Preparedness for when

Witless

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

Even if "to come to her in a bed or behind a bush" means invites him to have sex with her, she's not allowed to change her mind?

That's much too complex a debate for a bear of little brain like I.

Firstly - does "to come to her in a bed or behind a bush" equate to invites him to have sex wit her? (Not being a 7thC Druid (unfortunately) I don't know.) Nor, unfortunately, do I have access to the original pre translation.

Secondly - at what stage can consent be reasonably be withdrawn? Before? During? After? (which was allegedly what happened in one recent high profile case) Again, being a bear of little brain - I don't know.

Thirdly - is a quote of one phrase from multiple volumes a realistic summary?

Again ..... being a bear of little brain - I don't know.

What I do know is that, when not taken in isolation (or out of context) it seems to me that under this system of laws women were viewed as integral to the society they lived in, with very real and practical rights.

jk0

I may have mentioned this idea here a few months ago, but maybe it is relevant in view of Scotland (and Northern Ireland's) unhappiness with Brexit:

I suggested that England & Wales leave the UK. We could still have a common travel area with Ireland & Scotland, E&W could keep the pound, and NI & S use any currency they wish.

E&W could have the same relationship with the UK as the Channel Islands now do. (Half way house basically.) There would be no need to renegotiate anything with the disgruntled continentals, as the 'UK' would still be a member.

moneyistooshorttomention

I think I'll pass on that idea jko - who knows how a few people might try and interpret that one in some parts of the country:cool:...

[Deleted User]

jk0 wrote: »

There would be no need to renegotiate anything with the disgruntled continentals, as the 'UK' would still be a member.

How would the UK still be a member :huh:

jk0

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

How would the UK still be a member :huh:

Same as if Scotland left the UK, then the rest of the UK would still be a member, but Scotland would have to join again. Wasn't that what we were told a couple of years ago?

[Deleted User]

jk0 wrote: »

Same as if Scotland left the UK, then the rest of the UK would still be a member

You confused me when you said "as the 'UK' would still be a member", rather than "as the rest of 'UK' would still be a member"

Although, I'm not really sure Scotland qualifies as "The UK".

moneyistooshorttomention

..and meanwhile back on the Internet generally and I've had a couple of requests through personally to sign for a re-vote on the Referendum/

Forgawdsake - why on earth can't the "Remainers" and the Scottish Nationalists accept that people have voted/there is a verdict/now get on with it?

This is just so wierd that this mindset seems to have cropped up over the last year or two - ie "If you dont like the democratic verdict - then scream and try for a re-run". Like - why?:cool:

Though goodness knows I regularly come across the minority trying to impose on the majority in other respects these days - so I guess I shouldnt be surprised....

pineapple

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

..and meanwhile back on the Internet generally and I've had a couple of requests through personally to sign for a re-vote on the Referendum/

The irony is - if the government had required another vote (as was suggested might happen at the start of all this), there would be hell to pay.
I think people just need to hold firm and stop panicking.

Don't panic Captain Mainwaring!

nuatha

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Forgawdsake - why on earth can't the "Remainers" and the Scottish Nationalists accept that people have voted/there is a verdict/now get on with it?

The UK is heading out of the EU, there was a vote and like it or not we're stuck with the result.
One of the consequences of that is that the SNP who were elected to govern Scotland on a platform which stated if there was a significant change to the status quo then a second referendum would be held, now have the right (and duty) to pursue that second referendum.

Legal opinion seems to be divided as to whether the framework that the Good Friday Agreement was built on will still exist when the UK leaves the EU, the framework certainly fails if we leave the European Convention on Human Rights. Whether that is grounds for triggering a referendum in Northern Ireland, a UDI or further peace talks is anybody's guess.

The above two consequences of a Leave victory were foreseen and widely reported in the media (usually with commentary that it would never come to that)
The petition for London UDI has surprised me, I had predicted that whichever side won, there would be calls for a re-vote, unless there was a landslide margin.

Goldiegirl

The reports say that the people who voted Leave, are more likely to be old and / or poorly educated.

Given that the old and poorly educated often say that the government and establishment in general has no interest in them, I wonder if their Leave vote was more about voting against the establishment rather than actually about leaving the EU.

But what is done is done, and Leave won. So the Leave voters will have to live with the consequences of their vote, just as the Remain voters will have to live with the result of the Leave voters actions.

I think an 'Indyref2' would be a bad idea - we can't keep having referendums until we get the 'right' result. Same goes for Scotland - the Scottish Nationalists can't keep calling for referendums every couple of years, until they get they way.

I think the Leave polititians need to get on with it, and invoke article 50 ASAP. But some of them seem curiously reluctant, now that they've won. I saw Boris on Tv this morning, saying there's no rush - I thought he'd be champing at the bit to get on with it, now he's scored the victory he campaigned for. But I wouldn't be surprised if he's thinking 'what the hell have I got myself into, I didn't think Leave would actually win!':rotfl: