark energy that permeates across the universe.
On 12/05/2025 02:37 PM, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 12/05/2025 10:50, JNugent wrote:
On 12/05/2025 10:21 AM, Fredxx wrote:
Indeed I recall at the time the concept of an unknown power that
permeated across the universe was one some people accepted. The fact it >>>> was later given the name of Jedi by an author is of less importance. It >>>> is simply a name.
You have just described the God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
I have never heard or read anything which limits the power of that God
to only a region of the universe. The doctrine is that God created the
universe.
"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the maker of heaven and earth"
The word "universe" isn't in there, but it does crop elsewhere. Within
the word "universal", for instance.
We seem to be free to believe Coruscant was created by an unknown dark
energy that permeates across the universe.
We may be. But people who believe 1970s fiction could get help if they
wanted it.
From some perspectives it is no more incredible than millennia-old fiction.
On 12/05/2025 18:59, The Todal wrote:
On 12/05/2025 18:18, Norman Wells wrote:
On 12/05/2025 17:59, The Todal wrote:
If I could halve my risk of a heart attack by having a daily statin
pill, I still wouldn't take it. Statins carry warnings that memory
loss, mental confusion, neuropathy, high blood sugar, and type 2
diabetes are possible side effects. It's easy for you to say that
for you personally the side effects are non-existent or negligible.
But you don't know what the long term effects are for you or for
other people.
Well, we do actually. Millions of people have taken then for over 30
years, and they've been comprehensively evaluated.
"Long-term statin treatment is remarkably safe with a low risk of
clinically relevant adverse effects as defined above; ...
Importantly, the established cardiovascular benefits of statin
therapy far outweigh the risk of adverse effects."
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6047411/
#:~:text=Long%2Dterm%20statin%20treatment%20is,the%20risk%20of%20adverse%20effects.
And of course you could actually stop taking them.
A 2018 article assessing the evidence to date at that time.
It's hardly pre-history.
No doubt it reassures practitioners that they are not diverging from
current medical thinking if they recommend their patients to take
statins. Unless and until more patients report side effects that their
doctors have previously sworn blind have nothing to do with statins.
More than 200 million people worldwide take statins, and they've been
around for 30 years. They've gone through every toxicological test imaginable and have been approved for long-term use by regulatory
authorities everywhere. They are 'remarkably safe' as the above shows.
And they are proven to be remarkably effective.
It's your choice. I'm not here to persuade you, just to give you the
facts.
Do you take statins, Norman?
You don't want the nanny state to supervise your eating habits. If you
were told you had type 2 diabetes would you follow medical advice or
continue to enjoy all your favourite food in the same quantities as
before?
I would of course follow medical advice. Which you may not be able to
do with any hope of improvement if you have a stroke or heart attack.
A more recent study into statins is this: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(24)00040-8/fulltext
Now, I don't suppose you have the necessary skill to understand it, but
what it effectively says is that the risk of diabetes from statins is
around 10% which outweighs the likely benefits of statins.
Perhaps you imagine that if this study really was important, it would be headlines in the Daily Mail. But that's not how things work.
On 12/05/2025 22:11, Norman Wells wrote:
On 12/05/2025 18:59, The Todal wrote:
On 12/05/2025 18:18, Norman Wells wrote:
On 12/05/2025 17:59, The Todal wrote:
If I could halve my risk of a heart attack by having a daily statin
pill, I still wouldn't take it. Statins carry warnings that memory
loss, mental confusion, neuropathy, high blood sugar, and type 2
diabetes are possible side effects. It's easy for you to say that
for you personally the side effects are non-existent or negligible.
But you don't know what the long term effects are for you or for
other people.
Well, we do actually. Millions of people have taken then for over 30
years, and they've been comprehensively evaluated.
"Long-term statin treatment is remarkably safe with a low risk of
clinically relevant adverse effects as defined above; ...
Importantly, the established cardiovascular benefits of statin
therapy far outweigh the risk of adverse effects."
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6047411/
#:~:text=Long%2Dterm%20statin%20treatment%20is,the%20risk%20of%20adver >>>> se%20effects.
And of course you could actually stop taking them.
A 2018 article assessing the evidence to date at that time.
It's hardly pre-history.
No doubt it reassures practitioners that they are not diverging from
current medical thinking if they recommend their patients to take
statins. Unless and until more patients report side effects that their
doctors have previously sworn blind have nothing to do with statins.
More than 200 million people worldwide take statins, and they've been
around for 30 years. They've gone through every toxicological test
imaginable and have been approved for long-term use by regulatory
authorities everywhere. They are 'remarkably safe' as the above shows.
And they are proven to be remarkably effective.
It's your choice. I'm not here to persuade you, just to give you the
facts.
With all due respect, I don't think you are qualified to give anyone the facts, only to quote from people whom you personally trust.
A more recent study into statins is this: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(24)00040-8/fulltext
Now, I don't suppose you have the necessary skill to understand it, but
what it effectively says is that the risk of diabetes from statins is
around 10% which outweighs the likely benefits of statins.
Perhaps you imagine that if this study really was important, it would be headlines in the Daily Mail. But that's not how things work.
Do you take statins, Norman?
You don't want the nanny state to supervise your eating habits. If you
were told you had type 2 diabetes would you follow medical advice or
continue to enjoy all your favourite food in the same quantities as
before?
I would of course follow medical advice. Which you may not be able to
do with any hope of improvement if you have a stroke or heart attack.
You trust medical advice. But not advice from nutritionists and
scientists about food choices.
On 12/05/2025 20:00, billy bookcase wrote:potato-only-diet-eating-year-weight-loss-50kg-health-lifestyle-
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:m8el91FsuglU3@mid.individual.net...
On 12/05/2025 13:49, billy bookcase wrote:
It could be argued though, that with middle aged people the damage
will already have been done.
Whereas the taller heavier children who resulted from rationing
weren't the result of a restricted diet * but of a more varied diet
(plus cod liver oil and orange juice) in the case of poorer
children, who might otherwise have been raised on bread and dripping
Pretty nutritious stuff actually. Beef dripping is rich in vitamins
and minerals. It's a source of vitamins A, D, E, and K. It also
contains omega-3, fats and essential fatty acids which aid the
absorption of fat-soluble vitamins from other foods. Because it
contains goodly amounts of vitamins A and D, it obviates the need to
take ghastly cod liver oil.
And the bread provides the carbohydrates needed for energy, B vitamins
and roughage.
Just a bit more protein and some vitamin C, and you're well set up
actually.
Oh alright !
Bread and jam then.!
Picky !
Well, it seems you can live pretty well more or less exclusively on
that too, with a bit of milk, at least for 11 years.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/uk/newsid_3832000/3832947.stm
That's a bit of a spanner in the works of those who insist that everyone
must eat what they just know and insist is a 'healthy' diet.
And in case you want to change horses again, you can also live pretty healthily on a potato-only diet for a year at least:
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/how-man-
There's nothing like the subject of nutrition to bring out faddy, faux-scientific, evangelistic nonsense with no basis in fact.
On 12/05/2025 02:37 PM, Nick Finnigan wrote:
[quoted text muted]
The word "universe" isn't in there, but it does crop elsewhere. Within
the word "universal", for instance.
A more recent study into statins is this: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/ PIIS2213-8587(24)00040-8/fulltext
Now, I don't suppose you have the necessary skill to understand it, but
what it effectively says is that the risk of diabetes from statins is
around 10% which outweighs the likely benefits of statins.
On 13 May 2025 at 10:47:15 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 12/05/2025 22:11, Norman Wells wrote:
On 12/05/2025 18:59, The Todal wrote:
On 12/05/2025 18:18, Norman Wells wrote:
On 12/05/2025 17:59, The Todal wrote:
If I could halve my risk of a heart attack by having a daily statin >>>>>> pill, I still wouldn't take it. Statins carry warnings that memory >>>>>> loss, mental confusion, neuropathy, high blood sugar, and type 2
diabetes are possible side effects. It's easy for you to say that
for you personally the side effects are non-existent or negligible. >>>>>> But you don't know what the long term effects are for you or for
other people.
Well, we do actually. Millions of people have taken then for over 30 >>>>> years, and they've been comprehensively evaluated.
"Long-term statin treatment is remarkably safe with a low risk of
clinically relevant adverse effects as defined above; ...
Importantly, the established cardiovascular benefits of statin
therapy far outweigh the risk of adverse effects."
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6047411/
#:~:text=Long%2Dterm%20statin%20treatment%20is,the%20risk%20of%20adver >>>>> se%20effects.
And of course you could actually stop taking them.
A 2018 article assessing the evidence to date at that time.
It's hardly pre-history.
No doubt it reassures practitioners that they are not diverging from
current medical thinking if they recommend their patients to take
statins. Unless and until more patients report side effects that their >>>> doctors have previously sworn blind have nothing to do with statins.
More than 200 million people worldwide take statins, and they've been
around for 30 years. They've gone through every toxicological test
imaginable and have been approved for long-term use by regulatory
authorities everywhere. They are 'remarkably safe' as the above shows.
And they are proven to be remarkably effective.
It's your choice. I'm not here to persuade you, just to give you the
facts.
With all due respect, I don't think you are qualified to give anyone the
facts, only to quote from people whom you personally trust.
A more recent study into statins is this:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(24)00040-8/fulltext
Now, I don't suppose you have the necessary skill to understand it, but
what it effectively says is that the risk of diabetes from statins is
around 10% which outweighs the likely benefits of statins.
No it doesn't! From the Interpretation section:
"Importantly, however, any theoretical adverse effects of statins on cardiovascular risk that might arise from these small increases in glycaemia (or, indeed, from any other mechanism) are already accounted for in the overall reduction in cardiovascular risk that is seen with statin therapy in these trials."
So the real, proven benefit is known to occur *despite* the adverse effect on glycaemia.
But I'm with you the extent I wouldn't personally take statins!
Perhaps you imagine that if this study really was important, it would be
headlines in the Daily Mail. But that's not how things work.
Do you take statins, Norman?
You don't want the nanny state to supervise your eating habits. If you >>>> were told you had type 2 diabetes would you follow medical advice or
continue to enjoy all your favourite food in the same quantities as
before?
I would of course follow medical advice. Which you may not be able to
do with any hope of improvement if you have a stroke or heart attack.
You trust medical advice. But not advice from nutritionists and
scientists about food choices.
Nutrition science is up there with sociology, economics and psychology in being based on shifting sands of fashion rather then rigorous science in most of its conclusions.
On 13/05/2025 10:47, The Todal wrote:
A more recent study into statins is this:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(24)00040-8/fulltext
Now, I don't suppose you have the necessary skill to understand it, but
what it effectively says is that the risk of diabetes from statins is
around 10% which outweighs the likely benefits of statins.
I read an increase from 1.2% to 1.3% (new cases per year).
On 2025-05-13, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/05/2025 10:47, The Todal wrote:
A more recent study into statins is this:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(24)00040-8/fulltext
Now, I don't suppose you have the necessary skill to understand it, but
what it effectively says is that the risk of diabetes from statins is
around 10% which outweighs the likely benefits of statins.
I read an increase from 1.2% to 1.3% (new cases per year).
That would indeed be an increase of 10%.
On 13/05/2025 12:24 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-05-13, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/05/2025 10:47, The Todal wrote:
A more recent study into statins is this:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(24)00040-8/fulltext
Now, I don't suppose you have the necessary skill to understand it, but >>>> what it effectively says is that the risk of diabetes from statins is
around 10% which outweighs the likely benefits of statins.
I read an increase from 1.2% to 1.3% (new cases per year).
That would indeed be an increase of 10%.
Nearly, but not quite.
On 13 May 2025 at 00:35:46 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 12/05/2025 02:37 PM, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 12/05/2025 10:50, JNugent wrote:The word "universe" isn't in there, but it does crop elsewhere. Within
On 12/05/2025 10:21 AM, Fredxx wrote:
Indeed I recall at the time the concept of an unknown power that
permeated across the universe was one some people accepted. The fact it >>>>> was later given the name of Jedi by an author is of less importance. It >>>>> is simply a name.
You have just described the God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
I have never heard or read anything which limits the power of that God >>>> to only a region of the universe. The doctrine is that God created the >>>> universe.
"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the maker of heaven and earth" >>
the word "universal", for instance.
We seem to be free to believe Coruscant was created by an unknown dark
energy that permeates across the universe.
We may be. But people who believe 1970s fiction could get help if they
wanted it.
From some perspectives it is no more incredible than millennia-old fiction.
On 2025-05-13, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/05/2025 10:47, The Todal wrote:
A more recent study into statins is this:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(24)00040-8/fulltext
Now, I don't suppose you have the necessary skill to understand it, but
what it effectively says is that the risk of diabetes from statins is
around 10% which outweighs the likely benefits of statins.
I read an increase from 1.2% to 1.3% (new cases per year).
That would indeed be an increase of 10%.
On 13/05/2025 10:47, The Todal wrote:
A more recent study into statins is this:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/
PIIS2213-8587(24)00040-8/fulltext
Now, I don't suppose you have the necessary skill to understand it, but
what it effectively says is that the risk of diabetes from statins is
around 10% which outweighs the likely benefits of statins.
Actually, it says the precise opposite!
"Importantly, however, any theoretical adverse effects of statins on cardiovascular risk that might arise from these small increases in
glycaemia (or, indeed, from any other mechanism) are already accounted
for in the overall reduction in cardiovascular risk that is seen with
statin therapy in these trials. "
On 13/05/2025 12:24, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-05-13, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/05/2025 10:47, The Todal wrote:
A more recent study into statins is this:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(24)00040-8/fulltext
Now, I don't suppose you have the necessary skill to understand it, but >>>> what it effectively says is that the risk of diabetes from statins is
around 10% which outweighs the likely benefits of statins.
I read an increase from 1.2% to 1.3% (new cases per year).
That would indeed be an increase of 10%.
but only 0.1 percentage point, which is closer to 'the risk of diabetes from statins'.
On 13 May 2025 at 12:24:07 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 13/05/2025 10:47, The Todal wrote:
A more recent study into statins is this:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/
PIIS2213-8587(24)00040-8/fulltext
Now, I don't suppose you have the necessary skill to understand it, but
what it effectively says is that the risk of diabetes from statins is
around 10% which outweighs the likely benefits of statins.
Actually, it says the precise opposite!
"Importantly, however, any theoretical adverse effects of statins on
cardiovascular risk that might arise from these small increases in
glycaemia (or, indeed, from any other mechanism) are already accounted
for in the overall reduction in cardiovascular risk that is seen with
statin therapy in these trials. "
That is a good example of a paragraph which would be much easier to understand
if edited by the Plain English campaign, rather than written in science-ese.
On 13 May 2025 at 12:32:23 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 13/05/2025 12:24 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-05-13, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/05/2025 10:47, The Todal wrote:
A more recent study into statins is this:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(24)00040-8/fulltext
Now, I don't suppose you have the necessary skill to understand it, but >>>>> what it effectively says is that the risk of diabetes from statins is >>>>> around 10% which outweighs the likely benefits of statins.
I read an increase from 1.2% to 1.3% (new cases per year).
That would indeed be an increase of 10%.
Nearly, but not quite.
10% is accurate within the precision of the data. More significant figures would be unjustified.
On 12/05/2025 12:17 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 12/05/2025 10:50, JNugent wrote:
On 12/05/2025 10:21 AM, Fredxx wrote:
On 12/05/2025 09:49, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2025 20:18:23 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> >>>>> wrote:
According to Fredxx's link, even Jedi are protected
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1258365/Jedi-believer-
wins- apology-Jobcentre-kicked-wearing-hood.html
Although at that stage he had only received a grovelling apology from >>>>>> the Job
Centre. Who had had him escorted from the premises, on account of his >>>>>> hood.
However, subsequent decisions appear to cast doubt on that
interpretation:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38368526
More generally, I think it would be hard to successfully argue in
court that
being a Jedi is a belief that is genuinely held and has a certain
level of
cogency, seriousness, cohesion, and importance[1]. Given that the Jedi >>>>> are a
group of people in a well-known fictional series, it would, I think, >>>>> be hard
for someone claiming to be a Jedi to successfully assert that they did >>>>> not
know it was fiction.
[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/10/notes
I would hope that such an argument would be successful. We cannot judge >>>> a personal belief.
We *can* and *may* judge it when it is clearly based on relatively
recent fiction and adopted as what its adherents obviously see as a
joke.
All religious adherents are jokers, hell, belief in a mythical being?
Many religious observants attend a religious house just the once in a
year. What's more to like.
Indeed I recall at the time the concept of an unknown power that
permeated across the universe was one some people accepted. The fact it >>>> was later given the name of Jedi by an author is of less importance. It >>>> is simply a name.
You have just described the God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
Quite so agreed nonsense and baseless. Jedi was based on numerous
religions such as Buddhism and Taoism.
I have never heard or read anything which limits the power of that God
to only a region of the universe. The doctrine is that God created the
universe.
Then you're missing the point of the true Jedi belief.
You cannot credibly describe a piece of known fiction as "true".
I suppose if the religion had a single entity at its head such it might >>>> be seen as a god, such as Gozer, it would conform to more regular
beliefs.
Only if it is believed in the first place. And there is no reason to
suppose or accept that it is. Seperated from its fictional source,
it's a joke, though perhaps one that some people have taken seriously
for reasons of their own.
Quite, many think The Force is a true influence in the universe.
Do they?
Mind you, there are many claims of threats to mental health these days.
It's the illness du jour.
After
all it is a belief and has more credence than a pervasive mythic being
you might call god.
Nobody "believes" what they know (for a fact) to have been created as a
work of fiction in the middle of the 1970s.
On 13/05/2025 10:47, The Todal wrote:
A more recent study into statins is this:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/
PIIS2213-8587(24)00040-8/fulltext
Now, I don't suppose you have the necessary skill to understand it, but
what it effectively says is that the risk of diabetes from statins is
around 10% which outweighs the likely benefits of statins.
Actually, it says the precise opposite!
"Importantly, however, any theoretical adverse effects of statins on cardiovascular risk that might arise from these small increases in
glycaemia (or, indeed, from any other mechanism) are already accounted
for in the overall reduction in cardiovascular risk that is seen with
statin therapy in these trials. "
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 13/05/2025 10:47, The Todal wrote:
A more recent study into statins is this:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/
PIIS2213-8587(24)00040-8/fulltext
Now, I don't suppose you have the necessary skill to understand it, but
what it effectively says is that the risk of diabetes from statins is
around 10% which outweighs the likely benefits of statins.
Actually, it says the precise opposite!
"Importantly, however, any theoretical adverse effects of statins on
cardiovascular risk that might arise from these small increases in
glycaemia (or, indeed, from any other mechanism) are already accounted
for in the overall reduction in cardiovascular risk that is seen with
statin therapy in these trials. "
An unkind interpretation of that might conclude that statins show a benefit in the numbers of fatal cardiovascular events because people had already
died from its other effects, such as those already mentioned: memory loss, mental confusion, neuropathy, high blood sugar, and type 2 diabetes.
On 13 May 2025 11:30:33 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 13 May 2025 at 12:24:07 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>
On 13/05/2025 10:47, The Todal wrote:
A more recent study into statins is this:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/
PIIS2213-8587(24)00040-8/fulltext
Now, I don't suppose you have the necessary skill to understand it, but >>>> what it effectively says is that the risk of diabetes from statins is
around 10% which outweighs the likely benefits of statins.
Actually, it says the precise opposite!
"Importantly, however, any theoretical adverse effects of statins on
cardiovascular risk that might arise from these small increases in
glycaemia (or, indeed, from any other mechanism) are already accounted
for in the overall reduction in cardiovascular risk that is seen with
statin therapy in these trials. "
That is a good example of a paragraph which would be much easier to understand
if edited by the Plain English campaign, rather than written in science-ese.
Well, it is written by scientists for scientists.
On 13 May 2025 at 12:45:26 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 13/05/2025 10:47, The Todal wrote:
A more recent study into statins is this:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/
PIIS2213-8587(24)00040-8/fulltext
Now, I don't suppose you have the necessary skill to understand it, but >>>> what it effectively says is that the risk of diabetes from statins is
around 10% which outweighs the likely benefits of statins.
Actually, it says the precise opposite!
"Importantly, however, any theoretical adverse effects of statins on
cardiovascular risk that might arise from these small increases in
glycaemia (or, indeed, from any other mechanism) are already accounted
for in the overall reduction in cardiovascular risk that is seen with
statin therapy in these trials. "
An unkind interpretation of that might conclude that statins show a benefit >> in the numbers of fatal cardiovascular events because people had already
died from its other effects, such as those already mentioned: memory loss, >> mental confusion, neuropathy, high blood sugar, and type 2 diabetes.
I haven't read the relevant papers, but allowing that to occur without comment
would be dishonest in the extreme.
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:6642511573.b3a37037@uninhabited.net...
If someone claims that his religion required him to publicly demand that
Marjory in accounts be stoned for adultery in the staff canteen then it is >> unlikely that his belief system would be recognised to the extent that he
would win a claim for unfair dismissal, regardless of whether a very similar >> belief system certainly amounted to a religion in other circumstances.
Well obviously not; as the damage to the staff canteen might be
considerable.
Whereas were the stoning to take place the car park at the rear of
the building in bays especially set aside for the purpose, then that
would clearly not be an issue..
On 13/05/2025 00:33, JNugent wrote:
On 12/05/2025 12:17 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 12/05/2025 10:50, JNugent wrote:
On 12/05/2025 10:21 AM, Fredxx wrote:
On 12/05/2025 09:49, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2025 20:18:23 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> >>>>>> wrote:
According to Fredxx's link, even Jedi are protected
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1258365/Jedi-believer-
wins- apology-Jobcentre-kicked-wearing-hood.html
Although at that stage he had only received a grovelling apology >>>>>>> from
the Job
Centre. Who had had him escorted from the premises, on account of >>>>>>> his
hood.
However, subsequent decisions appear to cast doubt on that
interpretation:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38368526
More generally, I think it would be hard to successfully argue in
court that
being a Jedi is a belief that is genuinely held and has a certain
level of
cogency, seriousness, cohesion, and importance[1]. Given that the
Jedi
are a
group of people in a well-known fictional series, it would, I think, >>>>>> be hard
for someone claiming to be a Jedi to successfully assert that they >>>>>> did
not
know it was fiction.
[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/10/notes
I would hope that such an argument would be successful. We cannot
judge
a personal belief.
We *can* and *may* judge it when it is clearly based on relatively
recent fiction and adopted as what its adherents obviously see as a
joke.
All religious adherents are jokers, hell, belief in a mythical being?
Many religious observants attend a religious house just the once in a
year. What's more to like.
Indeed I recall at the time the concept of an unknown power that
permeated across the universe was one some people accepted. The
fact it
was later given the name of Jedi by an author is of less
importance. It
is simply a name.
You have just described the God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
Quite so agreed nonsense and baseless. Jedi was based on numerous
religions such as Buddhism and Taoism.
I have never heard or read anything which limits the power of that God >>>> to only a region of the universe. The doctrine is that God created the >>>> universe.
Then you're missing the point of the true Jedi belief.
You cannot credibly describe a piece of known fiction as "true".
And such a claim proves you miss the point.
I suppose if the religion had a single entity at its head such it
might be seen as a god, such as Gozer, it would conform to more
regular beliefs.
Only if it is believed in the first place. And there is no reason to
suppose or accept that it is. Seperated from its fictional source,
it's a joke, though perhaps one that some people have taken seriously
for reasons of their own.
Quite, many think The Force is a true influence in the universe.
Do they?
Mind you, there are many claims of threats to mental health these
days. It's the illness du jour.
After
all it is a belief and has more credence than a pervasive mythic being
you might call god.
Nobody "believes" what they know (for a fact) to have been created as
a work of fiction in the middle of the 1970s.
Once again you are in denial that the concepts taken by George Lucas
were already in existence such as Chi, Qi, Ki and Prana.
I presume you have a belief in some mythical being that precludes you
from accepting this possibility?
On 13/05/2025 01:44 PM, Fredxx wrote:
[quoted text muted]
What "point" would that be?
Do you really believe that a "belief" in the (so called) Jedi religion
would survive five minutes of cross examination by competent counsel?
Do you really believe that a "belief" in the (so called) Jedi religion would survive
five minutes of cross examination by competent counsel?
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:m8jcheFllk1U1@mid.individual.net...
Do you really believe that a "belief" in the (so called) Jedi religion
would survive five minutes of cross examination by competent counsel?
BBC Mastermind 2024/25 Episode 7
Specialist subjects include The Star Wars Trilogy
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0023s6j
Two minutes anyway.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:m8jcheFllk1U1@mid.individual.net...
Do you really believe that a "belief" in the (so called) Jedi religion would survive
five minutes of cross examination by competent counsel?
BBC Mastermind 2024/25 Episode 7
Specialist subjects include The Star Wars Trilogy
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0023s6j
Two minutes anyway.
On Wed, 14 May 2025 12:19:10 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 13/05/2025 01:44 PM, Fredxx wrote:
[quoted text muted]
What "point" would that be?
Do you really believe that a "belief" in the (so called) Jedi religion
would survive five minutes of cross examination by competent counsel?
Why not reverse the question and ask if belief in Allah, or Jehovah, (or whatever else the Abrahamic god wishes to be called) would withstand
exposure to reality.
On 13/05/2025 01:44 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 13/05/2025 00:33, JNugent wrote:
On 12/05/2025 12:17 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 12/05/2025 10:50, JNugent wrote:
On 12/05/2025 10:21 AM, Fredxx wrote:
On 12/05/2025 09:49, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2025 20:18:23 +0100, "billy bookcase"
<billy@anon.com>
wrote:
According to Fredxx's link, even Jedi are protected
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1258365/Jedi-believer- >>>>>>>> wins- apology-Jobcentre-kicked-wearing-hood.html
Although at that stage he had only received a grovelling apology >>>>>>>> from
the Job
Centre. Who had had him escorted from the premises, on account of >>>>>>>> his
hood.
However, subsequent decisions appear to cast doubt on that
interpretation:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38368526
More generally, I think it would be hard to successfully argue in >>>>>>> court that
being a Jedi is a belief that is genuinely held and has a certain >>>>>>> level of
cogency, seriousness, cohesion, and importance[1]. Given that the >>>>>>> Jedi
are a
group of people in a well-known fictional series, it would, I think, >>>>>>> be hard
for someone claiming to be a Jedi to successfully assert that they >>>>>>> did
not
know it was fiction.
[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/10/notes >>>>>>
I would hope that such an argument would be successful. We cannot
judge
a personal belief.
We *can* and *may* judge it when it is clearly based on relatively
recent fiction and adopted as what its adherents obviously see as a
joke.
All religious adherents are jokers, hell, belief in a mythical being?
Many religious observants attend a religious house just the once in a
year. What's more to like.
Indeed I recall at the time the concept of an unknown power that
permeated across the universe was one some people accepted. The
fact it
was later given the name of Jedi by an author is of less
importance. It
is simply a name.
You have just described the God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
Quite so agreed nonsense and baseless. Jedi was based on numerous
religions such as Buddhism and Taoism.
I have never heard or read anything which limits the power of that God >>>>> to only a region of the universe. The doctrine is that God created the >>>>> universe.
Then you're missing the point of the true Jedi belief.
You cannot credibly describe a piece of known fiction as "true".
And such a claim proves you miss the point.
What "point" would that be?
Do you really believe that a "belief" in the (so called) Jedi religion
would survive five minutes of cross examination by competent counsel?
I suppose if the religion had a single entity at its head such it
might be seen as a god, such as Gozer, it would conform to more
regular beliefs.
Only if it is believed in the first place. And there is no reason to >>>>> suppose or accept that it is. Seperated from its fictional source,
it's a joke, though perhaps one that some people have taken seriously >>>>> for reasons of their own.
Quite, many think The Force is a true influence in the universe.
Do they?
Mind you, there are many claims of threats to mental health these
days. It's the illness du jour.
After
all it is a belief and has more credence than a pervasive mythic being >>>> you might call god.
Nobody "believes" what they know (for a fact) to have been created as
a work of fiction in the middle of the 1970s.
Once again you are in denial that the concepts taken by George Lucas
were already in existence such as Chi, Qi, Ki and Prana.
Is a "concept" a "belief"?
I presume you have a belief in some mythical being that precludes you
from accepting this possibility?
Diversion.
An atheist would take the same standpoint.
On 14/05/2025 12:19, JNugent wrote:
On 13/05/2025 01:44 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 13/05/2025 00:33, JNugent wrote:
On 12/05/2025 12:17 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 12/05/2025 10:50, JNugent wrote:
On 12/05/2025 10:21 AM, Fredxx wrote:
On 12/05/2025 09:49, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2025 20:18:23 +0100, "billy bookcase"
<billy@anon.com>
wrote:
According to Fredxx's link, even Jedi are protected
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1258365/Jedi-believer- >>>>>>>>> wins- apology-Jobcentre-kicked-wearing-hood.html
Although at that stage he had only received a grovelling apology >>>>>>>>> from
the Job
Centre. Who had had him escorted from the premises, on account of >>>>>>>>> his
hood.
However, subsequent decisions appear to cast doubt on that
interpretation:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38368526
More generally, I think it would be hard to successfully argue in >>>>>>>> court that
being a Jedi is a belief that is genuinely held and has a certain >>>>>>>> level of
cogency, seriousness, cohesion, and importance[1]. Given that the >>>>>>>> Jedi
are a
group of people in a well-known fictional series, it would, I
think,
be hard
for someone claiming to be a Jedi to successfully assert that they >>>>>>>> did
not
know it was fiction.
[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/10/notes >>>>>>>
I would hope that such an argument would be successful. We cannot >>>>>>> judge
a personal belief.
We *can* and *may* judge it when it is clearly based on relatively >>>>>> recent fiction and adopted as what its adherents obviously see as a >>>>>> joke.
All religious adherents are jokers, hell, belief in a mythical being? >>>>> Many religious observants attend a religious house just the once in a >>>>> year. What's more to like.
Quite so agreed nonsense and baseless. Jedi was based on numerousIndeed I recall at the time the concept of an unknown power that >>>>>>> permeated across the universe was one some people accepted. The
fact it
was later given the name of Jedi by an author is of less
importance. It
is simply a name.
You have just described the God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. >>>>>
religions such as Buddhism and Taoism.
I have never heard or read anything which limits the power of that >>>>>> God
to only a region of the universe. The doctrine is that God created >>>>>> the
universe.
Then you're missing the point of the true Jedi belief.
You cannot credibly describe a piece of known fiction as "true".
And such a claim proves you miss the point.
What "point" would that be?
The one you fail to grasp, where your belief in a mythical being has
skewed any alternative beliefs.
Do you really believe that a "belief" in the (so called) Jedi religion
would survive five minutes of cross examination by competent counsel?
I suppose if the religion had a single entity at its head such it >>>>>>> might be seen as a god, such as Gozer, it would conform to more
regular beliefs.
Only if it is believed in the first place. And there is no reason to >>>>>> suppose or accept that it is. Seperated from its fictional source, >>>>>> it's a joke, though perhaps one that some people have taken seriously >>>>>> for reasons of their own.
Quite, many think The Force is a true influence in the universe.
Do they?
Mind you, there are many claims of threats to mental health these
days. It's the illness du jour.
After
all it is a belief and has more credence than a pervasive mythic being >>>>> you might call god.
Nobody "believes" what they know (for a fact) to have been created as
a work of fiction in the middle of the 1970s.
Once again you are in denial that the concepts taken by George Lucas
were already in existence such as Chi, Qi, Ki and Prana.
Is a "concept" a "belief"?
Once again you are in denial that the beliefs taken by George Lucas
were already in existence such as Chi, Qi, Ki and Prana.
There, that's better.
I was trading uninformed beliefs, such as a god, to be a concept where
the thinking man knows better. My bad.
I presume you have a belief in some mythical being that precludes you
from accepting this possibility?
Diversion.
An atheist would take the same standpoint.
...and really seems to believe that a work of fiction written in the mid-1970s for a movie is a religion (unless he is adopting that stance
merely for the sake of contrarianism).
On 15/05/2025 12:57 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 14/05/2025 12:19, JNugent wrote:
On 13/05/2025 01:44 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 13/05/2025 00:33, JNugent wrote:
On 12/05/2025 12:17 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 12/05/2025 10:50, JNugent wrote:
On 12/05/2025 10:21 AM, Fredxx wrote:
On 12/05/2025 09:49, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2025 20:18:23 +0100, "billy bookcase"
<billy@anon.com>
wrote:
According to Fredxx's link, even Jedi are protected
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1258365/Jedi-believer- >>>>>>>>>> wins- apology-Jobcentre-kicked-wearing-hood.html
Although at that stage he had only received a grovelling apology >>>>>>>>>> from
the Job
Centre. Who had had him escorted from the premises, on account of >>>>>>>>>> his
hood.
However, subsequent decisions appear to cast doubt on that
interpretation:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38368526
More generally, I think it would be hard to successfully argue in >>>>>>>>> court that
being a Jedi is a belief that is genuinely held and has a certain >>>>>>>>> level of
cogency, seriousness, cohesion, and importance[1]. Given that the >>>>>>>>> Jedi
are a
group of people in a well-known fictional series, it would, I >>>>>>>>> think,
be hard
for someone claiming to be a Jedi to successfully assert that they >>>>>>>>> did
not
know it was fiction.
[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/10/notes >>>>>>>>
I would hope that such an argument would be successful. We cannot >>>>>>>> judge
a personal belief.
We *can* and *may* judge it when it is clearly based on relatively >>>>>>> recent fiction and adopted as what its adherents obviously see as a >>>>>>> joke.
All religious adherents are jokers, hell, belief in a mythical being? >>>>>> Many religious observants attend a religious house just the once in a >>>>>> year. What's more to like.
Quite so agreed nonsense and baseless. Jedi was based on numerousIndeed I recall at the time the concept of an unknown power that >>>>>>>> permeated across the universe was one some people accepted. The >>>>>>>> fact it
was later given the name of Jedi by an author is of less
importance. It
is simply a name.
You have just described the God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. >>>>>>
religions such as Buddhism and Taoism.
I have never heard or read anything which limits the power of that >>>>>>> God
to only a region of the universe. The doctrine is that God created >>>>>>> the
universe.
Then you're missing the point of the true Jedi belief.
You cannot credibly describe a piece of known fiction as "true".
And such a claim proves you miss the point.
What "point" would that be?
The one you fail to grasp, where your belief in a mythical being has
skewed any alternative beliefs.
Do you really believe that a "belief" in the (so called) Jedi religion
would survive five minutes of cross examination by competent counsel?
I suppose if the religion had a single entity at its head such it >>>>>>>> might be seen as a god, such as Gozer, it would conform to more >>>>>>>> regular beliefs.
Only if it is believed in the first place. And there is no reason to >>>>>>> suppose or accept that it is. Seperated from its fictional source, >>>>>>> it's a joke, though perhaps one that some people have taken
seriously
for reasons of their own.
Quite, many think The Force is a true influence in the universe.
Do they?
Mind you, there are many claims of threats to mental health these
days. It's the illness du jour.
After
all it is a belief and has more credence than a pervasive mythic
being
you might call god.
Nobody "believes" what they know (for a fact) to have been created as >>>>> a work of fiction in the middle of the 1970s.
Once again you are in denial that the concepts taken by George Lucas
were already in existence such as Chi, Qi, Ki and Prana.
Is a "concept" a "belief"?
Once again you are in denial that the beliefs taken by George Lucas
were already in existence such as Chi, Qi, Ki and Prana.
There, that's better.
I was trading uninformed beliefs, such as a god, to be a concept where
the thinking man knows better. My bad.
I presume you have a belief in some mythical being that precludes you
from accepting this possibility?
Diversion.
An atheist would take the same standpoint.
Summary:
Fredxx has forgotten what the thread is about...
(hint: the question wass "Is Astrology a Religion?")
...and really seems to believe that a work of fiction written in the mid-1970s for a movie is a religion (unless he is adopting that stance
merely for the sake of contrarianism).
NB1: You don't need to be a religious person in order to understand that "jedi" is therefore not a religion, but is a piece of fiction
transformed by enough people with a sense of humour to be a counterfeit "religion".
NB2: Even if you are a religious person, that does not prevent you from recognising other religions as... er... religions.
On Thu, 15 May 2025 17:32:26 +0100, JNugent wrote:
...and really seems to believe that a work of fiction written in the
mid-1970s for a movie is a religion (unless he is adopting that stance
merely for the sake of contrarianism).
And the Bible isn't a collection of campfire tales ?
You couldn't make it up, especially on how various fictional texts were accepted and others rejected.
On 12/05/2025 15:07, Simon Parker wrote:
When you started the thread, it is understandable that you had no
knowledge, much less understanding, of the so-called "Grainger Criteria".
However, in a post in UNNM The Todal both detailed them and provided a
reference to case law establishing them as a set of standards used to
determine if a belief is a protected philosophical belief under the
Equality Act 2010.
4. It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society.
That could apply to everything or nothing, as it just is a matter of
current mores and prejudices.
On Mon, 12 May 2025 17:48:28 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 12/05/2025 15:07, Simon Parker wrote:
When you started the thread, it is understandable that you had no
knowledge, much less understanding, of the so-called "Grainger
Criteria".
However, in a post in UNNM The Todal both detailed them and provided a
reference to case law establishing them as a set of standards used to
determine if a belief is a protected philosophical belief under the
Equality Act 2010.
4. It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society.
That could apply to everything or nothing, as it just is a matter of >>current mores and prejudices.
I'm not, offhand, aware of any case law which specifically interprets
this requirement. But my own interpretation, and one which I would be prepared to argue in court if necessary, is that the belief must not be incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy itself. For example, while a belief in God or some other supernatural entity is a protected belief, a belief that the only valid form of government is an absolute theocracy would not be.
Merely disagreeing with the majority does not make a belief unworthy of respect in a democratic society. But a belief that the majority should
be denied the opportunity to exercise their democratic rights would be unworthy of respect, and hence not a protected belief.
On 12 May 2025 at 09:49:32 BST, "Mark Goodge" ><usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
More generally, I think it would be hard to successfully argue in court that >> being a Jedi is a belief that is genuinely held and has a certain level of >> cogency, seriousness, cohesion, and importance[1]. Given that the Jedi are a >> group of people in a well-known fictional series, it would, I think, be hard >> for someone claiming to be a Jedi to successfully assert that they did not >> know it was fiction.
[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/10/notes
I don't really see your point. All religion is fiction. And the Scientologists >proved you can base a religion on recent totally unreasonable fiction.
On 12 May 2025 09:18:44 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Most religious believers don't consider their religion to be fiction.
On 15/05/2025 17:32, JNugent wrote:
Summary:
Fredxx has forgotten what the thread is about...
(hint: the question wass "Is Astrology a Religion?")
...and really seems to believe that a work of fiction written in the
mid-1970s for a movie is a religion (unless he is adopting that stance
merely for the sake of contrarianism).
NB1: You don't need to be a religious person in order to understand that
"jedi" is therefore not a religion, but is a piece of fiction
transformed by enough people with a sense of humour to be a counterfeit
"religion".
NB2: Even if you are a religious person, that does not prevent you from
recognising other religions as... er... religions.
Once again you are in denial that the beliefs taken by George Lucas
were already in existence such as Chi, Qi, Ki and Prana.
Why does your belief in your mythical being prevent you from
acknowledging that such beliefs do exist. Will your god punish you for
some indescribable crime if you did? Is your creed so week you can't
even consider a simple concept, sorry belief, that Chi, Qi, Ki and Prana
are indeed long held pre-existing beliefs?
On 2025-05-15, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 15/05/2025 17:32, JNugent wrote:
Summary:
Fredxx has forgotten what the thread is about...
(hint: the question wass "Is Astrology a Religion?")
...and really seems to believe that a work of fiction written in the
mid-1970s for a movie is a religion (unless he is adopting that stance
merely for the sake of contrarianism).
NB1: You don't need to be a religious person in order to understand
that "jedi" is therefore not a religion, but is a piece of fiction
transformed by enough people with a sense of humour to be a
counterfeit "religion".
NB2: Even if you are a religious person, that does not prevent you
from recognising other religions as... er... religions.
Once again you are in denial that the beliefs taken by George Lucas
were already in existence such as Chi, Qi, Ki and Prana.
Why does your belief in your mythical being prevent you from
acknowledging that such beliefs do exist. Will your god punish you for
some indescribable crime if you did? Is your creed so week you can't
even consider a simple concept, sorry belief, that Chi, Qi, Ki and
Prana are indeed long held pre-existing beliefs?
I guess JNugent hasn't read "Foucault's Pendulum". It doesn't matter
what something's original author intended, what matters is what people believe about the thing.
On 12/05/2025 09:49, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2025 20:18:23 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>
According to Fredxx's link, even Jedi are protectedHowever, subsequent decisions appear to cast doubt on that interpretation: >>
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1258365/Jedi-believer-wins-apology-Jobcentre-kicked-wearing-hood.html
Although at that stage he had only received a grovelling apology from the Job
Centre. Who had had him escorted from the premises, on account of his hood. >>
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38368526
More generally, I think it would be hard to successfully argue in court that >> being a Jedi is a belief that is genuinely held and has a certain level of >> cogency, seriousness, cohesion, and importance[1]. Given that the Jedi are a >> group of people in a well-known fictional series, it would, I think, be hard >> for someone claiming to be a Jedi to successfully assert that they did not >> know it was fiction.
[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/10/notes
I would hope that such an argument would be successful. We cannot judge
a personal belief.
On 16 May 2025 at 10:24:46 BST, "Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2025 17:48:28 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 12/05/2025 15:07, Simon Parker wrote:
When you started the thread, it is understandable that you had no
knowledge, much less understanding, of the so-called "Grainger Criteria". >>>>
However, in a post in UNNM The Todal both detailed them and provided a >>>> reference to case law establishing them as a set of standards used to
determine if a belief is a protected philosophical belief under the
Equality Act 2010.
4. It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society.
That could apply to everything or nothing, as it just is a matter of
current mores and prejudices.
I'm not, offhand, aware of any case law which specifically interprets this >> requirement.
I believe the quotation is from:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60c1cce1d3bf7f4bd9814e39/Maya_Forstater_v_CGD_Europe_and_others_UKEAT0105_20_JOJ.pdf
But my own interpretation, and one which I would be prepared to
argue in court if necessary, is that the belief must not be incompatible
with the fundamental principles of democracy itself. For example, while a
belief in God or some other supernatural entity is a protected belief, a
belief that the only valid form of government is an absolute theocracy would >> not be.
Merely disagreeing with the majority does not make a belief unworthy of
respect in a democratic society. But a belief that the majority should be
denied the opportunity to exercise their democratic rights would be unworthy >> of respect, and hence not a protected belief.
Mark
I believe it would depend on how this theocracy is supposed to be achieved. It may be ok to seek theocracy by democratic means - though it sounds rather irreverible.
On Mon, 12 May 2025 17:48:28 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 12/05/2025 15:07, Simon Parker wrote:
When you started the thread, it is understandable that you had no
knowledge, much less understanding, of the so-called "Grainger Criteria". >>>
However, in a post in UNNM The Todal both detailed them and provided a
reference to case law establishing them as a set of standards used to
determine if a belief is a protected philosophical belief under the
Equality Act 2010.
4. It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society.
That could apply to everything or nothing, as it just is a matter of
current mores and prejudices.
I'm not, offhand, aware of any case law which specifically interprets this requirement.
But my own interpretation, and one which I would be prepared to
argue in court if necessary, is that the belief must not be incompatible
with the fundamental principles of democracy itself. For example, while a belief in God or some other supernatural entity is a protected belief, a belief that the only valid form of government is an absolute theocracy would not be.
Merely disagreeing with the majority does not make a belief unworthy of respect in a democratic society. But a belief that the majority should be denied the opportunity to exercise their democratic rights would be unworthy of respect, and hence not a protected belief.
Mark
On 12 May 2025 09:18:44 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 12 May 2025 at 09:49:32 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
More generally, I think it would be hard to successfully argue in court that
being a Jedi is a belief that is genuinely held and has a certain level of >>> cogency, seriousness, cohesion, and importance[1]. Given that the Jedi are a
group of people in a well-known fictional series, it would, I think, be hard
for someone claiming to be a Jedi to successfully assert that they did not >>> know it was fiction.
[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/10/notes
I don't really see your point. All religion is fiction. And the Scientologists
proved you can base a religion on recent totally unreasonable fiction.
Most religious believers don't consider their religion to be fiction. Nor is it reasonable to assume that they are aware that it is fiction. Most religions go back sufficiently far that we no longer have any direct insight into the thoughts of those who first recorded those beliefs in what are not considered to be various sacred writing. The fact that they may have been mistaken does not make their beliefs fictitious. Fiction is the deliberate creation of untruth, not the mistaken creation of it. Judaism, Christianity and Islam, for example, could only be classed as fiction if the writers of the Torah, the New Testament and the Quran knew, at the time, that they were deliberately making up a fictitious story. And I think you would be hard pressed to make the case that they were.
When it comes to the script of a contemporary TV series or movie, though, we do have some insight into the thoughts of those who created them. And
nowhere has George Lucas given any indication that he believes the Star Wars series to be documentary, or even a dramatised reconstruction, rather than pure fiction.
I do agree that Scientology is problematic, due to its known origins. But it has now been around long enough for it to have genuine adherents who are unaware of the nature of its founder. Their beliefs are honestly held, even if those of its founder were not.
Mark
On Fri, 16 May 2025 10:41:48 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
On 12 May 2025 09:18:44 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Most religious believers don't consider their religion to be fiction.
Which doesn't make them right.
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 12/05/2025 15:07, Simon Parker wrote:
When you started the thread, it is understandable that you had no
knowledge, much less understanding, of the so-called "Grainger Criteria".
However, in a post in UNNM The Todal both detailed them and provided a
reference to case law establishing them as a set of standards used to
determine if a belief is a protected philosophical belief under the
Equality Act 2010.
4. It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society.
That could apply to everything or nothing, as it just is a matter of
current mores and prejudices.
I'm not, offhand, aware of any case law which specifically interprets this requirement. But my own interpretation, and one which I would be prepared to argue in court if necessary, is that the belief must not be incompatible
with the fundamental principles of democracy itself. For example, while a belief in God or some other supernatural entity is a protected belief, a belief that the only valid form of government is an absolute theocracy would not be.
Merely disagreeing with the majority does not make a belief unworthy of respect in a democratic society. But a belief that the majority should be denied the opportunity to exercise their democratic rights would be unworthy of respect, and hence not a protected belief.
On 2025-05-15, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 15/05/2025 17:32, JNugent wrote:
Summary:
Fredxx has forgotten what the thread is about...
(hint: the question wass "Is Astrology a Religion?")
...and really seems to believe that a work of fiction written in the
mid-1970s for a movie is a religion (unless he is adopting that stance
merely for the sake of contrarianism).
NB1: You don't need to be a religious person in order to understand that >>> "jedi" is therefore not a religion, but is a piece of fiction
transformed by enough people with a sense of humour to be a counterfeit
"religion".
NB2: Even if you are a religious person, that does not prevent you from
recognising other religions as... er... religions.
Once again you are in denial that the beliefs taken by George Lucas
were already in existence such as Chi, Qi, Ki and Prana.
Why does your belief in your mythical being prevent you from
acknowledging that such beliefs do exist. Will your god punish you for
some indescribable crime if you did? Is your creed so week you can't
even consider a simple concept, sorry belief, that Chi, Qi, Ki and Prana
are indeed long held pre-existing beliefs?
I guess JNugent hasn't read "Foucault's Pendulum". It doesn't matter
what something's original author intended, what matters is what people believe about the thing.
On Thu, 15 May 2025 17:32:26 +0100, JNugent wrote:
...and really seems to believe that a work of fiction written in the
mid-1970s for a movie is a religion (unless he is adopting that stance
merely for the sake of contrarianism).
And the Bible isn't a collection of campfire tales ?
On Mon, 12 May 2025 10:21:10 +0100, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 12/05/2025 09:49, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2025 20:18:23 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
According to Fredxx's link, even Jedi are protected
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1258365/Jedi-believer-wins-apology-Jobcentre-kicked-wearing-hood.html
Although at that stage he had only received a grovelling apology from the Job
Centre. Who had had him escorted from the premises, on account of his hood.
However, subsequent decisions appear to cast doubt on that interpretation: >>>
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38368526
More generally, I think it would be hard to successfully argue in court that
being a Jedi is a belief that is genuinely held and has a certain level of >>> cogency, seriousness, cohesion, and importance[1]. Given that the Jedi are a
group of people in a well-known fictional series, it would, I think, be hard
for someone claiming to be a Jedi to successfully assert that they did not >>> know it was fiction.
[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/10/notes
I would hope that such an argument would be successful. We cannot judge
a personal belief.
There's a difference, also, between a genuinely held belief and the expression of that belief. A belief can be entirely genuine and protected, but that does not necessarily mean that every expression of that belief is protected.
For example, it is generally accepted that, in most cases (other than where overriden by specific other requirements such as health and safety), a
Muslim woman has a right to wear a headcovering, as that is explicitly
taught as a requirement of Islam. A female hijab-wearer, therefore, is not simply making a lifestyle choice, she is conforming to the normal practice
of her religion.
However, there is case law that a Christian employee does not have the right to wear a cross or crucifix in the workplace if that conflicts with a "no jewellery" rule. That's because, although many Christians do choose to wear
a symbol of their faith, equally many do not, and there is no suggestion
that those who do not are in any way being disobedient or non-conforming to their religion. So wearing a cross is purely a lifestyle choice, in a way that wearing a hijab is not.
In the case of the self-proclaimed Jedi who was kicked out of a job centre for refusing to remove his hood, he may, possibly, be able to sustain the assertion that being a Jedi itself is a protected belief. But there is no
body of Jedi sacred literature which contains a requirement, or even an exhortation, to be hooded in public. There are no Jedi gurus, priests or spiritual leaders who are on record as stating that wearing a hood is a requirement of their faith. Moreover, while commonly depicted wearing a
hood, Obi-Wan Kenobi (may his name be praised) was regularly seen unhooded, while Luke Skywalker (peace be upon him) rarely, if ever, wore a hood.
So a current adherent of the Jedi, while they may well choose to wear a hood as an expression of their faith, is under no obligation to do so and is therefore perfectly free to remove it when required (eg, when it conflicts with a "no headwear" rule) without in any way compromising their religious beliefs.
(More generally, unless I was running a shop selling Warhammer and D&D merchandise, if the job centre sent me an applicant who insisted on wearing
a Jedi hood I'd probably send him straight back again).
On 12 May 2025 09:18:44 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:...
...I don't really see your point. All religion is fiction. And the Scientologists
proved you can base a religion on recent totally unreasonable fiction.
I do agree that Scientology is problematic, due to its known origins. But it has now been around long enough for it to have genuine adherents who are unaware of the nature of its founder. Their beliefs are honestly held, even if those of its founder were not.
On Mon, 12 May 2025 10:21:10 +0100, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 12/05/2025 09:49, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2025 20:18:23 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
According to Fredxx's link, even Jedi are protected
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1258365/Jedi-believer-wins-apology-Jobcentre-kicked-wearing-hood.html
Although at that stage he had only received a grovelling apology from the Job
Centre. Who had had him escorted from the premises, on account of his hood.
However, subsequent decisions appear to cast doubt on that interpretation: >>>
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38368526
More generally, I think it would be hard to successfully argue in court that
being a Jedi is a belief that is genuinely held and has a certain level of >>> cogency, seriousness, cohesion, and importance[1]. Given that the Jedi are a
group of people in a well-known fictional series, it would, I think, be hard
for someone claiming to be a Jedi to successfully assert that they did not >>> know it was fiction.
[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/10/notes
I would hope that such an argument would be successful. We cannot judge
a personal belief.
There's a difference, also, between a genuinely held belief and the expression of that belief. A belief can be entirely genuine and protected, but that does not necessarily mean that every expression of that belief is protected.
For example, it is generally accepted that, in most cases (other than where overriden by specific other requirements such as health and safety), a
Muslim woman has a right to wear a headcovering, as that is explicitly
taught as a requirement of Islam. A female hijab-wearer, therefore, is not simply making a lifestyle choice, she is conforming to the normal practice
of her religion.
However, there is case law that a Christian employee does not have the right to wear a cross or crucifix in the workplace if that conflicts with a "no jewellery" rule. That's because, although many Christians do choose to wear
a symbol of their faith, equally many do not, and there is no suggestion
that those who do not are in any way being disobedient or non-conforming to their religion. So wearing a cross is purely a lifestyle choice, in a way that wearing a hijab is not.
In the case of the self-proclaimed Jedi who was kicked out of a job centre for refusing to remove his hood, he may, possibly, be able to sustain the assertion that being a Jedi itself is a protected belief. But there is no body of Jedi sacred literature which contains a requirement, or even an exhortation, to be hooded in public. There are no Jedi gurus, priests or spiritual leaders who are on record as stating that wearing a hood is a requirement of their faith. Moreover, while commonly depicted wearing a
hood, Obi-Wan Kenobi (may his name be praised) was regularly seen unhooded, while Luke Skywalker (peace be upon him) rarely, if ever, wore a hood.
So a current adherent of the Jedi, while they may well choose to wear a hood as an expression of their faith, is under no obligation to do so and is therefore perfectly free to remove it when required (eg, when it conflicts with a "no headwear" rule) without in any way compromising their religious beliefs.
(More generally, unless I was running a shop selling Warhammer and D&D merchandise, if the job centre sent me an applicant who insisted on wearing
a Jedi hood I'd probably send him straight back again).
On 16/05/2025 10:24 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 12/05/2025 15:07, Simon Parker wrote:
When you started the thread, it is understandable that you had no
knowledge, much less understanding, of the so-called "Grainger Criteria". >>
However, in a post in UNNM The Todal both detailed them and provided a >>>> reference to case law establishing them as a set of standards used to
determine if a belief is a protected philosophical belief under the
Equality Act 2010.
4. It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society.
That could apply to everything or nothing, as it just is a matter of
current mores and prejudices.
I'm not, offhand, aware of any case law which specifically interprets this >> requirement. But my own interpretation, and one which I would be prepared to >> argue in court if necessary, is that the belief must not be incompatible
with the fundamental principles of democracy itself. For example, while a
belief in God or some other supernatural entity is a protected belief, a
belief that the only valid form of government is an absolute theocracy would >> not be.
Merely disagreeing with the majority does not make a belief unworthy of
respect in a democratic society. But a belief that the majority should be
denied the opportunity to exercise their democratic rights would be unworthy >> of respect, and hence not a protected belief.
How would you enforce (and if thought necessary, punish), the holding of
a sincerely-held belief?
Not that it could apply to Jedi-ism, of course.
On 15/05/2025 06:32 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 15/05/2025 17:32, JNugent wrote:
On 15/05/2025 12:57 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 14/05/2025 12:19, JNugent wrote:
On 13/05/2025 01:44 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 13/05/2025 00:33, JNugent wrote:
On 12/05/2025 12:17 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 12/05/2025 10:50, JNugent wrote:
On 12/05/2025 10:21 AM, Fredxx wrote:
On 12/05/2025 09:49, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2025 20:18:23 +0100, "billy bookcase"
<billy@anon.com>
wrote:
According to Fredxx's link, even Jedi are protected
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1258365/Jedi-believer- >>>>>>>>>>>> wins- apology-Jobcentre-kicked-wearing-hood.html
Although at that stage he had only received a grovelling >>>>>>>>>>>> apology
from
the Job
Centre. Who had had him escorted from the premises, on >>>>>>>>>>>> account of
his
hood.
However, subsequent decisions appear to cast doubt on that >>>>>>>>>>> interpretation:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38368526
More generally, I think it would be hard to successfully >>>>>>>>>>> argue in
court that
being a Jedi is a belief that is genuinely held and has a >>>>>>>>>>> certain
level of
cogency, seriousness, cohesion, and importance[1]. Given that >>>>>>>>>>> the
Jedi
are a
group of people in a well-known fictional series, it would, I >>>>>>>>>>> think,
be hard
for someone claiming to be a Jedi to successfully assert that >>>>>>>>>>> they
did
not
know it was fiction.
[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/10/ >>>>>>>>>>> notes
I would hope that such an argument would be successful. We cannot >>>>>>>>>> judge
a personal belief.
We *can* and *may* judge it when it is clearly based on relatively >>>>>>>>> recent fiction and adopted as what its adherents obviously see >>>>>>>>> as a
joke.
All religious adherents are jokers, hell, belief in a mythical >>>>>>>> being?
Many religious observants attend a religious house just the once >>>>>>>> in a
year. What's more to like.
Indeed I recall at the time the concept of an unknown power that >>>>>>>>>> permeated across the universe was one some people accepted. The >>>>>>>>>> fact it
was later given the name of Jedi by an author is of less
importance. It
is simply a name.
You have just described the God of Judaism, Christianity and >>>>>>>>> Islam.
Quite so agreed nonsense and baseless. Jedi was based on numerous >>>>>>>> religions such as Buddhism and Taoism.
I have never heard or read anything which limits the power of that >>>>>>>>> God
to only a region of the universe. The doctrine is that God created >>>>>>>>> the
universe.
Then you're missing the point of the true Jedi belief.
You cannot credibly describe a piece of known fiction as "true".
And such a claim proves you miss the point.
What "point" would that be?
The one you fail to grasp, where your belief in a mythical being has
skewed any alternative beliefs.
Do you really believe that a "belief" in the (so called) Jedi religion >>>>> would survive five minutes of cross examination by competent counsel? >>>>>
I suppose if the religion had a single entity at its head such it >>>>>>>>>> might be seen as a god, such as Gozer, it would conform to more >>>>>>>>>> regular beliefs.
Only if it is believed in the first place. And there is no
reason to
suppose or accept that it is. Seperated from its fictional source, >>>>>>>>> it's a joke, though perhaps one that some people have taken
seriously
for reasons of their own.
Quite, many think The Force is a true influence in the universe.
Do they?
Mind you, there are many claims of threats to mental health these >>>>>>> days. It's the illness du jour.
After
all it is a belief and has more credence than a pervasive mythic >>>>>>>> being
you might call god.
Nobody "believes" what they know (for a fact) to have been
created as
a work of fiction in the middle of the 1970s.
Once again you are in denial that the concepts taken by George Lucas >>>>>> were already in existence such as Chi, Qi, Ki and Prana.
Is a "concept" a "belief"?
Once again you are in denial that the beliefs taken by George Lucas
were already in existence such as Chi, Qi, Ki and Prana.
There, that's better.
I was trading uninformed beliefs, such as a god, to be a concept where >>>> the thinking man knows better. My bad.
I presume you have a belief in some mythical being that precludes you >>>>>> from accepting this possibility?
Diversion.
An atheist would take the same standpoint.
Summary:
Fredxx has forgotten what the thread is about...
(hint: the question wass "Is Astrology a Religion?")
...and really seems to believe that a work of fiction written in the
mid-1970s for a movie is a religion (unless he is adopting that stance
merely for the sake of contrarianism).
NB1: You don't need to be a religious person in order to understand
that "jedi" is therefore not a religion, but is a piece of fiction
transformed by enough people with a sense of humour to be a
counterfeit "religion".
NB2: Even if you are a religious person, that does not prevent you
from recognising other religions as... er... religions.
Once again you are in denial that the beliefs taken by George Lucas
were already in existence such as Chi, Qi, Ki and Prana.
No. I decline to accept that the claimed adoption of such alleged
"beliefs" by members of western society who happen to have seen the
film(s) in question and thought it would be a jolly jape to put "Jedi"
on the census form amounts to a religion.
Why does your belief in your mythical being prevent you from
acknowledging that such beliefs do exist. Will your god punish you for
some indescribable crime if you did? Is your creed so week you can't
even consider a simple concept, sorry belief, that Chi, Qi, Ki and Prana
are indeed long held pre-existing beliefs?
You are resorting to an ad-hominem approach, something you sometimes
adopt when you cannot prevail in argument.
This isn't about me (as, indeed, several other recent discussions here
aren't about me, either).
On 15/05/2025 17:32, JNugent wrote:
On 15/05/2025 12:57 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 14/05/2025 12:19, JNugent wrote:
On 13/05/2025 01:44 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 13/05/2025 00:33, JNugent wrote:
On 12/05/2025 12:17 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 12/05/2025 10:50, JNugent wrote:
On 12/05/2025 10:21 AM, Fredxx wrote:
On 12/05/2025 09:49, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2025 20:18:23 +0100, "billy bookcase"
<billy@anon.com>
wrote:
According to Fredxx's link, even Jedi are protected
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1258365/Jedi-believer- >>>>>>>>>>> wins- apology-Jobcentre-kicked-wearing-hood.html
Although at that stage he had only received a grovelling apology >>>>>>>>>>> from
the Job
Centre. Who had had him escorted from the premises, on
account of
his
hood.
However, subsequent decisions appear to cast doubt on that >>>>>>>>>> interpretation:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38368526
More generally, I think it would be hard to successfully argue in >>>>>>>>>> court that
being a Jedi is a belief that is genuinely held and has a certain >>>>>>>>>> level of
cogency, seriousness, cohesion, and importance[1]. Given that the >>>>>>>>>> Jedi
are a
group of people in a well-known fictional series, it would, I >>>>>>>>>> think,
be hard
for someone claiming to be a Jedi to successfully assert that >>>>>>>>>> they
did
not
know it was fiction.
[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/10/notes >>>>>>>>>
I would hope that such an argument would be successful. We cannot >>>>>>>>> judge
a personal belief.
We *can* and *may* judge it when it is clearly based on relatively >>>>>>>> recent fiction and adopted as what its adherents obviously see as a >>>>>>>> joke.
All religious adherents are jokers, hell, belief in a mythical
being?
Many religious observants attend a religious house just the once >>>>>>> in a
year. What's more to like.
Quite so agreed nonsense and baseless. Jedi was based on numerous >>>>>>> religions such as Buddhism and Taoism.Indeed I recall at the time the concept of an unknown power that >>>>>>>>> permeated across the universe was one some people accepted. The >>>>>>>>> fact it
was later given the name of Jedi by an author is of less
importance. It
is simply a name.
You have just described the God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. >>>>>>>
I have never heard or read anything which limits the power of that >>>>>>>> God
to only a region of the universe. The doctrine is that God created >>>>>>>> the
universe.
Then you're missing the point of the true Jedi belief.
You cannot credibly describe a piece of known fiction as "true".
And such a claim proves you miss the point.
What "point" would that be?
The one you fail to grasp, where your belief in a mythical being has
skewed any alternative beliefs.
Do you really believe that a "belief" in the (so called) Jedi religion >>>> would survive five minutes of cross examination by competent counsel?
I suppose if the religion had a single entity at its head such it >>>>>>>>> might be seen as a god, such as Gozer, it would conform to more >>>>>>>>> regular beliefs.
Only if it is believed in the first place. And there is no
reason to
suppose or accept that it is. Seperated from its fictional source, >>>>>>>> it's a joke, though perhaps one that some people have taken
seriously
for reasons of their own.
Quite, many think The Force is a true influence in the universe.
Do they?
Mind you, there are many claims of threats to mental health these
days. It's the illness du jour.
After
all it is a belief and has more credence than a pervasive mythic >>>>>>> being
you might call god.
Nobody "believes" what they know (for a fact) to have been created as >>>>>> a work of fiction in the middle of the 1970s.
Once again you are in denial that the concepts taken by George Lucas >>>>> were already in existence such as Chi, Qi, Ki and Prana.
Is a "concept" a "belief"?
Once again you are in denial that the beliefs taken by George Lucas
were already in existence such as Chi, Qi, Ki and Prana.
There, that's better.
I was trading uninformed beliefs, such as a god, to be a concept where
the thinking man knows better. My bad.
I presume you have a belief in some mythical being that precludes you >>>>> from accepting this possibility?
Diversion.
An atheist would take the same standpoint.
Summary:
Fredxx has forgotten what the thread is about...
(hint: the question wass "Is Astrology a Religion?")
...and really seems to believe that a work of fiction written in the
mid-1970s for a movie is a religion (unless he is adopting that stance
merely for the sake of contrarianism).
NB1: You don't need to be a religious person in order to understand
that "jedi" is therefore not a religion, but is a piece of fiction
transformed by enough people with a sense of humour to be a
counterfeit "religion".
NB2: Even if you are a religious person, that does not prevent you
from recognising other religions as... er... religions.
Once again you are in denial that the beliefs taken by George Lucas
were already in existence such as Chi, Qi, Ki and Prana.
Why does your belief in your mythical being prevent you from
acknowledging that such beliefs do exist. Will your god punish you for
some indescribable crime if you did? Is your creed so week you can't
even consider a simple concept, sorry belief, that Chi, Qi, Ki and Prana
are indeed long held pre-existing beliefs?
On 15/05/2025 08:31 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2025 17:32:26 +0100, JNugent wrote:
...and really seems to believe that a work of fiction written in the
mid-1970s for a movie is a religion (unless he is adopting that stance
merely for the sake of contrarianism).
And the Bible isn't a collection of campfire tales ?
That is not the matter at issue and is an attempt at diversion.
I guess JNugent hasn't read "Foucault's Pendulum". It doesn't matter
what something's original author intended, what matters is what people believe about the thing.
On 16 May 2025 at 12:42:58 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
That is totally to miss the point of the Equality Act. It protects
people from unfair discrimination because of the expression of their
beliefs.
On 16 May 2025 at 10:24:46 BST, "Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2025 17:48:28 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 12/05/2025 15:07, Simon Parker wrote:
When you started the thread, it is understandable that you had no
knowledge, much less understanding, of the so-called "Grainger Criteria". >>>>
However, in a post in UNNM The Todal both detailed them and provided a >>>> reference to case law establishing them as a set of standards used to
determine if a belief is a protected philosophical belief under the
Equality Act 2010.
4. It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society.
That could apply to everything or nothing, as it just is a matter of
current mores and prejudices.
I'm not, offhand, aware of any case law which specifically interprets this >> requirement.
I believe the quotation is from:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60c1cce1d3bf7f4bd9814e39/Maya_Forstater_v_CGD_Europe_and_others_UKEAT0105_20_JOJ.pdf
But my own interpretation, and one which I would be prepared to
argue in court if necessary, is that the belief must not be incompatible
with the fundamental principles of democracy itself. For example, while a
belief in God or some other supernatural entity is a protected belief, a
belief that the only valid form of government is an absolute theocracy would >> not be.
Merely disagreeing with the majority does not make a belief unworthy of
respect in a democratic society. But a belief that the majority should be
denied the opportunity to exercise their democratic rights would be unworthy >> of respect, and hence not a protected belief.
Mark
On 16/05/2025 11:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 May 2025 at 10:24:46 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2025 17:48:28 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 12/05/2025 15:07, Simon Parker wrote:
When you started the thread, it is understandable that you had no
knowledge, much less understanding, of the so-called "Grainger
Criteria".
However, in a post in UNNM The Todal both detailed them and provided a >>>>> reference to case law establishing them as a set of standards used to >>>>> determine if a belief is a protected philosophical belief under the
Equality Act 2010.
4. It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society.
That could apply to everything or nothing, as it just is a matter of
current mores and prejudices.
I'm not, offhand, aware of any case law which specifically interprets
this
requirement.
I believe the quotation is from:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/
media/60c1cce1d3bf7f4bd9814e39/
Maya_Forstater_v_CGD_Europe_and_others_UKEAT0105_20_JOJ.pdf
Which decided of course that Ms Forstater's belief as to gender identity *was* a philosophical belief falling within Section 10 of the Equality
Act, and is therefore a protected characteristic.
And if that is, a belief in astrology can hardly be excluded.
 But my own interpretation, and one which I would be prepared to
argue in court if necessary, is that the belief must not be incompatible >>> with the fundamental principles of democracy itself. For example,
while a
belief in God or some other supernatural entity is a protected belief, a >>> belief that the only valid form of government is an absolute
theocracy would
not be.
Merely disagreeing with the majority does not make a belief unworthy of
respect in a democratic society. But a belief that the majority
should be
denied the opportunity to exercise their democratic rights would be
unworthy
of respect, and hence not a protected belief.
Mark
But the Equality Act doesn't say that. It says '*any* philosophical
belief' is covered, not just what you think is 'worthy of respect' or
would like it to have said. And any 'interpretation' of that which
excludes some philosophical beliefs is in fact clearly a
misinterpretation contrary to the will of Parliament which enacted what
it did and nothing else.
On 2025-05-16, Mark Goodge wrote:
On 12 May 2025 09:18:44 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:...
...I don't really see your point. All religion is fiction. And the >>>Scientologists proved you can base a religion on recent totally >>>unreasonable fiction.
I do agree that Scientology is problematic, due to its known origins.
But it has now been around long enough for it to have genuine adherents
who are unaware of the nature of its founder. Their beliefs are
honestly held, even if those of its founder were not.
The German government certainly treats Scientology as a commercial
operation, not a religion.
On 16/05/2025 12:48, JNugent wrote:
On 15/05/2025 08:31 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2025 17:32:26 +0100, JNugent wrote:
...and really seems to believe that a work of fiction written in the
mid-1970s for a movie is a religion (unless he is adopting that
stance merely for the sake of contrarianism).
And the Bible isn't a collection of campfire tales ?
That is not the matter at issue and is an attempt at diversion.
So you finally agree that all beliefs based on fiction should be
respected?
On 15/05/2025 06:32 PM, Fredxx wrote:
[quoted text muted]
No. I decline to accept that the claimed adoption of such alleged
"beliefs" by members of western society who happen to have seen the
film(s) in question and thought it would be a jolly jape to put "Jedi"
on the census form amounts to a religion.
On 16/05/2025 14:36, Norman Wells wrote:
On 16/05/2025 11:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 May 2025 at 10:24:46 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2025 17:48:28 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> >>>> wrote:
On 12/05/2025 15:07, Simon Parker wrote:
When you started the thread, it is understandable that you had no
knowledge, much less understanding, of the so-called "Grainger
Criteria".
However, in a post in UNNM The Todal both detailed them and provided a >>>>>> reference to case law establishing them as a set of standards used to >>>>>> determine if a belief is a protected philosophical belief under the >>>>>> Equality Act 2010.
4. It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society.
That could apply to everything or nothing, as it just is a matter of >>>>> current mores and prejudices.
I'm not, offhand, aware of any case law which specifically interprets
this
requirement.
I believe the quotation is from:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/
media/60c1cce1d3bf7f4bd9814e39/
Maya_Forstater_v_CGD_Europe_and_others_UKEAT0105_20_JOJ.pdf
Which decided of course that Ms Forstater's belief as to gender identity
*was* a philosophical belief falling within Section 10 of the Equality
Act, and is therefore a protected characteristic.
And if that is, a belief in astrology can hardly be excluded.
But my own interpretation, and one which I would be prepared to
argue in court if necessary, is that the belief must not be incompatible >>>> with the fundamental principles of democracy itself. For example,
while a
belief in God or some other supernatural entity is a protected belief, a >>>> belief that the only valid form of government is an absolute
theocracy would
not be.
Merely disagreeing with the majority does not make a belief unworthy of >>>> respect in a democratic society. But a belief that the majority
should be
denied the opportunity to exercise their democratic rights would be
unworthy
of respect, and hence not a protected belief.
Mark
But the Equality Act doesn't say that. It says '*any* philosophical
belief' is covered, not just what you think is 'worthy of respect' or
would like it to have said. And any 'interpretation' of that which
excludes some philosophical beliefs is in fact clearly a
misinterpretation contrary to the will of Parliament which enacted what
it did and nothing else.
You've either forgotten Grainger v Nicholson or you've decided to ignore
it because it doesn't fit with your argument.
On Fri, 16 May 2025 12:48:46 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 May 2025 at 12:42:58 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
That is totally to miss the point of the Equality Act. It protects
people from unfair discrimination because of the expression of their
beliefs.
For some value of beliefs, of course. Only you can't have an equality act that defines inequality, so it's better to leave it up to the courts ...
You've managed to use 3 subjective terms in one sentence ... "belief", "expression" and "unfair" :)
On 16 May 2025 at 12:42:58 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 16/05/2025 10:24 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 12/05/2025 15:07, Simon Parker wrote:
When you started the thread, it is understandable that you had no
knowledge, much less understanding, of the so-called "Grainger Criteria". >>>
However, in a post in UNNM The Todal both detailed them and provided a >>>>> reference to case law establishing them as a set of standards used to >>>>> determine if a belief is a protected philosophical belief under the
Equality Act 2010.
4. It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society.
That could apply to everything or nothing, as it just is a matter of
current mores and prejudices.
I'm not, offhand, aware of any case law which specifically interprets this >>> requirement. But my own interpretation, and one which I would be prepared to
argue in court if necessary, is that the belief must not be incompatible >>> with the fundamental principles of democracy itself. For example, while a >>> belief in God or some other supernatural entity is a protected belief, a >>> belief that the only valid form of government is an absolute theocracy would
not be.
Merely disagreeing with the majority does not make a belief unworthy of
respect in a democratic society. But a belief that the majority should be >>> denied the opportunity to exercise their democratic rights would be unworthy
of respect, and hence not a protected belief.
How would you enforce (and if thought necessary, punish), the holding of
a sincerely-held belief?
Not that it could apply to Jedi-ism, of course.
That is totally to miss the point of the Equality Act. It protects people from
unfair discrimination because of the expression of their beliefs.
As you point
out, that is the only way it could work. Like sacking someone because he was seen on an Orange march, that sort of thing.
On 16/05/2025 12:48, JNugent wrote:
On 15/05/2025 08:31 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2025 17:32:26 +0100, JNugent wrote:
...and really seems to believe that a work of fiction written in the
mid-1970s for a movie is a religion (unless he is adopting that stance >>>> merely for the sake of contrarianism).
And the Bible isn't a collection of campfire tales ?
That is not the matter at issue and is an attempt at diversion.
So you finally agree that all beliefs based on fiction should be respected?
On 16/05/2025 01:48 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 May 2025 at 12:42:58 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 16/05/2025 10:24 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 12/05/2025 15:07, Simon Parker wrote:
When you started the thread, it is understandable that you had no
knowledge, much less understanding, of the so-called "Grainger Criteria".
However, in a post in UNNM The Todal both detailed them and provided a >>>>>> reference to case law establishing them as a set of standards used to >>>>>> determine if a belief is a protected philosophical belief under the >>>>>> Equality Act 2010.
4. It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society.
That could apply to everything or nothing, as it just is a matter of >>>>> current mores and prejudices.
I'm not, offhand, aware of any case law which specifically interprets this >>>> requirement. But my own interpretation, and one which I would be prepared to
argue in court if necessary, is that the belief must not be incompatible >>>> with the fundamental principles of democracy itself. For example, while a >>>> belief in God or some other supernatural entity is a protected belief, a >>>> belief that the only valid form of government is an absolute theocracy would
not be.
Merely disagreeing with the majority does not make a belief unworthy of >>>> respect in a democratic society. But a belief that the majority should be >>>> denied the opportunity to exercise their democratic rights would be unworthy
of respect, and hence not a protected belief.
How would you enforce (and if thought necessary, punish), the holding of >>> a sincerely-held belief?
Not that it could apply to Jedi-ism, of course.
That is totally to miss the point of the Equality Act. It protects people from
unfair discrimination because of the expression of their beliefs.
But the PP was talking of a belief that is (in his opinion) NOT
protected by law. My question was related to that.
As you point
out, that is the only way it could work. Like sacking someone because he was >> seen on an Orange march, that sort of thing.
A Catholic Diocesan office (an employer - and they do exist) might feel
and be justified in that!
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrn102e12n.3nd.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
I guess JNugent hasn't read "Foucault's Pendulum". It doesn't matter
what something's original author intended, what matters is what people
believe about the thing.
Or whether authors such as Dan Brown, start believing in it too.
When he was asked whether he had read "The Da Vinci Code", which came
out 15 years later, Umberto Eco replied
quote:
I was obliged to read it because everybody was asking me about it. My
answer is that Dan Brown is one of the characters in my novel Foucault's Pendulum, which is about people who start believing in occult stuff.
... But you yourself seem interested in the kabbalah, alchemy, and other occult practices explored in the novel. ...
No. In Foucault's Pendulum I wrote the grotesque representation of these
kind of people. So Dan Brown is one of my creatures.
:unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault%27s_Pendulum
On Fri, 16 May 2025 13:21:23 +0100, Fredxx wrote:
On 16/05/2025 12:48, JNugent wrote:
On 15/05/2025 08:31 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2025 17:32:26 +0100, JNugent wrote:
...and really seems to believe that a work of fiction written in the >>>>> mid-1970s for a movie is a religion (unless he is adopting that
stance merely for the sake of contrarianism).
And the Bible isn't a collection of campfire tales ?
That is not the matter at issue and is an attempt at diversion.
So you finally agree that all beliefs based on fiction should be
respected?
No. He is trying to have his cake and eat it. "My load of made up stories
is better than your load of made up stories because more people over time have claimed* they believe it"
*It is a mistake to assume our forebears were any more (or less) pious
than we were.
On Fri, 16 May 2025 12:47:41 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 15/05/2025 06:32 PM, Fredxx wrote:
[quoted text muted]
No. I decline to accept that the claimed adoption of such alleged
"beliefs" by members of western society who happen to have seen the
film(s) in question and thought it would be a jolly jape to put "Jedi"
on the census form amounts to a religion.
I don't wish to put words into your mouth, so I want to understand if you
are suggesting that the origins of fiction have a bearing on how sacral
they can be taken ?
If that isn't the case, then my subsequent question as to which origins
are acceptable and which are not is redundant, if not pertinent.
On 16 May 2025 at 15:26:23 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 16/05/2025 14:36, Norman Wells wrote:
On 16/05/2025 11:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 May 2025 at 10:24:46 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2025 17:48:28 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> >>>>> wrote:
On 12/05/2025 15:07, Simon Parker wrote:
When you started the thread, it is understandable that you had no >>>>>>> knowledge, much less understanding, of the so-called "Grainger
Criteria".
However, in a post in UNNM The Todal both detailed them and provided a >>>>>>> reference to case law establishing them as a set of standards used to >>>>>>> determine if a belief is a protected philosophical belief under the >>>>>>> Equality Act 2010.
4. It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society.
That could apply to everything or nothing, as it just is a matter of >>>>>> current mores and prejudices.
I'm not, offhand, aware of any case law which specifically interprets >>>>> this
requirement.
I believe the quotation is from:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/
media/60c1cce1d3bf7f4bd9814e39/
Maya_Forstater_v_CGD_Europe_and_others_UKEAT0105_20_JOJ.pdf
Which decided of course that Ms Forstater's belief as to gender identity >>> *was* a philosophical belief falling within Section 10 of the Equality
Act, and is therefore a protected characteristic.
And if that is, a belief in astrology can hardly be excluded.
But my own interpretation, and one which I would be prepared to
argue in court if necessary, is that the belief must not be incompatible >>>>> with the fundamental principles of democracy itself. For example,
while a
belief in God or some other supernatural entity is a protected belief, a >>>>> belief that the only valid form of government is an absolute
theocracy would
not be.
Merely disagreeing with the majority does not make a belief unworthy of >>>>> respect in a democratic society. But a belief that the majority
should be
denied the opportunity to exercise their democratic rights would be
unworthy
of respect, and hence not a protected belief.
Mark
But the Equality Act doesn't say that. It says '*any* philosophical
belief' is covered, not just what you think is 'worthy of respect' or
would like it to have said. And any 'interpretation' of that which
excludes some philosophical beliefs is in fact clearly a
misinterpretation contrary to the will of Parliament which enacted what
it did and nothing else.
You've either forgotten Grainger v Nicholson or you've decided to ignore
it because it doesn't fit with your argument.
I didn't mention it I'm afraid but of course it made sense of when a philosphical belief could give rise to a discrimination claim - the very point
Norman is missing by talking in the abstract about whether something is a belief or not.
But the Equality Act doesn't say that. It says '*any* philosophical belief' is
covered, not just what you think is 'worthy of respect' or would like it to have said.
And any 'interpretation' of that which excludes some philosophical beliefs is in fact
clearly a misinterpretation contrary to the will of Parliament which enacted what it
did and nothing else
On 16 May 2025 at 15:51:27 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 16/05/2025 01:48 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
As you point
out, that is the only way it could work. Like sacking someone because he was
seen on an Orange march, that sort of thing.
A Catholic Diocesan office (an employer - and they do exist) might feel
and be justified in that!
Well indeed, I think employing people not overtly anti-catholics in a church institution would probably be seen as a proportionate means to a legitimate end. And not unlawful discrimination.
If it was a council office, not so much.
On 16/05/2025 03:30 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2025 13:21:23 +0100, Fredxx wrote:
On 16/05/2025 12:48, JNugent wrote:
On 15/05/2025 08:31 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2025 17:32:26 +0100, JNugent wrote:
...and really seems to believe that a work of fiction written in the >>>>>> mid-1970s for a movie is a religion (unless he is adopting that
stance merely for the sake of contrarianism).
And the Bible isn't a collection of campfire tales ?
That is not the matter at issue and is an attempt at diversion.
So you finally agree that all beliefs based on fiction should be
respected?
No. He is trying to have his cake and eat it. "My load of made up stories
is better than your load of made up stories because more people over time
have claimed* they believe it"
Please cease trying to guess what I would have written had I decided to
give answers to your irrelevant questions.
You will never be right, for reasons you cannot understand.
*It is a mistake to assume our forebears were any more (or less) pious
than we were.
Or more or less intelligent.
On 16/05/2025 01:21 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 16/05/2025 12:48, JNugent wrote:
On 15/05/2025 08:31 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2025 17:32:26 +0100, JNugent wrote:
...and really seems to believe that a work of fiction written in the >>>>> mid-1970s for a movie is a religion (unless he is adopting that stance >>>>> merely for the sake of contrarianism).
And the Bible isn't a collection of campfire tales ?
That is not the matter at issue and is an attempt at diversion.
So you finally agree that all beliefs based on fiction should be
respected?
What *I* believe is not the matter under discussion.
We were discussing factual matters - such as how anyone who claims to
follow a "religion" based on undoubted fiction can be taken seriously
(and, indeed, whether they even expect to be taken seriously).
On 16/05/2025 15:26, The Todal wrote:
On 16/05/2025 14:36, Norman Wells wrote:
On 16/05/2025 11:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 May 2025 at 10:24:46 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2025 17:48:28 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> >>>>> wrote:
On 12/05/2025 15:07, Simon Parker wrote:
When you started the thread, it is understandable that you had no >>>>>>> knowledge, much less understanding, of the so-called "Grainger
Criteria".
However, in a post in UNNM The Todal both detailed them and
provided a
reference to case law establishing them as a set of standards used to >>>>>>> determine if a belief is a protected philosophical belief under the >>>>>>> Equality Act 2010.
4. It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society.
That could apply to everything or nothing, as it just is a matter of >>>>>> current mores and prejudices.
I'm not, offhand, aware of any case law which specifically
interprets this
requirement.
I believe the quotation is from:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/
media/60c1cce1d3bf7f4bd9814e39/
Maya_Forstater_v_CGD_Europe_and_others_UKEAT0105_20_JOJ.pdf
Which decided of course that Ms Forstater's belief as to gender
identity *was* a philosophical belief falling within Section 10 of the
Equality Act, and is therefore a protected characteristic.
And if that is, a belief in astrology can hardly be excluded.
But my own interpretation, and one which I would be prepared to
argue in court if necessary, is that the belief must not be
incompatible
with the fundamental principles of democracy itself. For example,
while a
belief in God or some other supernatural entity is a protected
belief, a
belief that the only valid form of government is an absolute
theocracy would
not be.
Merely disagreeing with the majority does not make a belief unworthy of >>>>> respect in a democratic society. But a belief that the majority
should be
denied the opportunity to exercise their democratic rights would be
unworthy
of respect, and hence not a protected belief.
Mark
But the Equality Act doesn't say that. It says '*any* philosophical
belief' is covered, not just what you think is 'worthy of respect' or
would like it to have said. And any 'interpretation' of that which
excludes some philosophical beliefs is in fact clearly a
misinterpretation contrary to the will of Parliament which enacted
what it did and nothing else.
You've either forgotten Grainger v Nicholson or you've decided to ignore
it because it doesn't fit with your argument.
I have neither forgotten it nor ignored it.
I am saying that it was wrongly decided, and unconstitutionally usurps
the will of Parliament. Parliament clearly intended *any* philosophical belief to be a protected characteristic, which is what the Act
specifically and unambiguously says. Grainger decided to ignore that
and introduce restrictions that the Act did not contain.
It is not a permissible function of the courts notionally to rewrite any
Act into a form that it likes better. All it is there to do is apply
the law as Parliament enacted it. Anything else is acting ultra-vires,
and undermines Parliamentary supremacy.
There is no justifiable basis in law for going first to European
directives and legislation and concluding that a UK Act either doesn't
mean what it clearly says or would better have said something else, concluding that it therefore does. If a Court thinks an Act as enacted
is incompatible with European law, the correct course is for it to say
so, make a declaration to that effect, and wait for Parliament to amend
the law. But it didn't.
Regardless of that, there is nothing in Grainger anyway that would mean
or even indicate astrology is not a philosophical belief.
On 16/05/2025 15:34, Roger Hayter wrote:It says what it says. Which is that you cannot discriminate against someone on the grounds of a belief provided that a) it is expressed in a reasonable way;
On 16 May 2025 at 15:26:23 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 16/05/2025 14:36, Norman Wells wrote:
On 16/05/2025 11:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 May 2025 at 10:24:46 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2025 17:48:28 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On 12/05/2025 15:07, Simon Parker wrote:
When you started the thread, it is understandable that you had no >>>>>>>> knowledge, much less understanding, of the so-called "Grainger >>>>>>>> Criteria".
However, in a post in UNNM The Todal both detailed them and provided a >>>>>>>> reference to case law establishing them as a set of standards used to >>>>>>>> determine if a belief is a protected philosophical belief under the >>>>>>>> Equality Act 2010.
4. It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society.
That could apply to everything or nothing, as it just is a matter of >>>>>>> current mores and prejudices.
I'm not, offhand, aware of any case law which specifically interprets >>>>>> this
requirement.
I believe the quotation is from:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/
media/60c1cce1d3bf7f4bd9814e39/
Maya_Forstater_v_CGD_Europe_and_others_UKEAT0105_20_JOJ.pdf
Which decided of course that Ms Forstater's belief as to gender identity >>>> *was* a philosophical belief falling within Section 10 of the Equality >>>> Act, and is therefore a protected characteristic.
And if that is, a belief in astrology can hardly be excluded.
But my own interpretation, and one which I would be prepared to >>>>>> argue in court if necessary, is that the belief must not be incompatible >>>>>> with the fundamental principles of democracy itself. For example,
while a
belief in God or some other supernatural entity is a protected belief, a >>>>>> belief that the only valid form of government is an absolute
theocracy would
not be.
Merely disagreeing with the majority does not make a belief unworthy of >>>>>> respect in a democratic society. But a belief that the majority
should be
denied the opportunity to exercise their democratic rights would be >>>>>> unworthy
of respect, and hence not a protected belief.
Mark
But the Equality Act doesn't say that. It says '*any* philosophical
belief' is covered, not just what you think is 'worthy of respect' or
would like it to have said. And any 'interpretation' of that which
excludes some philosophical beliefs is in fact clearly a
misinterpretation contrary to the will of Parliament which enacted what >>>> it did and nothing else.
You've either forgotten Grainger v Nicholson or you've decided to ignore >>> it because it doesn't fit with your argument.
I didn't mention it I'm afraid but of course it made sense of when a
philosphical belief could give rise to a discrimination claim - the very point
Norman is missing by talking in the abstract about whether something is a
belief or not.
The point *you* are missing is that the Equality Act does not allow for
any such exceptions.
On 16/05/2025 14:36, Norman Wells wrote:
On 16/05/2025 11:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 May 2025 at 10:24:46 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2025 17:48:28 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> >>>> wrote:
On 12/05/2025 15:07, Simon Parker wrote:
When you started the thread, it is understandable that you had no
knowledge, much less understanding, of the so-called "Grainger
Criteria".
However, in a post in UNNM The Todal both detailed them and
provided a
reference to case law establishing them as a set of standards used to >>>>>> determine if a belief is a protected philosophical belief under the >>>>>> Equality Act 2010.
4. It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society.
That could apply to everything or nothing, as it just is a matter of >>>>> current mores and prejudices.
I'm not, offhand, aware of any case law which specifically
interprets this
requirement.
I believe the quotation is from:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/
media/60c1cce1d3bf7f4bd9814e39/
Maya_Forstater_v_CGD_Europe_and_others_UKEAT0105_20_JOJ.pdf
Which decided of course that Ms Forstater's belief as to gender
identity *was* a philosophical belief falling within Section 10 of the
Equality Act, and is therefore a protected characteristic.
And if that is, a belief in astrology can hardly be excluded.
 But my own interpretation, and one which I would be prepared to
argue in court if necessary, is that the belief must not be
incompatible
with the fundamental principles of democracy itself. For example,
while a
belief in God or some other supernatural entity is a protected
belief, a
belief that the only valid form of government is an absolute
theocracy would
not be.
Merely disagreeing with the majority does not make a belief unworthy of >>>> respect in a democratic society. But a belief that the majority
should be
denied the opportunity to exercise their democratic rights would be
unworthy
of respect, and hence not a protected belief.
Mark
But the Equality Act doesn't say that. It says '*any* philosophical
belief' is covered, not just what you think is 'worthy of respect' or
would like it to have said. And any 'interpretation' of that which
excludes some philosophical beliefs is in fact clearly a
misinterpretation contrary to the will of Parliament which enacted
what it did and nothing else.
You've either forgotten Grainger v Nicholson or you've decided to ignore
it because it doesn't fit with your argument.
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:m8otamFj9i2U1@mid.individual.net...
But the Equality Act doesn't say that. It says '*any* philosophical belief' is
covered, not just what you think is 'worthy of respect' or would like it to have said.
And any 'interpretation' of that which excludes some philosophical beliefs is in fact
clearly a misinterpretation contrary to the will of Parliament which enacted what it
did and nothing else
quote:
52.The criteria for determining what is a "philosophical belief" are that it must be
genuinely held; be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present
state of information available; be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect
of human life and behaviour; attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance; *and be worthy of respect* in a democratic society,.
:unquote
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/10/notes
Link as provided by Mark Goodge on 12 May
On 16 May 2025 at 17:28:46 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 16/05/2025 15:34, Roger Hayter wrote:It says what it says. Which is that you cannot discriminate against someone on
On 16 May 2025 at 15:26:23 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>
On 16/05/2025 14:36, Norman Wells wrote:
On 16/05/2025 11:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 May 2025 at 10:24:46 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2025 17:48:28 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 12/05/2025 15:07, Simon Parker wrote:
When you started the thread, it is understandable that you had no >>>>>>>>> knowledge, much less understanding, of the so-called "Grainger >>>>>>>>> Criteria".
However, in a post in UNNM The Todal both detailed them and provided a
reference to case law establishing them as a set of standards used to >>>>>>>>> determine if a belief is a protected philosophical belief under the >>>>>>>>> Equality Act 2010.
4. It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society.
That could apply to everything or nothing, as it just is a matter of >>>>>>>> current mores and prejudices.
I'm not, offhand, aware of any case law which specifically interprets >>>>>>> this
requirement.
I believe the quotation is from:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/
media/60c1cce1d3bf7f4bd9814e39/
Maya_Forstater_v_CGD_Europe_and_others_UKEAT0105_20_JOJ.pdf
Which decided of course that Ms Forstater's belief as to gender identity >>>>> *was* a philosophical belief falling within Section 10 of the Equality >>>>> Act, and is therefore a protected characteristic.
And if that is, a belief in astrology can hardly be excluded.
But my own interpretation, and one which I would be prepared to >>>>>>> argue in court if necessary, is that the belief must not be incompatible
with the fundamental principles of democracy itself. For example, >>>>>>> while a
belief in God or some other supernatural entity is a protected belief, a
belief that the only valid form of government is an absolute
theocracy would
not be.
Merely disagreeing with the majority does not make a belief unworthy of >>>>>>> respect in a democratic society. But a belief that the majority
should be
denied the opportunity to exercise their democratic rights would be >>>>>>> unworthy
of respect, and hence not a protected belief.
Mark
But the Equality Act doesn't say that. It says '*any* philosophical >>>>> belief' is covered, not just what you think is 'worthy of respect' or >>>>> would like it to have said. And any 'interpretation' of that which
excludes some philosophical beliefs is in fact clearly a
misinterpretation contrary to the will of Parliament which enacted what >>>>> it did and nothing else.
You've either forgotten Grainger v Nicholson or you've decided to ignore >>>> it because it doesn't fit with your argument.
I didn't mention it I'm afraid but of course it made sense of when a
philosphical belief could give rise to a discrimination claim - the very point
Norman is missing by talking in the abstract about whether something is a >>> belief or not.
The point *you* are missing is that the Equality Act does not allow for
any such exceptions.
the grounds of a belief provided that a) it is expressed in a reasonable way;
and b) there is no proportionate justification for discriminating against its
holder for legitimate reasons.
JNugent and I were just discussing the idea that the Catholic church could discriminate against a Protestant Orange marcher (which is undoubtedly a religious belief, but expressed in an offensive way) who applied for a job in a church organisation.
So you are completely and utterly mistaken.
On 16/05/2025 15:39, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:m8otamFj9i2U1@mid.individual.net...
But the Equality Act doesn't say that. It says '*any* philosophical belief' is
covered, not just what you think is 'worthy of respect' or would like it to have
said.
And any 'interpretation' of that which excludes some philosophical beliefs is in fact
clearly a misinterpretation contrary to the will of Parliament which enacted what it
did and nothing else
quote:
52.The criteria for determining what is a "philosophical belief" are that it must be
genuinely held; be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present
state of information available; be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect
of human life and behaviour; attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, >> cohesion and importance; *and be worthy of respect* in a democratic society,.
:unquote
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/10/notes
Link as provided by Mark Goodge on 12 May
Please give a reference to a reliable source that says Notes form any part of an Act,
and can usurp absolutely clear words used in it.
On 16/05/2025 15:53, JNugent wrote:
On 16/05/2025 01:21 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 16/05/2025 12:48, JNugent wrote:
On 15/05/2025 08:31 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2025 17:32:26 +0100, JNugent wrote:
...and really seems to believe that a work of fiction written in the >>>>>> mid-1970s for a movie is a religion (unless he is adopting that
stance merely for the sake of contrarianism).
And the Bible isn't a collection of campfire tales ?
That is not the matter at issue and is an attempt at diversion.
So you finally agree that all beliefs based on fiction should be
respected?
What *I* believe is not the matter under discussion.
We were discussing factual matters - such as how anyone who claims to
follow a "religion" based on undoubted fiction can be taken seriously
(and, indeed, whether they even expect to be taken seriously).
That is why I don't take you seriously. The only difference is you have
an expectation of being taken seriously when you shouldn't.
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:m8pebhFlo67U3@mid.individual.net...
On 16/05/2025 15:39, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:m8otamFj9i2U1@mid.individual.net...
But the Equality Act doesn't say that. It says '*any* philosophical belief' is
covered, not just what you think is 'worthy of respect' or would like it to have
said.
And any 'interpretation' of that which excludes some philosophical beliefs is in fact
clearly a misinterpretation contrary to the will of Parliament which enacted what it
did and nothing else
quote:
52.The criteria for determining what is a "philosophical belief" are that it must be
genuinely held; be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present
state of information available; be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect
of human life and behaviour; attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness,
cohesion and importance; *and be worthy of respect* in a democratic society,.
:unquote
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/10/notes
Link as provided by Mark Goodge on 12 May
Please give a reference to a reliable source that says Notes form any part of an Act,
and can usurp absolutely clear words used in it.
quote:
Public General Acts - There are usually 25 to 50 new Public Acts each year.
Since 1999, most Public General Acts are accompanied by Explanatory Notes, *which explain in clear English what the Act sets out to achieve* and place its effect in context.
Stephen Laws, then First Parliamentary Counsel,
unquote
https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/legal-research-and-mooting-skills-programme/legislation
So there you have the then Parliamentary First Counsel, Stephen Laws, giving a
Lecture to the Faculty of Law in Oxford University, in which he explains how
"Explanatory Notes, explain in clear English what the Act sets out to achieve"
Maybe it's time you sharpened up your own research and mooting skills.
On 16/05/2025 20:10, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message >>news:m8pebhFlo67U3@mid.individual.net...
On 16/05/2025 15:39, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message >>>>news:m8otamFj9i2U1@mid.individual.net...
But the Equality Act doesn't say that. It says '*any* philosophical >>>>>belief' is
covered, not just what you think is 'worthy of respect' or would like it >>>>>to have
said.
And any 'interpretation' of that which excludes some philosophical beliefs >>>>>is in fact
clearly a misinterpretation contrary to the will of Parliament which >>>>>enacted what it
did and nothing else
quote:
52.The criteria for determining what is a "philosophical belief" are that >>>>it must be
genuinely held; be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the >>>>present
state of information available; be a belief as to a weighty and >>>>substantial aspect
of human life and behaviour; attain a certain level of cogency, >>>>seriousness,
cohesion and importance; *and be worthy of respect* in a democratic >>>>society,.
:unquote
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/10/notes
Link as provided by Mark Goodge on 12 May
Please give a reference to a reliable source that says Notes form any part >>>of an Act,
and can usurp absolutely clear words used in it.
quote:
Public General Acts - There are usually 25 to 50 new Public Acts each
year.
Since 1999, most Public General Acts are accompanied by Explanatory Notes, >>*which explain in clear English what the Act sets out to achieve* and
place
its effect in context.
Stephen Laws, then First Parliamentary Counsel,
unquote
https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/legal-research-and-mooting-skills-programme/legislation
So there you have the then Parliamentary First Counsel, Stephen Laws, >>giving a
Lecture to the Faculty of Law in Oxford University, in which he explains >>how
"Explanatory Notes, explain in clear English what the Act sets out to >>achieve"
Maybe it's time you sharpened up your own research and mooting skills.
The problem arises when what the Notes say differs from what the Act
actually prescribes. If the Act says something that is clear and >unambiguous, as Section 10 of the Equality Act does, then it cannot be >overridden by anything in 'Notes. What is enacted by Parliament in an Act
is the law, not what is in any 'Notes'.
On 16/05/2025 20:10, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:m8pebhFlo67U3@mid.individual.net...
On 16/05/2025 15:39, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:m8otamFj9i2U1@mid.individual.net...
But the Equality Act doesn't say that. It says '*any* philosophical belief' is
covered, not just what you think is 'worthy of respect' or would like it to have
said.
And any 'interpretation' of that which excludes some philosophical beliefs is in
fact
clearly a misinterpretation contrary to the will of Parliament which enacted what
it
did and nothing else
quote:
52.The criteria for determining what is a "philosophical belief" are that it must be
genuinely held; be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present
state of information available; be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect
of human life and behaviour; attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness,
cohesion and importance; *and be worthy of respect* in a democratic society,.
:unquote
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/10/notes
Link as provided by Mark Goodge on 12 May
Please give a reference to a reliable source that says Notes form any part of an Act,
and can usurp absolutely clear words used in it.
quote:
Public General Acts - There are usually 25 to 50 new Public Acts each year. >>
Since 1999, most Public General Acts are accompanied by Explanatory Notes, >> *which explain in clear English what the Act sets out to achieve* and place >> its effect in context.
Stephen Laws, then First Parliamentary Counsel,
unquote
https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/legal-research-and-mooting-skills-programme/legislation
So there you have the then Parliamentary First Counsel, Stephen Laws, giving a
Lecture to the Faculty of Law in Oxford University, in which he explains how >>
"Explanatory Notes, explain in clear English what the Act sets out to achieve"
Maybe it's time you sharpened up your own research and mooting skills.
The problem arises when what the Notes say differs from what the Act actually prescribes. If the Act says something that is clear and unambiguous, as Section 10 of
the Equality Act does,
then it cannot be overridden by anything in 'Notes. What is enacted by Parliament in
an Act is the law, not what is in any 'Notes'.
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:m8pqb3FnmbhU1@mid.individual.net...
On 16/05/2025 20:10, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:m8pebhFlo67U3@mid.individual.net...
On 16/05/2025 15:39, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:m8otamFj9i2U1@mid.individual.net...
But the Equality Act doesn't say that. It says '*any* philosophical belief' is
covered, not just what you think is 'worthy of respect' or would like it to have
said.
And any 'interpretation' of that which excludes some philosophical beliefs is in
fact
clearly a misinterpretation contrary to the will of Parliament which enacted what
it
did and nothing else
quote:
52.The criteria for determining what is a "philosophical belief" are that it must be
genuinely held; be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present
state of information available; be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect
of human life and behaviour; attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness,
cohesion and importance; *and be worthy of respect* in a democratic society,.
:unquote
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/10/notes
Link as provided by Mark Goodge on 12 May
Please give a reference to a reliable source that says Notes form any part of an Act,
and can usurp absolutely clear words used in it.
quote:
Public General Acts - There are usually 25 to 50 new Public Acts each year. >>>
Since 1999, most Public General Acts are accompanied by Explanatory Notes, >>> *which explain in clear English what the Act sets out to achieve* and place >>> its effect in context.
Stephen Laws, then First Parliamentary Counsel,
unquote
https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/legal-research-and-mooting-skills-programme/legislation
So there you have the then Parliamentary First Counsel, Stephen Laws, giving a
Lecture to the Faculty of Law in Oxford University, in which he explains how
"Explanatory Notes, explain in clear English what the Act sets out to achieve"
Maybe it's time you sharpened up your own research and mooting skills.
The problem arises when what the Notes say differs from what the Act actually
prescribes. If the Act says something that is clear and unambiguous, as Section 10 of
the Equality Act does,
Please provide a reference to the reliable source which provides that "clear and
unambiguous" definition" of the two word phrase "philosophical belief", as used
in Section 10, upon which you are basing your argument.
On 17/05/2025 09:29, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:m8pqb3FnmbhU1@mid.individual.net...
On 16/05/2025 20:10, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:m8pebhFlo67U3@mid.individual.net...
On 16/05/2025 15:39, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:m8otamFj9i2U1@mid.individual.net...
But the Equality Act doesn't say that. It says '*any* philosophical belief' is
covered, not just what you think is 'worthy of respect' or would like it to have
said.
And any 'interpretation' of that which excludes some philosophical beliefs is in
fact
clearly a misinterpretation contrary to the will of Parliament which enacted what
it
did and nothing else
quote:
52.The criteria for determining what is a "philosophical belief" are that it must
be
genuinely held; be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present
state of information available; be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect
of human life and behaviour; attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness,
cohesion and importance; *and be worthy of respect* in a democratic society,.
:unquote
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/10/notes
Link as provided by Mark Goodge on 12 May
Please give a reference to a reliable source that says Notes form any part of an
Act,
and can usurp absolutely clear words used in it.
quote:
Public General Acts - There are usually 25 to 50 new Public Acts each year.
Since 1999, most Public General Acts are accompanied by Explanatory Notes, >>>> *which explain in clear English what the Act sets out to achieve* and place
its effect in context.
Stephen Laws, then First Parliamentary Counsel,
unquote
https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/legal-research-and-mooting-skills-programme/legislation
So there you have the then Parliamentary First Counsel, Stephen Laws, giving a
Lecture to the Faculty of Law in Oxford University, in which he explains how
"Explanatory Notes, explain in clear English what the Act sets out to achieve"
Maybe it's time you sharpened up your own research and mooting skills.
The problem arises when what the Notes say differs from what the Act actually
prescribes. If the Act says something that is clear and unambiguous, as Section 10
of
the Equality Act does,
Please provide a reference to the reliable source which provides that "clear and
unambiguous" definition" of the two word phrase "philosophical belief", as used
in Section 10, upon which you are basing your argument.
These are ordinary English-language words with well-defined meanings you will find in
any English dictionary, for example:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/philosophy https://www.britannica.com/topic/philosophy https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/belief
Language puts lots of words together but they don't normally, as here, add up to more
than what each means separately.
On 16 May 2025 at 17:28:46 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 16/05/2025 15:34, Roger Hayter wrote:It says what it says. Which is that you cannot discriminate against someone on
On 16 May 2025 at 15:26:23 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>
On 16/05/2025 14:36, Norman Wells wrote:
On 16/05/2025 11:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 May 2025 at 10:24:46 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2025 17:48:28 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 12/05/2025 15:07, Simon Parker wrote:
When you started the thread, it is understandable that you had no >>>>>>>>> knowledge, much less understanding, of the so-called "Grainger >>>>>>>>> Criteria".
However, in a post in UNNM The Todal both detailed them and provided a
reference to case law establishing them as a set of standards used to >>>>>>>>> determine if a belief is a protected philosophical belief under the >>>>>>>>> Equality Act 2010.
4. It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society.
That could apply to everything or nothing, as it just is a matter of >>>>>>>> current mores and prejudices.
I'm not, offhand, aware of any case law which specifically interprets >>>>>>> this
requirement.
I believe the quotation is from:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/
media/60c1cce1d3bf7f4bd9814e39/
Maya_Forstater_v_CGD_Europe_and_others_UKEAT0105_20_JOJ.pdf
Which decided of course that Ms Forstater's belief as to gender identity >>>>> *was* a philosophical belief falling within Section 10 of the Equality >>>>> Act, and is therefore a protected characteristic.
And if that is, a belief in astrology can hardly be excluded.
But my own interpretation, and one which I would be prepared to >>>>>>> argue in court if necessary, is that the belief must not be incompatible
with the fundamental principles of democracy itself. For example, >>>>>>> while a
belief in God or some other supernatural entity is a protected belief, a
belief that the only valid form of government is an absolute
theocracy would
not be.
Merely disagreeing with the majority does not make a belief unworthy of >>>>>>> respect in a democratic society. But a belief that the majority
should be
denied the opportunity to exercise their democratic rights would be >>>>>>> unworthy
of respect, and hence not a protected belief.
Mark
But the Equality Act doesn't say that. It says '*any* philosophical >>>>> belief' is covered, not just what you think is 'worthy of respect' or >>>>> would like it to have said. And any 'interpretation' of that which
excludes some philosophical beliefs is in fact clearly a
misinterpretation contrary to the will of Parliament which enacted what >>>>> it did and nothing else.
You've either forgotten Grainger v Nicholson or you've decided to ignore >>>> it because it doesn't fit with your argument.
I didn't mention it I'm afraid but of course it made sense of when a
philosphical belief could give rise to a discrimination claim - the very point
Norman is missing by talking in the abstract about whether something is a >>> belief or not.
The point *you* are missing is that the Equality Act does not allow for
any such exceptions.
the grounds of a belief provided that a) it is expressed in a reasonable way;
and b) there is no proportionate justification for discriminating against its
holder for legitimate reasons.
JNugent and I were just discussing the idea that the Catholic church could discriminate against a Protestant Orange marcher (which is undoubtedly a religious belief, but expressed in an offensive way) who applied for a job in a church organisation.
So you are completely and utterly mistaken.
On 17/05/2025 09:29, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:m8pqb3FnmbhU1@mid.individual.net...
On 16/05/2025 20:10, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:m8pebhFlo67U3@mid.individual.net...
On 16/05/2025 15:39, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:m8otamFj9i2U1@mid.individual.net...
But the Equality Act doesn't say that. It says '*any*
philosophical belief' is
covered, not just what you think is 'worthy of respect' or would >>>>>>> like it to have
said.
And any 'interpretation' of that which excludes some
philosophical beliefs is in
fact
clearly a misinterpretation contrary to the will of Parliament
which enacted what
it
did and nothing else
quote:
52.The criteria for determining what is a "philosophical belief"
are that it must be
genuinely held; be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based
on the present
state of information available; be a belief as to a weighty and
substantial aspect
of human life and behaviour; attain a certain level of cogency,
seriousness,
cohesion and importance; *and be worthy of respect* in a
democratic society,.
:unquote
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/10/notes
Link as provided by Mark Goodge on 12 May
Please give a reference to a reliable source that says Notes form
any part of an Act,
and can usurp absolutely clear words used in it.
quote:
Public General Acts - There are usually 25 to 50 new Public Acts
each year.
Since 1999, most Public General Acts are accompanied by Explanatory
Notes,
*which explain in clear English what the Act sets out to achieve*
and place
its effect in context.
Stephen Laws, then First Parliamentary Counsel,
unquote
https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/legal-research-and-mooting-skills-programme/legislation
So there you have the then Parliamentary First Counsel, Stephen
Laws, giving a
Lecture to the Faculty of Law in Oxford University, in which he
explains how
"Explanatory Notes, explain in clear English what the Act sets out
to achieve"
Maybe it's time you sharpened up your own research and mooting skills.
The problem arises when what the Notes say differs from what the Act
actually
prescribes. If the Act says something that is clear and unambiguous,
as Section 10 of
the Equality Act does,
Please provide a reference to the reliable source which provides
that "clear and
unambiguous" definition" of the two word phrase "philosophical
belief", as used
in Section 10, upon which you are basing your argument.
These are ordinary English-language words with well-defined meanings you
will find in any English dictionary, for example:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/philosophy https://www.britannica.com/topic/philosophy https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/belief
Language puts lots of words together but they don't normally, as here,
add up to more than what each means separately.
Most religious believers don't consider their religion to be fiction.
On 16/05/2025 06:53 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
JNugent and I were just discussing the idea that the Catholic church could >> discriminate against a Protestant Orange marcher (which is undoubtedly a
religious belief, but expressed in an offensive way) who applied for a job in
a church organisation.
My impression there was that it might be justifiable for a Catholic
Diocesan office to dismiss an employee who had not declared allegiance
to the Orange Order but was later seen taking part in a 12th July March.
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:m8r3daFevcU1@mid.individual.net...
On 17/05/2025 09:29, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:m8pqb3FnmbhU1@mid.individual.net...
On 16/05/2025 20:10, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in messageThe problem arises when what the Notes say differs from what the Act actually
news:m8pebhFlo67U3@mid.individual.net...
On 16/05/2025 15:39, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:m8otamFj9i2U1@mid.individual.net...
But the Equality Act doesn't say that. It says '*any* philosophical belief' is
covered, not just what you think is 'worthy of respect' or would like it to have
said.
And any 'interpretation' of that which excludes some philosophical beliefs is in
fact
clearly a misinterpretation contrary to the will of Parliament which enacted what
it
did and nothing else
quote:
52.The criteria for determining what is a "philosophical belief" are that it must
be
genuinely held; be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present
state of information available; be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect
of human life and behaviour; attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness,
cohesion and importance; *and be worthy of respect* in a democratic society,.
:unquote
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/10/notes
Link as provided by Mark Goodge on 12 May
Please give a reference to a reliable source that says Notes form any part of an
Act,
and can usurp absolutely clear words used in it.
quote:
Public General Acts - There are usually 25 to 50 new Public Acts each year.
Since 1999, most Public General Acts are accompanied by Explanatory Notes,
*which explain in clear English what the Act sets out to achieve* and place
its effect in context.
Stephen Laws, then First Parliamentary Counsel,
unquote
https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/legal-research-and-mooting-skills-programme/legislation
So there you have the then Parliamentary First Counsel, Stephen Laws, giving a
Lecture to the Faculty of Law in Oxford University, in which he explains how
"Explanatory Notes, explain in clear English what the Act sets out to achieve"
Maybe it's time you sharpened up your own research and mooting skills. >>>>
prescribes. If the Act says something that is clear and unambiguous, as Section 10
of
the Equality Act does,
Please provide a reference to the reliable source which provides that "clear and
unambiguous" definition" of the two word phrase "philosophical belief", as used
in Section 10, upon which you are basing your argument.
These are ordinary English-language words with well-defined meanings you will find in
any English dictionary, for example:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/philosophy
https://www.britannica.com/topic/philosophy
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/belief
IOW you can't provide such a source. Because there isn't one. Only the definitions of the two separate words .
Language puts lots of words together but they don't normally, as here, add up to more
than what each means separately.
But as you can't provide an authoritative definition of the two word phrase, its impossible for anyone to make the comparison, isn't it ?
Anyway
Whatever your own definition of a "philosophical belief might be, - and what you
personally take the Act to mean, it must surely encompass most of the elements
described in the notes: genuinely held; not just an opinion; concerning weighty
matters; cogent and serious.
No argument there. surely.
While your problem stems from the phrase "worthy of respect"
Except if you look again it doesn't just say "worthy of respect", does it.?
It says "worthy of respect *in a democratic society*".
So that here you have Parliamentarians in a Democratic Society voting
on a Bill protecting "philosophical beliefs"
So what do you, Norman, think they meant by "philosophical beliefs" in that context when voting on that Bill ? Philosophical beliefs that might well
see them all being marched out, lined up against a wall and shot ?
No !
In short Norman, do turkeys vote for Christmas ?
On Sat, 17 May 2025 14:24:18 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 16/05/2025 06:53 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
JNugent and I were just discussing the idea that the Catholic church could >>> discriminate against a Protestant Orange marcher (which is undoubtedly a >>> religious belief, but expressed in an offensive way) who applied for a job in
a church organisation.
My impression there was that it might be justifiable for a Catholic
Diocesan office to dismiss an employee who had not declared allegiance
to the Orange Order but was later seen taking part in a 12th July March.
An organisation which exists specifically in order to serve or administer a protected group can make it a genuine occupational requirement that any employee supports or is a member of that group. So a Catholic Diocesan
Office would be able to discriminate against someone who was directly involved in anti-Catholic activities, such as participating in an Orange march. But a cafe, say, even one owned and operated by a Catholic and
located in a predominantly Catholic part of town would not, because religion wouldn't be a genuine occupational requirement.
(In practice, I suspect that an Orange marcher probably wouldn't want to
work for an explicitly Catholic organisation).
On 17/05/2025 05:43 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 17 May 2025 14:24:18 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:Not all Protestants are rabidly anti-Catholic (at least, not nowadays).
On 16/05/2025 06:53 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
JNugent and I were just discussing the idea that the Catholic church could >>>> discriminate against a Protestant Orange marcher (which is undoubtedly a >>>> religious belief, but expressed in an offensive way) who applied for a job in
a church organisation.
My impression there was that it might be justifiable for a Catholic
Diocesan office to dismiss an employee who had not declared allegiance
to the Orange Order but was later seen taking part in a 12th July March.
An organisation which exists specifically in order to serve or administer a >> protected group can make it a genuine occupational requirement that any
employee supports or is a member of that group. So a Catholic Diocesan
Office would be able to discriminate against someone who was directly
involved in anti-Catholic activities, such as participating in an Orange
march. But a cafe, say, even one owned and operated by a Catholic and
located in a predominantly Catholic part of town would not, because religion >> wouldn't be a genuine occupational requirement.
(In practice, I suspect that an Orange marcher probably wouldn't want to
work for an explicitly Catholic organisation).
The July 12th marches are just a tradition.
I have sat on a balcony watching the procesion pass below and enjoyed
the spectacle.
On 17/05/2025 13:05, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:m8r3daFevcU1@mid.individual.net...
On 17/05/2025 09:29, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:m8pqb3FnmbhU1@mid.individual.net...
On 16/05/2025 20:10, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in messageThe problem arises when what the Notes say differs from what the Act actually
news:m8pebhFlo67U3@mid.individual.net...
On 16/05/2025 15:39, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:m8otamFj9i2U1@mid.individual.net...
But the Equality Act doesn't say that. It says '*any* philosophical belief' is
covered, not just what you think is 'worthy of respect' or would like >>>>>>>>> it to have
said.
And any 'interpretation' of that which excludes some philosophical >>>>>>>>> beliefs is in
fact
clearly a misinterpretation contrary to the will of Parliament which >>>>>>>>> enacted what
it
did and nothing else
quote:
52.The criteria for determining what is a "philosophical belief" are >>>>>>>> that it must
be
genuinely held; be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on >>>>>>>> the present
state of information available; be a belief as to a weighty and >>>>>>>> substantial aspect
of human life and behaviour; attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness,
cohesion and importance; *and be worthy of respect* in a democratic society,.
:unquote
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/10/notes
Link as provided by Mark Goodge on 12 May
Please give a reference to a reliable source that says Notes form any >>>>>>> part of an
Act,
and can usurp absolutely clear words used in it.
quote:
Public General Acts - There are usually 25 to 50 new Public Acts each year.
Since 1999, most Public General Acts are accompanied by Explanatory Notes,
*which explain in clear English what the Act sets out to achieve* and place
its effect in context.
Stephen Laws, then First Parliamentary Counsel,
unquote
https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/legal-research-and-mooting-skills-programme/legislation
So there you have the then Parliamentary First Counsel, Stephen Laws, giving a
Lecture to the Faculty of Law in Oxford University, in which he explains how
"Explanatory Notes, explain in clear English what the Act sets out to achieve"
Maybe it's time you sharpened up your own research and mooting skills. >>>>>
prescribes. If the Act says something that is clear and unambiguous, as >>>>> Section 10
of
the Equality Act does,
Please provide a reference to the reliable source which provides that
"clear and
unambiguous" definition" of the two word phrase "philosophical belief", as used
in Section 10, upon which you are basing your argument.
These are ordinary English-language words with well-defined meanings you >>> will find in
any English dictionary, for example:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/philosophy
https://www.britannica.com/topic/philosophy
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/belief
IOW you can't provide such a source. Because there isn't one. Only the
definitions of the two separate words .
Which is all you need.
Language puts lots of words together but they don't normally, as here, add >>> up to more
than what each means separately.
But as you can't provide an authoritative definition of the two word phrase, >> its impossible for anyone to make the comparison, isn't it ?
It doesn't add up to anything more than the two words individually.
Anyway
Whatever your own definition of a "philosophical belief might be, - and what >> you
personally take the Act to mean, it must surely encompass most of the elements
described in the notes: genuinely held; not just an opinion; concerning weighty
matters; cogent and serious.
No argument there. surely.
Of course there is. None of those elements is mentioned in the Act,
which applies, as it says, to '*any* philosophical belief' whether they
meet your criteria or not.
While your problem stems from the phrase "worthy of respect"
Except if you look again it doesn't just say "worthy of respect", does it.? >>
It says "worthy of respect *in a democratic society*".
It makes no difference.
So that here you have Parliamentarians in a Democratic Society voting
on a Bill protecting "philosophical beliefs"
So what do you, Norman, think they meant by "philosophical beliefs" in that >> context when voting on that Bill ? Philosophical beliefs that might well
see them all being marched out, lined up against a wall and shot ?
No !
Yes, all the better to be protected from them. Which is what the
Equality Act provides.
In short Norman, do turkeys vote for Christmas ?
Well, they voted for Trump apparently.
On 17 May 2025 at 14:37:14 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 17/05/2025 13:05, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:m8r3daFevcU1@mid.individual.net...
On 17/05/2025 09:29, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:m8pqb3FnmbhU1@mid.individual.net...
On 16/05/2025 20:10, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in messageThe problem arises when what the Notes say differs from what the Act actually
news:m8pebhFlo67U3@mid.individual.net...
On 16/05/2025 15:39, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:m8otamFj9i2U1@mid.individual.net...
But the Equality Act doesn't say that. It says '*any* philosophical belief' is
covered, not just what you think is 'worthy of respect' or would like
it to have
said.
And any 'interpretation' of that which excludes some philosophical >>>>>>>>>> beliefs is in
fact
clearly a misinterpretation contrary to the will of Parliament which >>>>>>>>>> enacted what
it
did and nothing else
quote:
52.The criteria for determining what is a "philosophical belief" are >>>>>>>>> that it must
be
genuinely held; be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on >>>>>>>>> the present
state of information available; be a belief as to a weighty and >>>>>>>>> substantial aspect
of human life and behaviour; attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness,
cohesion and importance; *and be worthy of respect* in a democratic society,.
:unquote
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/10/notes >>>>>>>>>
Link as provided by Mark Goodge on 12 May
Please give a reference to a reliable source that says Notes form any >>>>>>>> part of an
Act,
and can usurp absolutely clear words used in it.
quote:
Public General Acts - There are usually 25 to 50 new Public Acts each year.
Since 1999, most Public General Acts are accompanied by Explanatory Notes,
*which explain in clear English what the Act sets out to achieve* and place
its effect in context.
Stephen Laws, then First Parliamentary Counsel,
unquote
https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/legal-research-and-mooting-skills-programme/legislation
So there you have the then Parliamentary First Counsel, Stephen Laws, giving a
Lecture to the Faculty of Law in Oxford University, in which he explains how
"Explanatory Notes, explain in clear English what the Act sets out to achieve"
Maybe it's time you sharpened up your own research and mooting skills. >>>>>>
prescribes. If the Act says something that is clear and unambiguous, as >>>>>> Section 10
of
the Equality Act does,
Please provide a reference to the reliable source which provides that >>>>> "clear and
unambiguous" definition" of the two word phrase "philosophical belief", as used
in Section 10, upon which you are basing your argument.
These are ordinary English-language words with well-defined meanings you >>>> will find in
any English dictionary, for example:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/philosophy
https://www.britannica.com/topic/philosophy
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/belief
IOW you can't provide such a source. Because there isn't one. Only the
definitions of the two separate words .
Which is all you need.
Language puts lots of words together but they don't normally, as here, add >>>> up to more
than what each means separately.
But as you can't provide an authoritative definition of the two word phrase,
its impossible for anyone to make the comparison, isn't it ?
It doesn't add up to anything more than the two words individually.
Anyway
Whatever your own definition of a "philosophical belief might be, - and what
you
personally take the Act to mean, it must surely encompass most of the elements
described in the notes: genuinely held; not just an opinion; concerning weighty
matters; cogent and serious.
No argument there. surely.
Of course there is. None of those elements is mentioned in the Act,
which applies, as it says, to '*any* philosophical belief' whether they
meet your criteria or not.
While your problem stems from the phrase "worthy of respect"
Except if you look again it doesn't just say "worthy of respect", does it.? >>>
It says "worthy of respect *in a democratic society*".
It makes no difference.
So that here you have Parliamentarians in a Democratic Society voting
on a Bill protecting "philosophical beliefs"
So what do you, Norman, think they meant by "philosophical beliefs" in that >>> context when voting on that Bill ? Philosophical beliefs that might well >>> see them all being marched out, lined up against a wall and shot ?
No !
Yes, all the better to be protected from them. Which is what the
Equality Act provides.
The Equality Act protects people with philosophical beliefs from the rest of us. The people they are being protected from can have any or no philosophical heliefs; theirs are irrelevant.
On 16/05/2025 04:30 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 16/05/2025 15:53, JNugent wrote:
On 16/05/2025 01:21 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 16/05/2025 12:48, JNugent wrote:
On 15/05/2025 08:31 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2025 17:32:26 +0100, JNugent wrote:
...and really seems to believe that a work of fiction written in the >>>>>>> mid-1970s for a movie is a religion (unless he is adopting that
stance merely for the sake of contrarianism).
And the Bible isn't a collection of campfire tales ?
That is not the matter at issue and is an attempt at diversion.
So you finally agree that all beliefs based on fiction should be
respected?
What *I* believe is not the matter under discussion.
We were discussing factual matters - such as how anyone who claims to
follow a "religion" based on undoubted fiction can be taken seriously
(and, indeed, whether they even expect to be taken seriously).
That is why I don't take you seriously. The only difference is you have
an expectation of being taken seriously when you shouldn't.
If you don't take seriously the matters we have been discussing, one
marvels that you have been so persistent.
On 17/05/2025 21:54, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 May 2025 at 14:37:14 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 17/05/2025 13:05, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:m8r3daFevcU1@mid.individual.net...
On 17/05/2025 09:29, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:m8pqb3FnmbhU1@mid.individual.net...
On 16/05/2025 20:10, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:m8pebhFlo67U3@mid.individual.net...
On 16/05/2025 15:39, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:m8otamFj9i2U1@mid.individual.net...
But the Equality Act doesn't say that. It says '*any*
philosophical belief' is covered, not just what you think is >>>>>>>>>>> 'worthy of respect' or would like it to have said.
And any 'interpretation' of that which excludes some
philosophical beliefs is in fact clearly a misinterpretation >>>>>>>>>>> contrary to the will of Parliament which enacted what it did >>>>>>>>>>> and nothing else
quote:
52.The criteria for determining what is a "philosophical
belief" are that it must be genuinely held; be a belief and not >>>>>>>>>> an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of
information available; be a belief as to a weighty and
substantial aspect of human life and behaviour; attain a
certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance; >>>>>>>>>> *and be worthy of respect* in a democratic society,.
:unquote
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/10/notes >>>>>>>>>>
Link as provided by Mark Goodge on 12 May
Please give a reference to a reliable source that says Notes >>>>>>>>> form any part of an Act,
and can usurp absolutely clear words used in it.
quote:
Public General Acts - There are usually 25 to 50 new Public Acts >>>>>>>> each year.
Since 1999, most Public General Acts are accompanied by
Explanatory Notes, *which explain in clear English what the Act >>>>>>>> sets out to achieve* and place its effect in context.
Stephen Laws, then First Parliamentary Counsel,
unquote
https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/legal-research-and-mooting-skills- programme/legislation
So there you have the then Parliamentary First Counsel, Stephen >>>>>>>> Laws, giving a Lecture to the Faculty of Law in Oxford
University, in which he explains how
"Explanatory Notes, explain in clear English what the Act sets >>>>>>>> out to achieve"
Maybe it's time you sharpened up your own research and mooting >>>>>>>> skills.
The problem arises when what the Notes say differs from what the >>>>>>> Act actually prescribes. If the Act says something that is clear >>>>>>> and unambiguous, as Section 10 of the Equality Act does,
Please provide a reference to the reliable source which provides
that "clear and unambiguous" definition" of the two word phrase
"philosophical belief", as used in Section 10, upon which you are
basing your argument.
These are ordinary English-language words with well-defined meanings >>>>> you will find in any English dictionary, for example:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/philosophy
https://www.britannica.com/topic/philosophy
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/belief
IOW you can't provide such a source. Because there isn't one. Only
the definitions of the two separate words .
Which is all you need.
Language puts lots of words together but they don't normally, as
here, add up to more than what each means separately.
But as you can't provide an authoritative definition of the two word
phrase, its impossible for anyone to make the comparison, isn't it ?
It doesn't add up to anything more than the two words individually.
Anyway
Whatever your own definition of a "philosophical belief might be, -
and what you personally take the Act to mean, it must surely
encompass most of the elements described in the notes: genuinely
held; not just an opinion; concerning weighty matters; cogent and
serious.
No argument there. surely.
Of course there is. None of those elements is mentioned in the Act,
which applies, as it says, to '*any* philosophical belief' whether
they meet your criteria or not.
While your problem stems from the phrase "worthy of respect"
Except if you look again it doesn't just say "worthy of respect",
does it.?
It says "worthy of respect *in a democratic society*".
It makes no difference.
So that here you have Parliamentarians in a Democratic Society voting
on a Bill protecting "philosophical beliefs"
So what do you, Norman, think they meant by "philosophical beliefs"
in that context when voting on that Bill ? Philosophical beliefs that
might well see them all being marched out, lined up against a wall
and shot ?
No !
Yes, all the better to be protected from them. Which is what the
Equality Act provides.
The Equality Act protects people with philosophical beliefs from the
rest of us. The people they are being protected from can have any or no
philosophical heliefs; theirs are irrelevant.
The Equality Act also protects people with no belief from those who wish
on the basis of their own philosophical belief to discriminate against
them. It works both ways reciprocally.
For example, I, with no particular philosophical beliefs, am not
permitted to discriminate against Jews, but Jews are not permitted to discriminate against me either.
It's a consequence of what was enacted in Section 10.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 17/05/2025 05:43 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 16/05/2025 06:53 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
JNugent and I were just discussing the idea that the Catholic church could
discriminate against a Protestant Orange marcher (which is undoubtedly a >>>>> religious belief, but expressed in an offensive way) who applied for a job in
a church organisation.
My impression there was that it might be justifiable for a Catholic
Diocesan office to dismiss an employee who had not declared allegiance >>>> to the Orange Order but was later seen taking part in a 12th July March.
An organisation which exists specifically in order to serve or administer a >>> protected group can make it a genuine occupational requirement that any
employee supports or is a member of that group. So a Catholic Diocesan
Office would be able to discriminate against someone who was directly
involved in anti-Catholic activities, such as participating in an Orange >>> march. But a cafe, say, even one owned and operated by a Catholic and
located in a predominantly Catholic part of town would not, because religion
wouldn't be a genuine occupational requirement.
(In practice, I suspect that an Orange marcher probably wouldn't want to >>> work for an explicitly Catholic organisation).
Not all Protestants are rabidly anti-Catholic (at least, not nowadays).
The July 12th marches are just a tradition.
I have sat on a balcony watching the procesion pass below and enjoyed
the spectacle.
I once had to wait 30seconds for a tiny (but loud!) Orange march to pass in a Liverpool suburb.
On 17/05/2025 00:10, JNugent wrote:
On 16/05/2025 04:30 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 16/05/2025 15:53, JNugent wrote:
On 16/05/2025 01:21 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 16/05/2025 12:48, JNugent wrote:
On 15/05/2025 08:31 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2025 17:32:26 +0100, JNugent wrote:
...and really seems to believe that a work of fiction written in >>>>>>>> the
mid-1970s for a movie is a religion (unless he is adopting that >>>>>>>> stance merely for the sake of contrarianism).
And the Bible isn't a collection of campfire tales ?
That is not the matter at issue and is an attempt at diversion.
So you finally agree that all beliefs based on fiction should be
respected?
What *I* believe is not the matter under discussion.
We were discussing factual matters - such as how anyone who claims to
follow a "religion" based on undoubted fiction can be taken seriously
(and, indeed, whether they even expect to be taken seriously).
That is why I don't take you seriously. The only difference is you have
an expectation of being taken seriously when you shouldn't.
If you don't take seriously the matters we have been discussing, one
marvels that you have been so persistent.
I very much take the matters we are discussing seriously and respect all beliefs.
Your views can be dismissed and not taken seriously from your denial
that the belief in that a universal "Force" is based on the long
standing beliefs of Chi, Qi, Ki and Prana.
Your belief is equally made up of fiction, that is entirely reliant on
some books of made up stories and plagiarism, some of which were
selected just a few hundred years ago. I guess if you hear the same
story multiple times it must make it true.
Mark Goodge wrote:
Most religious believers don't consider their religion to be fiction.
The just consider the other ten thousand religions to be fiction.
On 17/05/2025 05:43 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 17 May 2025 14:24:18 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:Not all Protestants are rabidly anti-Catholic (at least, not nowadays).
On 16/05/2025 06:53 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
JNugent and I were just discussing the idea that the Catholic church could >>>> discriminate against a Protestant Orange marcher (which is undoubtedly a >>>> religious belief, but expressed in an offensive way) who applied for a job in
a church organisation.
My impression there was that it might be justifiable for a Catholic
Diocesan office to dismiss an employee who had not declared allegiance
to the Orange Order but was later seen taking part in a 12th July March.
An organisation which exists specifically in order to serve or administer a >> protected group can make it a genuine occupational requirement that any
employee supports or is a member of that group. So a Catholic Diocesan
Office would be able to discriminate against someone who was directly
involved in anti-Catholic activities, such as participating in an Orange
march. But a cafe, say, even one owned and operated by a Catholic and
located in a predominantly Catholic part of town would not, because religion >> wouldn't be a genuine occupational requirement.
(In practice, I suspect that an Orange marcher probably wouldn't want to
work for an explicitly Catholic organisation).
The July 12th marches are just a tradition.
I have sat on a balcony watching the procesion pass below and enjoyed
the spectacle.
On Sat, 17 May 2025 19:25:10 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 17/05/2025 05:43 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 17 May 2025 14:24:18 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>> On 16/05/2025 06:53 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
JNugent and I were just discussing the idea that the Catholic church could
discriminate against a Protestant Orange marcher (which is undoubtedly a >>>>> religious belief, but expressed in an offensive way) who applied for a job in
a church organisation.
My impression there was that it might be justifiable for a Catholic
Diocesan office to dismiss an employee who had not declared allegiance >>>> to the Orange Order but was later seen taking part in a 12th July March.
An organisation which exists specifically in order to serve or administer a >>> protected group can make it a genuine occupational requirement that any
employee supports or is a member of that group. So a Catholic Diocesan
Office would be able to discriminate against someone who was directly
involved in anti-Catholic activities, such as participating in an Orange >>> march. But a cafe, say, even one owned and operated by a Catholic and
located in a predominantly Catholic part of town would not, because religion
wouldn't be a genuine occupational requirement.
(In practice, I suspect that an Orange marcher probably wouldn't want to >>> work for an explicitly Catholic organisation).
Not all Protestants are rabidly anti-Catholic (at least, not nowadays).
No, but I suspect that the Orange Order would still count as explicitly anti-Catholic. You can't join the Orange Order unless you are a protestant.
The July 12th marches are just a tradition.
I have sat on a balcony watching the procesion pass below and enjoyed
the spectacle.
I don't think merely watching it go by would be an issue.
On 18/05/2025 02:49 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
No, but I suspect that the Orange Order would still count as explicitlyProbably true. Even more probable that you wouldn't want to unless you
anti-Catholic. You can't join the Orange Order unless you are a protestant. >>
were a protestant.
On Sun, 18 May 2025 23:52:32 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 18/05/2025 02:49 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
No, but I suspect that the Orange Order would still count as explicitlyProbably true. Even more probable that you wouldn't want to unless you
anti-Catholic. You can't join the Orange Order unless you are a protestant. >>>
were a protestant.
Not probably true, definitely true. In order to be automatically eligible to join, you not only have to be a protestant, you also need to have never been a non-protestant, and your parents and spouse (if you are married) must also be protestant (or were protestant, if any of them are now deceased). If you don't meet the criteria for automatic eligibility, your application needs to be approved by the Grand Lodge. However, a fundamental and non-negotiable requirement is that you "subscribe to the principles of the reformed Protestant faith", in the words of the Orange Order themselves.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 497 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 29:48:58 |
| Calls: | 9,797 |
| Calls today: | 16 |
| Files: | 13,749 |
| Messages: | 6,188,690 |
