That's a bit unpleasant

[vetran]

The religious consider their laws above the law of the land. The law of the land already overrides religious law. The problem is the religious don't accept that.

so in this case the law needs to explain that to them.

Believe in what you like but treat people properly!

[ladymuck]

so in this case the law needs to explain that to them.

Believe in what you like but treat people properly!

Define 'properly'

To some that means equal rights, ability to own property, wear what you want, have a job, get an education, choose who you marry.

To others it means being able to shoot someone for looking sideways at you, protecting people by ensuring they don't walk the streets alone, protecting social cohesion by disallowing divorce, protecting life by disallowing abortion, etc.

What you and I think of as 'proper' is completely alien to others.

[AtW]

Only way to solve this is to set and enforce an age limit to any religious studies (for all religions) - 18+, better - 21.

Then after a generation or two this won’t be a problem.

Not going to happen, obviously.

[vetran]

Define 'properly'

To some that means equal rights, ability to own property, wear what you want, have a job, get an education, choose who you marry.

To others it means being able to shoot someone for looking sideways at you, protecting people by ensuring they don't walk the streets alone, protecting social cohesion by disallowing divorce, protecting life by disallowing abortion, etc.

What you and I think of as 'proper' is completely alien to others.

All of the things you mention are ruled by law of the land. That is proper.

well as the law prohibits discrimination based on gender the husband being the only one that can divorce is an issue.
Shooting people is normally illegal for a private citizen.
Divorce and abortion are regulated by law.

I personally think we are too lax with abortion but the law says you can terminate by fax... Wait till we have voluntary euthanasia!

What your God thinks is between You and it!

[AtW]

Speeding (which is a criminal offence) is barely enforced in this country, why? Because any law that criminalises sufficiently large quantity of residents becomes unenforceable (ie - voluntary or rare with mild token punishments like £60 fine and points), as otherwise there is a risk that it will lead to collapse of people obeying other (more important) laws.

Plus it costs too much

[Whorty]

All of the things you mention are ruled by law of the land. That is proper.

well as the law prohibits discrimination based on gender the husband being the only one that can divorce is an issue.

But that isn't the case. The woman can get a legal divorce. What we're talking is a 'religious' divorce ... in this case she wants to stay in this religious community so she is choosing not to get a legal divorce and unfortunately in complicit in the whole cultural bulltulip.

The religion isn't above UK law, but people do allow these customs to control them.

[AtW]

The religion isn't above UK law, but people do allow these customs to control them.

In theory it's parallel, but in areas where it intersects UK law should override any religious malarkey.

That's not the case which is a problem - you can't seriously expect some young person to risk being excommunicated from tightly knit societies. Dumb vetran is correct on this particular issue.

[vetran]

But that isn't the case. The woman can get a legal divorce. What we're talking is a 'religious' divorce ... in this case she wants to stay in this religious community so she is choosing not to get a legal divorce and unfortunately in complicit in the whole cultural bulltulip.

The religion isn't above UK law, but people do allow these customs to control them.

The point is that if the law rules on this the religion wants to ignore it because Gett cannot be 'coerced'. This like a religion saying women can't protect themselves.

[vetran]

Speeding (which is a criminal offence) is barely enforced in this country, why? Because any law that criminalises sufficiently large quantity of residents becomes unenforceable (ie - voluntary or rare with mild token punishments like £60 fine and points), as otherwise there is a risk that it will lead to collapse of people obeying other (more important) laws.

Plus it costs too much

Speeding is probably one of the most well policed crimes 2 Million prosecuted a year. The majority of regular drivers have been caught at least once. Increases in the number of speeding cameras happen annually. It is one f the cheapest crimes to prosecute. It was a cash cow 30 years ago when one of my exes processed them manually.

The majority of park users haven't been done for littering (you are likely to have it done at least once.
2 million divers are without insurance but only 300,000 prosecuted. Goodness knows why, just connect APNR to insurance data base and send a letter with a 7 day producer.

https://www.insurancefactory.co.uk/n...e-UK-each-year

Very few people have been done in reality for driving with a mobile phone or without seatbelts both of which are horribly common. Similarly few drink drivers are caught or kept off the road.

as usual you are wrong about the money!

https://www.driving.co.uk/news/polic...%20distributed.

The watchdog said that this had led police at the highest levels to suspect that the focus of safety partnerships was to increase revenue, with officers pointing out specific roads on which cameras had been installed despite not having a history of collisions or “identified vulnerabilities”.

[AtW]

Speeding is probably one of the most well policed crimes 2 Million prosecuted a year.

You need to compare this number with how many people speed - EVERY DAY: 390.3 mln car journeys per year*, of which at least half would break speed limit, even by a little that's still legally speeding, so 2 mln prosecutions is feck all and penalty is light precisely for that reason - too many people do it.


* - https://www.nimblefins.co.uk/average-car-journey-uk