animalmagic

Excellent suggestion! Religion does seem to pose the biggest threat to children worldwide.

What a ludicrous post! Political beliefs have naff all to do with this.

Sorry to be picky but it is 'savage breast' - William Congreve: 'Music has charms to sooth a savage breast, to soften rocks, or bend a knotted oak.' I'm not going to rely on Spotify to save me!

And a 100% of all divorces start in marriage.

Or if I choose to to listen to Putins announcements and come to the same conclusion?

You mean like Putin who wants to restore the Russian empire?

Abortion and Crime, Revisited - Freakonomics A very interesting article based on an original theory that reduced abortion rates resulted in increased crime rate as the kids, who were realistically unwanted, became adolescents and young adults. There has been a lot of in depth research on this.

You're right,,,, he usually sponsors them.

His last attempt to face the public in the Emily Maitlis interview didn't go well. Perhaps there are more people around who would like to dish the dirt on him?

Colonialist - No, they inhabit a land that was historically theirs several hundred years before Mohammed and Islam existed. Racist - No, Arabs of many different groups represent just over 20% of the Israeli population and they enjoy the same rights as any Jew. Apartheid - No, they are classified as Israeli citizens, however they are NOT required to serve in the military. For an Arab Israeli military service is voluntary and they cannot be conscripted. And the poor protesters support a proscribed terrorist regime that took power by force and calls for the destruction of Israel and slaughter of its citizens.

Don't care where they fly from or to. Last time I flew with them the seat was broken and I spent over half the flight standing or resting on a crew seat. Still had to use the seat for landing but fortunately it didn't totally collapse. After emails offering, in order - 1. An apology. 2. 25 pound avios voucher. 3. 50 pound avios voucher. 4. Enough free avios points for a ONE way flight to London. I see no point in flying with an airline that uses old and knackered seats and cannot offer adequate customer service. Simply upgrading my return flight from London would have cost nothing and solved the issue. To quote them from their very first response to me, 'we realize the seat is a very important part of our service.'

Who supplies, installs and maintains the facial recognition machines, and what access will they have to the system? How secure is the system from external hackers? It can only work, and then not very well if the reports from UK are true, if the system is based on the passport or some sort of National ID. The data has to be held on the passport/National ID so that the scan check is checking one to one. If the facial recognition data is held on a separate database then the checking will take ages as it is based on a one to very many on a huge database.

It is an issue that affects over half the population directly, and almost all of the population indirectly. It should therefore be decided at a national level to create consistency across the board. To let individual states decide is a cop out for those trying to get elected to the Presidency as they know it is such a potential vote loser they don't want it hanging round their necks. If these people say the states should decide they are abrogating a huge responsibility, but why should it be the states that decide? If it is so important to devolve the decision making perhaps the responsibility for the decision should be devolved to the county or town. Or let's go the whole way and let the pregnant individual decide!

Quid pro quo anyone?

Yes, the only reason the Supreme Court overturned Roe vs Wade is because there have been so many school shootings they are running out of targets!

No, he doesn't really know him well, and they didn't spend much time together.

Careful, some people will think you re listing his good points!

I'm not convinced the driver could be found guilty or charged of murder/homicide (whatever degree) in these circumstances. Depending on the jurisdiction the driver would be guilty of aiding and abetting the crime of armed robbery as it is reasonably obvious what the intended crime was by the actions and preparations of the robbers who he transported to the bank and then waited to help them escape with their ill-gotten gains. Although it may reasonably be inferred that the robbers may use their weapons and kill someone it would be difficult to prove that the getaway driver knew beforehand that they would in fact do so. Even after the shooting occurred the level of criminality committed by the getaway driver does not reach that of culpability for the murder as that has already occurred and he is helping his accomplices to escape. Guilt by association cannot really be used in these circumstances as any prosecution needs to prove the defendant knew or believed that the offence of murder would be committed during the robbery. A driver transporting a criminal to an assassination/drive by shooting however could be considered guilty of aiding and abetting a murder in this case. In your scenario above the driver is not present during the commission of the crime (murder) but in my scenario quoted above he is either present during the commission of the crime (drive by shooting), or knew the assassination was the intent of the passenger when transporting him to, and escaping from, the crime.

A person testifying under oath is allowed to recount any experience they have relevant to the investigation and prosecution. Should that person utter hearsay evidence during their testimony it is up to the opposing legal party to object on the basis that it is hearsay. Even if upheld by the Judge then only that hearsay part of the witness' testimony is classified as inadmissible; it does not taint all other testimony given. When a witness/accused lies under oath it does not automatically prove that all other testimony is a lie but is a fact that can be relied upon by the opposing legal team to reduce the value of all other evidence given as it can no longer be trusted. Hearsay evidence does not devalue all other testimony given.

The words of an accused person are NOT hearsay and any individual who personally heard those words can testify to that fact. Hearsay covers when A tries to testify on the basis that B told A what the accused said.

My facts are correct, your understanding of legal terminology and practice are sadly lacking.

Your argument has no basis in logic. We are all responsible for global warming but we have not committed any crimes and cannot be held legally responsible. The judge has decided that Trump could be responsible for a criminal offense and there is a case to answer. The prosecution continues. To conflate global warming with the possibly criminal acts of one person is ludicrous in the extreme. You are simply twisting words to mean what you believe.

Absolutely, buying Twitter was a steal.

A generous donation of 7.2 million baht!? That won't even pay for the brown envelopes.

You may wish to research what 'pearly gates' are a euphemism for. Especially when I was specifically referencing Thailand.