Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Non-Muslims would you? Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    What's your definition of a "community group"?
    Members drawn from the local community? I thought that would have been rather obvious.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    Why would that not include members drawn from the local community who subscribed to certain political ideologies as well as religious ideologies? You implied you would object to the former.
    Because a community group carrying out the civic functions of policing and/or emergency care is irrelevant to whichever political ideology or religious ideology one subscribes to.

    In it's activities, it would be politically and religiously neutral.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    many religious groups have their own structure, and can exclude deviants, prescribe atonement etc etc. But Muslims are far too fragmented to possibly envisage a unified structure. If they succeed in doing so, what's to stop them ? in fact, there are loads of "Shariah Councils" "Shariah judges" etc in the UK. Of course their decisions have no legals force : and quite rightly so.

    There are four main Sunni legal schools (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali) and one main Shia (Jaafaris) but loads of minor ones, not to speak of "fringe" groups which are considered as Muslim by some, but not by other (Alewis, Ismailis etc) and Muslim groups which are almost unanimously considered as "non-Muslim" by other Muslims (Ahmadyya, Submitters etc). All these have their own organisations.
    But each having their own is not necessarily a barrier.

    well, you should make allowance for all of us simple "people who are struggling" to understand your winged prosa. A few tips

    -don't use lofty words for simple concepts. The public and the private get "separated", rather than "cleaved". Yes, in the Quran "the Heavens and the Earth are cleaved asunder", but that's Allah engaging in poetry, not prosa on a webforum

    -make simple periods. Avoid several subordinate phrases, chained to each other in the same paragraph. People will understand you much better, and appreciate your arguments much more

    All the best
    Thank you for the constructive advice. I shall bear it in mind.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    And you believe they should work within the confines of the law (regarding citizen's arrest and so on) or should be afforded special legal privileges?
    Within the confines of the law, of course.


    What "special legal privileges" are you referring to?
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    In which case I apologise but I did find it strange how you suddenly brought in Muslims when my post referred to the Shomim and Hatzola (both Jewish organisations).

    Keeping in line with the theme of my post, a more apt example would have been Neo-Nazi's patrolling Jewish neighborhoods but I'm probably over-thinking things.

    Sorry.
    Accepted. Thank you.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by safiyyah98)
    Mate thats not part of Sharia law, thats just something Saudi Arabia do, just cuz they do it, doesn't make it islamic, like a lot of other laws they have....they aren't Islamic e.g women aren't allowed to drive or go out without a man....thats complete and utter bull **** and not part of islam at all. Don't get the two mixed up.
    Yes they are a part of Islam.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mkap)
    Muslims shouldn't really impose Sharia law on non Muslims; they're not Muslims. The UK law shouldn't be changed to sharia law as there are non Muslims in the UK. They should be allowed Sharia Courts in the UK where Muslims can deal with their own matters.

    However countries where there is Sharia Law have low rates of adultery, babies out of wedlock, less drug abusers, rapists and thefts (please don bring in the IS argument) compared to western countries where you have children who don't know who there father is.
    whats wrong with that?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    Really? Can I see some evidence to support that most people speak similar to how they write, specifically in reference to vocabulary usage? From what I understand, written language generally tends to have a far greater usage of vocabulary than spoken language. Based on the data in this paper I have linked, if we were to measure ones vocabulary by the amount of rare words used per 1000 words, then written works tend to show a far greater vocabulary than used in spoken language. For example, this paper states that a newspaper uses on average 68.3 rare words per 1000 compared to the average of 17.3 rare words per 1000 words used by college graduates in speech.


    http://www.csun.edu/~krowlands/Conte...the%20Mind.pdf
    Firstly, I would strongly object to the "rare words" for I do not at all, find those terms "rare" and indeed, they are a regular occurrence in my communication or articulation of language.

    Secondly, I find the conclusions troubling for it is drawing (false) conclusions based on two very different speakers, that of what is presumably an established paper housing journalists who have more experience and conform to a certain standard with that of a college graduate who is perhaps not as educated or more experienced.



    Thirdly and quite importantly, the audience of the communicator is the most important factor. Compare two stories that are presented in two different newspapers (Say, The Sun vs The Guardian) and you can immediately start telling the difference.

    Although, both papers are staffed by what one might consider professional journalists (ethics may be non-existent in the case of one), there exists a gulf in language due to lexical choices.

    What is less clear is whether those choices are based on the how their readership genuinely converses or by journalists assuming the level, and type of language their readership may use. I have generally found that there is substantial correlation of the former.



    I would not want to spend a great deal of time on this, for it is not the main topic of discussion, other than to simply say that the vocabulary one uses, in both spoken and written communication is largely the same.

    It's simply a matter of fact that speech contains a lot of extraneous material which if one were to transcribe, would be incoherent for it would be full of fillers. However, due to my upbringing, and a tendency to set out my thoughts before speaking in my measured tones, I find that my speech is quite similar to my written communication.

    The only difference which I would concede exists between the written and spoken is perhaps the structure but in terms of lexical choices, there is virtually no distinction.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    In the absence of special legal privileges, such as those of a constable, there would obviously need to be some regulation/education for community groups wishing to police areas - akin to those of private security. They would be at risk of falling foul of the law if they engaged in "policing" without strict supervision. If this is put in place, then I don't necessarily disagree with it, though I am skeptical and think that those who fall under your definition of "community group" but are made up of particular ideologies would be liable to wayward members trying to go beyond merely civic policing.
    You see, I don't think people do need to be micro-managed in a community and there is no need to have "strict supervision".


    I am an advocate of greater autonomy and with it greater responsibility but heavy handed oversight would lead to stagnation. A desire to see everyone the same, ignoring the differences and diversity is going to lead to bigger conflicts down the road.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    Firstly, I would strongly object to the "rare words" for I do not at all, find those terms "rare" and indeed, they are a regular occurrence in my communication or articulation of language.
    Whilst it is arbitrary as to where we should choose the cut off point to be, it is a fact that certain words are used far more than others, which implies some words are more rare in usage than others. Those mentioned words are by far more rare in common everyday conversation than words such as "the" and "was".

    Secondly, I find the conclusions troubling for it is drawing (false) conclusions based on two very different speakers, that of what is presumably an established paper housing journalists who have more experience and conform to a certain standard with that of a college graduate who is perhaps not as educated or more experienced.

    Thirdly and quite importantly, the audience of the communicator is the most important factor. Compare two stories that are presented in two different newspapers (Say, The Sun vs The Guardian) and you can immediately start telling the difference.

    Although, both papers are staffed by what one might consider professional journalists (ethics may be non-existent in the case of one), there exists a gulf in language due to lexical choices.

    What is less clear is whether those choices are based on the how their readership genuinely converses or by journalists assuming the level, and type of language their readership may use. I have generally found that there is substantial correlation of the former.

    I would not want to spend a great deal of time on this, for it is not the main topic of discussion, other than to simply say that the vocabulary one uses, in both spoken and written communication is largely the same.

    It's simply a matter of fact that speech contains a lot of extraneous material which if one were to transcribe, would be incoherent for it would be full of fillers. However, due to my upbringing, and a tendency to set out my thoughts before speaking in my measured tones, I find that my speech is quite similar to my written communication.
    The link I posted correlated ones vocabulary with ones level of reading. The work also makes the point that not all sources of written work are equal, hence it showing a wide variety of reading sources. It is evidence that the language found within a peer reviewed scientific journal will not be equal to the language used in everyday conversations. Someone who writes an article for a scientific journal will tend not to use such an extensive vocabulary in everyday conversation.

    The only difference which I would concede exists between the written and spoken is perhaps the structure but in terms of lexical choices, there is virtually no distinction.
    I would still like to see some evidence for this claim. I am very highly doubtful of this.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    Whilst it is arbitrary as to where we should choose the cut off point to be, it is a fact that certain words are used far more than others, which implies some words are more rare in usage than others. Those mentioned words are by far more rare in common everyday conversation than words such as "the" and "was".
    It depends on the circles that one frequents.

    The link I posted correlated ones vocabulary with ones level of reading. The work also makes the point that not all sources of written work are equal, hence it showing a wide variety of reading sources. It is evidence that the language found within a peer reviewed scientific journal will not be equal to the language used in everyday conversations. Someone who writes an article for a scientific journal will tend not to use such an extensive vocabulary in everyday conversation.
    But that is my point. Language is tailored towards audiences. A scientist, lawyer or any number of professionals will use terminology appropriate to the occasion.

    It is absurd to think that in a conversation about weather, they will suddenly use words that are related to metaphysics or the principles of subsidiarity (in law).

    And it's equally absurd to think that in a lecture to fellow biologists, a biologist will not utter words that are generally contained within biology textbooks.

    I would still like to see some evidence for this claim. I am very highly doubtful of this.
    I shall not be spending any more time addressing this but I strongly suggest that you spend some time with a doctor. an academic or a professional, and listen to the manner in which they converse with fellow professionals, and compare that to the material that they have published.

    More often than not, their speech is similar to that which they have written.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    You mentioned "Equality before the law" and made reference to the "5% of people who want special treatment". These two statements don't follow for "equality before the law" is principally understood to be in regards to the due process (i.e: addressing procedures) and not in regards to substantive decisions that a court may reach.
    Perhaps you might like to read the actual statements made in their entirety rather than taking what I said à la carte and then extracting a conclusion from them that was clearly not intended. Your line of argument here amounts to little more than saying 'you made a reference to X and you also made a reference to Y, therefore you must have meant [fanciful conclusion about X and Y built out of straw].'

    That is why when most people talk about "equality before the law", they are mostly in relation to the rights afforded to them in criminal cases (and not civil disputes which is what we are concentrating on here), or in contrast, the rights not afforded to certain people who are suspected with committing heinous crimes.
    I see no reason to make an exception for civil disputes. I also doubt that 'most people' who aren't strongly religious make that exception, either.

    As for your unwitting and rash comment about "tyranny of the majority" vis-a-vis democracy and human rights, it has unfortunately presented a very simplistic view an issue which is quite complex.

    First of, you assume that we are a fully fledged democracy in the sense that everyone is contributing to the governance of our country. Electoral turnout has proven that to be demonstrably false.

    Since the 1950's, where turnout was around 85%, the % of people participating in GE dropped to 60%, at the turn of the century and it is now risen to around 65%.In actual numbers, our electorate (i.e: those on the electoral register) grew by 13 million people in 65 years (between 1950-2015) yet only 2 million more people bothered to to vote.

    However, the 30 million people that voted are making decisions for 64 million people, hardly "tyranny of the majority".
    Filler material. All of this. It suffers from the same scatterbrained tendency to take what I say à la carte as before; you've taken the phrase 'tyranny of the majority', discarded all context, and gone off on an unrelated rant about voter turnouts.

    I haven't assumed that everyone is contributing to governance, but that doesn't take anything away from my point that people do have the right to contribute to governance (despite your ridiculous assertion that everyone must be voting for the country to qualify as a 'fully fledged democracy'). A democracy grants people the right to have a say in governance. If people choose not to exercise that right, that doesn't mean that they didn't have the chance to have a say in the first place and, even if it did, you might want to think about what the word 'majority' means to you if 65 percent doesn't fit the bill.

    Secondly, and due to how our "democratic" system works, which runs contrary to the Athenian notion of democracy, is based on party politics.We vote for a party, not people who would work together to steer the country in the right direction, but parties who are partisan and look out for their own interests and deviate repeatedly from the basis that they were elected upon.37% of eligible voters voted for the Conservatives, representing 11 million people in the UK. These 11 million people have now decided that the Conservative Party should implement policies and dictate to the remaining 53 million in the UK. Hardly "tyranny of the majority".
    I'm not here to have a discussion about the voting system but I will say this: you're not comparing like with like in the highlighted examples. The remaining 53 million are not all eligible voters. Don't even get me started on the disingenuity of pretending that the other voters aren't getting represented because their parties of choice aren't part of the government...

    Furthermore, can one not argue the fear of "tyranny of the majority" is exactly why we shouldn't have "equality before the law" in the sense that some groups require more protection (i.e: special treatment) than others?
    No, you can't, although I argued a similar point about human rights and why they shouldn't be repealable by a tyrannical majority before you butchered it by taking it out of context.

    The concept of how to govern (i.e: democracy) has literally nothing to do with the concept of human rights though I do admit, it is a conflation that many people make.
    The state doesn't guarantee human rights to its citizens through a gentlemen's agreement; these things are legislated by governments. If this counts as a conflation, I think that making yourself an exception to that is a point against you, not against me or any of the 'many people' who apparently conflate the two.

    Please stay on topic if you're going to reply, because I'm going to ignore any rants about topics tangentially related to a particular word that I've used to make a point.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    We have no need and a law solely based on a religion is a bad thing, and if you take the bad bits out you just have a incomplete judicial system
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    It depends on the circles that one frequents.
    Regardless of circles you frequent, some words will be more rare than others. A word such as "thoughtful" will always be rarer than word such as "the", no matter what circle you frequent.

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    But that is my point. Language is tailored towards audiences. A scientist, lawyer or any number of professionals will use terminology appropriate to the occasion.

    It is absurd to think that in a conversation about weather, they will suddenly use words that are related to metaphysics or the principles of subsidiarity (in law).

    And it's equally absurd to think that in a lecture to fellow biologists, a biologist will not utter words that are generally contained within biology textbooks.
    Nowhere was the claim made that people will not use technical or rare words in their speech. Just that the vocabulary one uses tends to vary depending on the medium used.


    I shall not be spending any more time addressing this but I strongly suggest that you spend some time with a doctor. an academic or a professional, and listen to the manner in which they converse with fellow professionals, and compare that to the material that they have published.

    More often than not, their speech is similar to that which they have written.
    Our reading vocabulary tends to also be larger than our written or oral vocabulary. Our vocabularies are different depending on whether it is read, written, heard or spoken.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    The Shomrim and the Hatzola (Jewish equivalent paramedics) serve not only the Jewish community, but also the wider community.

    I see no reason to get rid of people who are performing an essential public service, giving up their own time to do so, and especially in light of the struggles the police forces of this country face due to budget cuts which has resulted in a lot of crimes not being investigated, or even attended to.

    We should move to a more decentralised policing system where police and patrol officers are drawn from the local community, much like the pre-WW2 days.
    By that logic, Muslims can have their own form of justice which can be Sharia but compliant with the UK legal system. We can have our police service in areas with high Muslim populations but also serve the wider community.

    As a Muslim, I wouldn't want a "Muslim" police force nor a Jewish one at that. The British police are the only police we should have, not some sort of vigilante Jewish group who hold so much power in that respective area.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Perhaps you might like to read the actual statements made in their entirety rather than taking what I said à la carte and then extracting a conclusion from them that was clearly not intended. Your line of argument here amounts to little more than saying 'you made a reference to X and you also made a reference to Y, therefore you must have meant [fanciful conclusion about X and Y built out of straw].'
    And I'm explaining to you how you don't seem to understand the notions of what you have written.

    "Equality before the law" is not a substantive principle, it is a procedural one. It's like a check box, a nominal gesture. From a practical and substantive point of view, it literally doesn't exist.

    Hence your 5% is deemed irrelevant.

    I see no reason to make an exception for civil disputes. I also doubt that 'most people' who aren't strongly religious make that exception, either.
    There are no exceptions made for civil disputes, in relation to the principle of equality before the law.

    What on earth are you babbling on about?

    Filler material. All of this. It suffers from the same scatterbrained tendency to take what I say à la carte as before; you've taken the phrase 'tyranny of the majority', discarded all context, and gone off on an unrelated rant about voter turnouts.
    And I'm sat here thinking that you've started using terms, the definition and context which you've demonstrably understood poorly, in an effort to portray some kind lexical superiority.

    Furthermore, it's ironic how your use of French (à la carte), whilst presumably intended to make you sound more intelligent, means that one must strip it of all meaning and context, in order for your argument to even begin to sound coherent.

    I haven't assumed that everyone is contributing to governance, but that doesn't take anything away from my point that people do have the right to contribute to governance (despite your ridiculous assertion that everyone must be voting for the country to qualify as a 'fully fledged democracy'. A democracy grants people the right to have a say in governance. If people choose not to exercise that right, that doesn't mean that they didn't have the chance to have a say in the first place and, even if it did, you might want to think about what the word 'majority' means to you if 65 percent doesn't fit the bill.
    What a ridiculous statement, especially in light of what I had written below about party politics and general voter apathy to our system of democracy.

    As for your 65%, it would invariably involve have to qualify such a statement in order for it to be considered "tyranny of the majority" and that is extremely unlikely given the nature of our democratic system.

    I'm not here to have a discussion about the voting system but I will say this: you're not comparing like with like in the highlighted examples. The remaining 53 million are not all eligible voters. Don't even get me started on the disingenuity of pretending that the other voters aren't getting represented because their parties of choice aren't part of the government...
    You claim that you are not here to have a discussion about our voting system yet you are the one who brought up democracy and majority.

    Why are you talking about representation? Representation is something completely, and forgive me if I quote you on this, "à la carte".

    Your point was about "tyranny of the majority", indicating governance, stemming from our democratic process. That has been decidedly proven to be false.

    No, you can't, although I argued a similar point about human rights and why they shouldn't be repealable by a tyrannical majority before you butchered it by taking it out of context.
    And why should HR not be subjected to curtailment or repealability? Why should HR be awarded special protection?

    The state doesn't guarantee human rights to its citizens through a gentlemen's agreement; these things are legislated by governments.
    One can make the point that even when HR are legislated for, they are not always honored.

    And one can equally make the point that despite the non-enactment for a British bill of rights for over 300 years, there was some semblance of Human Rights present in the UK, which although was not codified, was very much present in society.

    If this counts as a conflation, I think that making yourself an exception to that is a point against you, not against me or any of the 'many people' who apparently conflate the two.
    You're attempting to defend the conflation and confusion that you have presented in your statements by telling me that other people also make it?

    Perhaps a dose of "à la carte" may just be what the doctor ordered?

    Please stay on topic if you're going to reply, because I'm going to ignore any rants about topics tangentially related to a particular word that I've used to make a point.
    Please excuse the sarcasm. I couldn't help it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by King7)
    By that logic, Muslims can have their own form of justice which can be Sharia but compliant with the UK legal system. We can have our police service in areas with high Muslim populations but also serve the wider community.
    That sounds like a great idea.

    It will form a valuable and integral link between different communities and the police and help foster greater understanding and participation in British civil society.

    As a Muslim, I wouldn't want a "Muslim" police force nor a Jewish one at that. The British police are the only police we should have, not some sort of vigilante Jewish group who hold so much power in that respective area.
    No one is suggesting exclusive police forces but supplementary community groups.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    The reason why private security are tightly regulated is because a) the nature of their job requires oversight generally and b) they would fall foul of the law all of the time without such regulation and supervision.

    If such community groups are not regulated then they will be so open to legal action that their work would be useless.

    They would only be able to properly "police" with special legal privileges or tight supervision as private security.
    They'd have some training but it's not like psychotics will be admitted into this community group.

    They'll simply be the interface and link between the police and the community which would help foster trust and be more community orientated.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    That sounds like a great idea.

    It will form a valuable and integral link between different communities and the police and help foster greater understanding and participation in British civil society.



    No one is suggesting exclusive police forces but supplementary community groups.
    Now please don't think this is directed solely to you. But if the Muslim community for whatever reason do make their own version of the "Shomrim", there would without a doubt be a huge wave of Islamaphobia and protests against it. However, a protest against the Shomrim in Golders Green was moved from Golders Green 8 miles to Westminster! All at the request of... yes the Shomrim.

    Again, i dont mean to be rude to you, but I dont believe you when you say you support such a thing from the Muslims, or at least have more of a negative perception of it as opposed to the Shomrim.

    The British Police is, should, and must always be reported first, before some vigilante organisation.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    There are no exceptions made for civil disputes, in relation to the principle of equality before the law.

    What on earth are you babbling on about?
    For somebody who's so unjustifiably big-headed, remembering your own pretentious babble isn't your strong point. You said this:

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    That is why when most people talk about "equality before the law", they are mostly in relation to the rights afforded to them in criminal cases (and not civil disputes which is what we are concentrating on here), or in contrast, the rights not afforded to certain people who are suspected with committing heinous crimes.
    I responded with this:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    I see no reason to make an exception for civil disputes. I also doubt that 'most people' who aren't strongly religious make that exception, either.
    Notice your subtle shift from talking about what 'many people' think to talking about what equality before the law entails in principle? Yeah, go ahead and make another senseless word salad justifying your idiotic manoeuvre. :rolleyes:
    started using terms, the definition and context which you've demonstrably understood poorly, in an effort to portray some kind lexical superiority.

    your use of French (à la carte), whilst presumably intended to make you sound more intelligent, means that one must strip it of all meaning and context, in order for your argument to even begin to sound coherent.
    Well, I'm pleased to see that you're introspective enough to describe your own behaviour, even if you're diagnosing the wrong person.

    As for my apparent misuse of à la carte -- it's a French loanword, intended to make me sound more intelligent only as much as my use of oh-so-fancy loanwords like 'kindergarten' or 'bazaar.' Do let me know whether your can find a better term for your foolish habit of taking two or three words out of context and then discussing them in a way that has nothing to do with the matter at hand, purportedly to educate me about them.

    As for coherence -- you may want to step away from your glass house before lecturing anybody on that.

    Why are you talking about representation?

    Your point was about "tyranny of the majority", indicating governance, stemming from our democratic process.
    Because we are talking about lawmaking in the UK which is done primarily by a system of representative democracy. What were you saying about conflation a while ago? It seems you're not immune to it yourself, having blabbered on at length about the voting system and how apparently only 37 percent of people have any say in the lawmaking process.

    And why should HR not be subjected to curtailment or repealability? Why should HR be awarded special protection?
    Because it would violate our commitment to the UN Declaration of Human Rights and common decency. Unless you're suggesting that we emulate rogue states like North Korea or the Islamic State, both of which I'm sure you're an avid fan of. (avid: Damn, I just can't help but use such big words to make myself sound so smart, can I? How ever will I learn... :rolleyes:)

    You're attempting to defend the conflation and confusion that you have presented in your statements by telling me that other people also make it?
    Your reading comprehension is a serious worry at this point. You don't seem able to read two consecutive sentences with respect to each other (à la carte indeed, or would that be too pretentious a description for an insufferable obscurantist like you? :rolleyes:); no, they can apparently only be read in isolation. Here's what was actually said, for those of us who're capable of focusing on more than one sentence at a time:

    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    The concept of how to govern (i.e: democracy) has literally nothing to do with the concept of human rights though I do admit, it is a conflation that many people make.
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    The state doesn't guarantee human rights to its citizens through a gentlemen's agreement; these things are legislated by governments. If this counts as a conflation, I think that making yourself an exception to that is a point against you, not against me or any of the 'many people' who apparently conflate the two.
    So you made a false statement (underlined) and delicately implied that you're a special snowflake for having made it (also underlined), had the statement refuted and the 'many people' who subscribe to it therefore vindicated, and then came out with this piffle hoping that I and others wouldn't have kept up with your flip-flopping:

    You're attempting to defend the conflation and confusion that you have presented in your statements by telling me that other people also make it?
    So, as shown, you're a liar and an obscurantist and a shill who is clearly wasting everybody's time. As ever, don't expect any further reply and save yourself some time and don't bother with another embarrassing 'rebuttal' because I'm done here and won't be reading it.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Should Spain allow Catalonia to declare independence?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.