When will the religious people realize there is NO afterlife ?

Announcements
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hellodave5)
    Thanks, I do have access and have had a peek at it. Though for some reason it wouldn't let me save as a PDF.
    Previously I said I didn't read it as it was not available, but I did read all of their interpretation of the study.

    I have not really misinterpreted anything as far as I can see, and I feel I was pretty accurate; but when you do say so you should explicitly state what you think was so can be cleared up.

    The issue is that brain activity DOES NOT cease after cardiac arrest (it only ever stops working when you're dead, forever; or... profoundly disabled), it just reduces considerably (due to lack of oxygenation).
    It is interesting that this memory encoding (AS BRAIN IS FUNCTIONING) is more than thought would be and serves to explain PTSD post resuscitation.

    This does not really relate to the afterlife, as far as I can see.

    (caps for clarity and emphasis of point - not shouting aha)
    Okay, I understand where the confusion is and I'll seek to clear it up.

    Enclosed in all-caps so it doesn't get lost as per your request:

    ALL BRAIN ACTIVITY HAD CEASED AS IS COMMON AFTER CARDIAC ARREST. YOU ARE SIMPLY INCORRECT IN STATING THAT IT DOESN'T CEASE AFTER CARDIAC ARREST.

    Following is my evidence for this:

    http://www.livescience.com/7565-death-experiences.html
    A person is thought to have died when he stops breathing, his heart stops beating, and his brain activity ceases. "During a cardiac arrest, all three criteria of death are present," Parnia said. "There then follows a period of time, which may last from a few seconds to an hour or more, in which emergency medical efforts may succeed in restarting the heart and reversing the dying process. What people experience during this period of cardiac arrest provides a unique window of understanding into what we are all likely to experience during the dying process."
    This has been backed up by hospital staff in the many hospitals involved in this study, which was the largest of its kind..

    We can have a conversation about whether the doctors in question are correct or you are, but you're simply mistaken in this case.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Personally i'm agnostic ( with Discordian tendencies - All Hail Eris _ 23 ) so i have no dog in this fight.

    Nature of reality;

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNAZ...tlS8r&index=27

    more links to follow when i find them
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    Okay, I understand where the confusion is and I'll seek to clear it up.

    Enclosed in all-caps so it doesn't get lost as per your request:

    ALL BRAIN ACTIVITY HAD CEASED AS IS COMMON AFTER CARDIAC ARREST. YOU ARE SIMPLY INCORRECT IN STATING THAT IT DOESN'T CEASE AFTER CARDIAC ARREST.

    Following is my evidence for this:

    http://www.livescience.com/7565-death-experiences.html


    This has been backed up by hospital staff in the many hospitals involved in this study, which was the largest of its kind..

    We can have a conversation about whether the doctors in question are correct or you are, but you're simply mistaken in this case.
    I'm not arguing against them, but just that you say that after the heart stops so does cognition (you seem to imply that they are almost synonymous). It takes a fair while, and appears to be variable.

    At the point of approximately 2-3 minutes ischemic cellular damage would occur (I assume first to be damaged and impaired is memory) - but progressive impairment and degradation doesn't necessarily mean that there is a complete lack of function in the higher cortical areas.

    This study actually shows that - how else would there be some encoding of events, albeit extremely poor encoding?

    "This supports other recent studies that have indicated consciousness may be present despite clinically undetectable consciousness. This together with fearful experiences may contribute to PTSD and other cognitive deficits post CA."

    This stuff is also extremely difficult to measure. You can't experimentally starve people completely of oxygen and see if they have memories as well as brain damage. In observations in hospital I assume they have difficulties in the lack quantitative measures such as electroencephalographic readings (brain waves) and have to go on clinical observation.

    I don't see how this has any bearing on the afterlife question, in honesty.

    Though the study you showed me is really very interesting - that people are able to form some memories when in such a state - and that their experiences may significantly contribute to functional recovery after the cardiovascular incident.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I feel you aren't following the links:

    Science has long struggled to define death, and to determine when the precise moment of death occurs. Now though, most doctors consider death more of a process than an event. A person is thought to have died when he stops breathing, his heart stops beating, and his brain activity ceases. "During a cardiac arrest, all three criteria of death are present," Parnia said. "There then follows a period of time, which may last from a few seconds to an hour or more, in which emergency medical efforts may succeed in restarting the heart and reversing the dying process. What people experience during this period of cardiac arrest provides a unique window of understanding into what we are all likely to experience during the dying process."
    And then:

    http://content.time.com/time/health/...842627,00.html

    When your heart stops beating, there is no blood getting to your brain. And so what happens is that within about 10 sec., brain activity ceases —as you would imagine. Yet paradoxically, 10% or 20% of people who are then brought back to life from that period, which may be a few minutes or over an hour, will report having consciousness. So the key thing here is, Are these real, or is it some sort of illusion? So the only way to tell is to have pictures only visible from the ceiling and nowhere else, because they claim they can see everything from the ceiling. So if we then get a series of 200 or 300 people who all were clinically dead, and yet they're able to come back and tell us what we were doing and were able see those pictures, that confirms consciousness really was continuing even though the brain wasn't functioning.
    https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-in...5/pv2015-kw13/
    no comprehensive evidence of brain activity during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) has been found so far,
    Can you admit that we have no evidence of brain activity after cardiac arrest, now?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    I feel you aren't following the links:



    And then:

    http://content.time.com/time/health/...842627,00.html



    https://www.fwf.ac.at/en/research-in...5/pv2015-kw13/


    Can you admit that we have no evidence of brain activity after cardiac arrest, now?
    I am actually reading into all the links etc. and the actual studies. Likewise, actually refer back to the previous message.

    I concede that there is a flatline of EEG output with a lack of perfusion after a relatively short time period. Thank you for pushing me to learn a new bit of info (in below study was approximately 30 seconds).
    See:
    http://journals.lww.com/clinicalneur...&type=abstract

    Though if you're wanting to postulate something as silly as a consciousness as separate to the brain you need extremely strong evidence - and really isn't an argument that could ever be rationalised.

    In using this study for that argument, there is a major issue in that heart massage was provided (you can't not provide treatment obviously), and so oxygenated cortical blood pressure/profusion was maintained to some degree. EEG was also not measured, which just wouldn't really be ethical or practical, so there is no confirmation of a lack of cortical EEG output.

    This would account for the maintenance of cortical neurobiological substrates responsible for memory - and so the reported experiences of the patients. This is the account given by this study, with regards to the cognitive outcome and recovery of the patient regarding psychological effects of the experience.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hellodave5)
    I am actually reading into all the links etc. and the actual studies. Likewise, actually refer back to the previous message.

    I concede that there is a flatline of EEG output with a lack of perfusion after a relatively short time period. Thank you for pushing me to learn a new bit of info (in below study was approximately 30 seconds).
    See:
    http://journals.lww.com/clinicalneur...&type=abstract

    Though if you're wanting to postulate something as silly as a consciousness as separate to the brain you need extremely strong evidence - and really isn't an argument that could ever be rationalised.

    In using this study for that argument, there is a major issue in that heart massage was provided (you can't not provide treatment obviously), and so oxygenated cortical blood pressure/profusion was maintained to some degree. EEG was also not measured, which just wouldn't really be ethical or practical, so there is no confirmation of a lack of cortical EEG output.

    This would account for the maintenance of cortical neurobiological substrates responsible for memory - and so the reported experiences of the patients. This is the account given by this study, with regards to the cognitive outcome and recovery of the patient regarding psychological effects of the experience.
    But you understand the circular argument you're making? "It's not true because it can't be true." and dismissing all evidence contrary to your viewpoint is simply another form of dogma, a religious zealotry if you will.

    I will admit that the evidence is sparse, but will you admit that the evidence is sparse because we are barely in our infancy in these sorts of studies?

    There is evidence enough that someone with a full knowledge of it would have to admit that we simply don't know. You could say it seems counterintuitive based upon our current understanding, but Southampton's study does suggest an awful lot more research has to be done to know one way or the other.

    I read an interview with the head researcher, who was asked what this evidence meant. His response was, "It means that we don't know what it means. The experiment hasn't been replicated. The identification of the audible was only in one patient, but the results are very intriguing. If it can be recreated, it could change the way we think the mind. Or it might not."

    I think asserting a definite lack of an afterlife given our lack of understanding or even studies in this area is premature. But it -is- a very intriguing area of study.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    But you understand the circular argument you're making? "It's not true because it can't be true." and dismissing all evidence contrary to your viewpoint is simply another form of dogma, a religious zealotry if you will.

    I will admit that the evidence is sparse, but will you admit that the evidence is sparse because we are barely in our infancy in these sorts of studies?

    There is evidence enough that someone with a full knowledge of it would have to admit that we simply don't know. You could say it seems counterintuitive based upon our current understanding, but Southampton's study does suggest an awful lot more research has to be done to know one way or the other.

    I read an interview with the head researcher, who was asked what this evidence meant. His response was, "It means that we don't know what it means. The experiment hasn't been replicated. The identification of the audible was only in one patient, but the results are very intriguing. If it can be recreated, it could change the way we think the mind. Or it might not."

    I think asserting a definite lack of an afterlife given our lack of understanding or even studies in this area is premature. But it -is- a very intriguing area of study.
    I'm very flexible in my thought in that I will say that I don't think there is... any chance in hell... in any sort of separation of the mind and brain to some... ethereal component - but I will consider all evidence to suggest that there may be. That's what the whole science thing is all about, and its fun and interesting regardless of position.

    Evidence to suggest that the mind is a distinct entity to the brain is practically non existent - and you would be pushing it even to use such studies to suggest that there may be a possibility - due to the issues I mentioned earlier - in that treatment is given and cerebral blood flow is maintained.

    If you get individuals with a flatline EEG (meaning no cerebral responses to external input) recalling events, then perhaps it would be interesting to consider. But such is simply not possible, in the governing principles of our clinical understanding of the mind (which I like to refer to as the software) and the brain (the hardware).

    I don't know why one could hold any notion seriously that the mind be distinct from the brain - and it was something which was expelled a long time ago.

    If I get brain damage such as in a car crash, a stroke, a nasty hit on the head etc., that is my being in having a personality and knowledge, or my 'soul', forever changed. I wish that was not the case. Conversely, your brain structures of course determine behavior. Take those with poor frontal functioning, expressing as ADHD with high levels of impulsivity, for example.

    Regardless, such things are always interesting to discuss... cause things have been right contrary to all evidence before. But I don't think we will ever find its the case with the brain and some form of soul possessing our mind.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    Okay, I understand where the confusion is and I'll seek to clear it up.

    Enclosed in all-caps so it doesn't get lost as per your request:

    ALL BRAIN ACTIVITY HAD CEASED AS IS COMMON AFTER CARDIAC ARREST. YOU ARE SIMPLY INCORRECT IN STATING THAT IT DOESN'T CEASE AFTER CARDIAC ARREST.

    Following is my evidence for this:

    http://www.livescience.com/7565-death-experiences.html


    This has been backed up by hospital staff in the many hospitals involved in this study, which was the largest of its kind..

    We can have a conversation about whether the doctors in question are correct or you are, but you're simply mistaken in this case.
    Even if brain activity had ceased after cardiac arrest and there was no brain function.It doesnt mean that the events actually happened.It could just be that when the person was revived the brain filled in those memories.There is nothing saying that those memories were formed when the person was unconcious.The memories could have happened after unconciousness when the brain was functioning again.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hellodave5)
    If you get individuals with a flatline EEG (meaning no cerebral responses to external input) recalling events, then perhaps it would be interesting to consider. But such is simply not possible, in the governing principles of our clinical understanding of the mind (which I like to refer to as the software) and the brain (the hardware).

    I don't know why one could hold any notion seriously that the mind be distinct from the brain - and it was something which was expelled a long time ago.
    You see - That is why I don't think you're actually reading the whole study. Because that is -exactly what is suggested by the study-. "This happened. We don't know why."

    What the person conducting the experiment said was, "This happened. We don't know why." Whereas your position, not being the one who conducted the experiment, is "That couldn't have happened."

    Do you understand how dogmatic a position that is? You asked for peer reviewed science published. I provided it. Your response has been, "Noooo. You do understand that this is a religion to you, right? If so, I certainly won't argue the point. Why bother? You have been provided with some evidence contrary to your belief. You have been shown that the doctors involved believed their brain activity had ceased. And yet, instead of saying 'This is intriguing .I do not know why this has happened.' you have replied, 'No.'".

    This is not a scientifically sustainable position you are in. It is a religiously sustainable position, since you have faith that the facts cannot possibly be.

    But your faith has been superceded by facts.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robby2312)
    Even if brain activity had ceased after cardiac arrest and there was no brain function.It doesnt mean that the events actually happened.It could just be that when the person was revived the brain filled in those memories.There is nothing saying that those memories were formed when the person was unconcious.The memories could have happened after unconciousness when the brain was functioning again.
    So your suggestion is that the person who identified the audible that occurred only after brain activity had ceased had it 'Filled in' when the heart became active again?

    That suggests the brain, with random synapses firing, created the exact scenario the scientists were testing for.

    Again, you have created a religion out of this. You are attempting to assume the explanation rather than seek for one. Hey - It's your dogma, I certainly can't argue that. It's not science you are pushing, since experimental data disagrees with you(In the only large-scale study of its kind in this area - So the only real data we have on this), but I understand.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    You see - That is why I don't think you're actually reading the whole study. Because that is -exactly what is suggested by the study-. "This happened. We don't know why."

    What the person conducting the experiment said was, "This happened. We don't know why." Whereas your position, not being the one who conducted the experiment, is "That couldn't have happened."

    Do you understand how dogmatic a position that is? You asked for peer reviewed science published. I provided it. Your response has been, "Noooo. You do understand that this is a religion to you, right? If so, I certainly won't argue the point. Why bother? You have been provided with some evidence contrary to your belief. You have been shown that the doctors involved believed their brain activity had ceased. And yet, instead of saying 'This is intriguing .I do not know why this has happened.' you have replied, 'No.'".

    This is not a scientifically sustainable position you are in. It is a religiously sustainable position, since you have faith that the facts cannot possibly be.

    But your faith has been superceded by facts.
    Wow. You strawmanned me completely there, falsely representing my position which is in complete opposition to my actual and stated stance. You're also projecting. You don't even directly respond to what was previously said, you just make up your own speech " ".

    I said that that study is flawed if you're trying use it to provide evidence for some kind of afterlife, and I said why.
    Findings of memory recall is very interesting, but how does it suggest anything other than adequate profusion of brain tissues? That is the issue.

    "Noooo. You do understand that this is a religion to you, right?"
    What does that even mean?

    "That couldn't have happened." ?
    What couldn't have happened?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    So your suggestion is that the person who identified the audible that occurred only after brain activity had ceased had it 'Filled in' when the heart became active again?

    That suggests the brain, with random synapses firing, created the exact scenario the scientists were testing for.

    Again, you have created a religion out of this. You are attempting to assume the explanation rather than seek for one. Hey - It's your dogma, I certainly can't argue that. It's not science you are pushing, since experimental data disagrees with you(In the only large-scale study of its kind in this area - So the only real data we have on this), but I understand.
    Actually only one of 140 people showed that they had conscious recollection of events, and 50 with memories with some degree of detail. It is whilst the brain is to some degree still functioning... so this is nothing weird.
    Stop calling things dogma. You're just misinterpreting a study for your own agenda.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Plantagenet Crown
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    So your suggestion is that the person who identified the audible that occurred only after brain activity had ceased had it 'Filled in' when the heart became active again?

    That suggests the brain, with random synapses firing, created the exact scenario the scientists were testing for.

    Again, you have created a religion out of this. You are attempting to assume the explanation rather than seek for one. Hey - It's your dogma, I certainly can't argue that. It's not science you are pushing, since experimental data disagrees with you(In the only large-scale study of its kind in this area - So the only real data we have on this), but I understand.

    I was merely suggesting an explanation.Regardless this is all anecdotal.You can find probably the same amount of americans who believe they were abducted by aliens.A lot of people claim to have seen ghosts.Should we take their claims seriously? The human mind is known to hallucinate frequently.And anyway death isnt that clear cut,I remember reading a case about a girl who was resucitated an hour after she was supposed to have died.Granted she was frozen in a lake but still.
    The mind isn't seperate from the brain,it is the brain.Otherwise why do we have no conciousness before we are born? And why do brain injuries have such an effect if conciousness is separate?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robby2312)
    The mind isn't seperate from the brain,it is the brain.Otherwise why do we have no conciousness before we are born? And why do brain injuries have such an effect if conciousness is separate?
    I'm not a dualist myself, but these aren't good arguments against the dualist position. Perhaps consciousness is created at birth and then lasts forever, or perhaps we don't remember any "past lives". We don't know. As for the argument from brain damage, I don't think any dualist would deny some sort of a connection between the material and the immaterial.

    I think there are better metaphysical arguments against dualism that don't depend on any scientific findings.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hellodave5)
    Actually only one of 140 people showed that they had conscious recollection of events, and 50 with memories with some degree of detail. It is whilst the brain is to some degree still functioning... so this is nothing weird.
    Stop calling things dogma. You're just misinterpreting a study for your own agenda.
    Please quote where I'm misinterpreting. Because it actually sounds like you are. Here, let me point out where you're misinterpreting the study that I provided:

    You said this:

    (Original post by hellodave5)
    It is whilst the brain is to some degree still functioning
    While the study claims this:

    Dr Sam Parnia, Assistant Professor of Critical Care Medicine and Director of Resuscitation Research at The State University of New York at Stony Brook, USA, and the study’s lead author, explained: “Contrary to perception, death is not a specific moment but a potentially reversible process that occurs after any severe illness or accident causes the heart, lungs and brain to cease functioning. If attempts are made to reverse this process, it is referred to as ‘cardiac arrest’; however, if these attempts do not succeed it is called ‘death’. In this study we wanted to go beyond the emotionally charged yet poorly defined term of NDEs to explore objectively what happens when we die.”
    Or perhaps I'm misinterpreting that, so I'll give another quote:

    Although no comprehensive evidence of brain activity during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) has been found
    Or perhaps:

    When your heart stops beating, there is no blood getting to your brain. And so what happens is that within about 10 sec., brain activity ceases —as you would imagine. Yet paradoxically, 10% or 20% of people who are then brought back to life from that period, which may be a few minutes or over an hour, will report having consciousness. So the key thing here is, Are these real, or is it some sort of illusion? So the only way to tell is to have pictures only visible from the ceiling and nowhere else, because they claim they can see everything from the ceiling. So if we then get a series of 200 or 300 people who all were clinically dead, and yet they're able to come back and tell us what we were doing and were able see those pictures, that confirms consciousness really was continuing even though the brain wasn't functioning.

    So it actually seems like you are the one with an agenda. I have stated that the evidence is sparse, but it's not non-existent. You have then proceeded to come up with all sorts of explanations for why it might have occurred, but that's nothing more than the cries of the Geocentric crowd insisting that evidence to the contrary of Geocentrism is clearly incorrect because it doesn't match with what they've seen before.

    You are the ones making claims the study - And the team that did the study - Are not. And the fact that you clearly are unable to recognize your own bias in this is what is so frustrating and so foolish. Man has, since time immemorial, been shown that their view of the universe was incomplete or incorrect: Geocentrism, Ether or a host of other beliefs that fit with what we had seen to that point. What does the study mean? We don't know, yet. You claim to, which anyone who doesn't share your clear bias can see.

    Science must be prepared to evolve based upon observations. These observations do not fit with the existing model - Is it the observations that are wrong or is it the model? Could be either, but you have automatically assumed the first.

    That's just bad science designed to serve your dogma.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    I'm not a dualist myself, but these aren't good arguments against the dualist position. Perhaps consciousness is created at birth and then lasts forever, or perhaps we don't remember any "past lives". We don't know. As for the argument from brain damage, I don't think any dualist would deny some sort of a connection between the material and the immaterial.

    I think there are better metaphysical arguments against dualism that don't depend on any scientific findings.
    Metaphysical arguments are just speculation not evidence.If you want to find something out then science is the best way of doing so.And this question is firmly in the realm of science. Yeah conciousness could be separate from the brain but thats not really a logical conclusion.It has no evidence to support it so why would anyone just assume that? You would not assume that for any other organ in the body so why for the brain?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robby2312)
    Metaphysical arguments are just speculation not evidence.If you want to find something out then science is the best way of doing so.And this question is firmly in the realm of science. Yeah conciousness could be separate from the brain but thats not really a logical conclusion.It has no evidence to support it so why would anyone just assume that? You would not assume that for any other organ in the body so why for the brain?
    Speculation and forming hypotheses via conceptual and logical reasoning is actually part of the scientific process; I don't think you've studied any of the metaphysical arguments in favour of your position, or indeed any metaphysics at all since doing so would quickly inform you that all systems of inquiry, including the inductive scientific process, rests on epistemological and metaphysical assumptions.

    This question is not in the realm of science, since the dualist is proposing an immaterial substance while science is concerned with the physical world.

    I don't understand your question. Consciousness is quite a distinct phenomenon, but as I'm not a dualist it's not up to me to argue on their behalf.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scaredofdeath)
    There is NO life after death.
    We are our bodies , more precisely our brains.
    There is no such thing as a "soul".
    There is no such thing as "heaven" " hell" .
    These are all inventions of the religious people.
    No one is going to reborn , we only live once.
    When will non religious people realise there is an afterlife?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    Speculation and forming hypotheses via conceptual and logical reasoning is actually part of the scientific process; I don't think you've studied any of the metaphysical arguments in favour of your position, or indeed any metaphysics at all since doing so would quickly inform you that all systems of inquiry, including the inductive scientific process, rests on epistemological and metaphysical assumptions.

    This question is not in the realm of science, since the dualist is proposing an immaterial substance while science is concerned with the physical world.

    I don't understand your question. Consciousness is quite a distinct phenomenon, but as I'm not a dualist it's not up to me to argue on their behalf.
    Yes hypothesis's are part of science.But those hypothesis which aren't backed up by evidence are discarded.That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.The difference between the metaphysicist and the physicist is that the physicist has a laboratory.The question is most definitely in the realm of science since the dualist is claiming an immaterial substance which has an impact on the physical world.If you cant prove or disprove the claim by science then how else are you going to do it? And if science doesnt work and its simply a question of metaphyics then using the same logic you could claim anything exists.An immaterial substance separate from the brain.Why not? A unicorn which flys around on a magic carpet?Sure.A teapot revolving around the intergalactic core?No evidence against it.You can't just say stuff exists without evidence.Otherwise anything you can imagine can exist.There has to be a limit somewhere.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: September 21, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Poll
Which is the best season?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.