seagull

I think we have to wait and see. On the one hand I find it very difficult to think that formal permission, with or without some commercial royalty agreement, would be given bearing in mind the context of how and where the song is being used. On the other hand BMG (the publishers) are a large and well established company, and it's equally difficult to think that they would have not done their due diligence to ensure all permissions were sought, let alone have deliberately ignored their obligations. I know from my own close contacts within the legal department that our brothers are super quick at closing down any unauthorised use of material and do so regularly so I do find it interesting that the content is still up on YT but that in itself is not grounds to draw any conclusions. Until such time as it is clear what the situation is between the organisation and BMG then I don't think we can do much more than wait patiently and trust our brothers.

Never knew that Lego is Lego is the UK and Legos in the US. I've had to wrap myself in shrink wrap to stop the grammar policeman who lives in me from breaking out over this https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/10839/what-is-the-correct-plural-form-of-lego-lego-or-legos

In legal terms it's not a fact hence the qualifying use of the term "alleged". It might sound pedantic but the whole point of the court is so that the case for both prosecution and defence is presented. The judge and jury then determine guilt. In terrible situations like this it may seem open and shut but in principle there may be facts and circumstances that only become apparent during the police investigation. I don't think that will prove to be the case here but I hope the general point is clear.

The brother has been named in the news media as Phillip Ryan, an elder from Bideford congregation. I also spoke with a relative from Bideford and they are in total shock. It's a terrible event and our hearts go out to his wife and family.

Except the gates would normally be locked in the middle of the afternoon and it's clear from various pictures that the police have cordoned off the car park itself. That still does not mean there is any connection at all to the congregation. I don't know anyone in the area to check any details so I guess we shall all have to wait for further media reports to get the details of the extent of any direct relationship with the local congregation.

A travel ban is useless against extremists that are British citizens, born and bred here. None of the attacks in the UK has had anything to do with recent immigrants. We await details on the perpetrators of the latest horrific crime but my expectation is that they will prove to be 2nd or 3rd generation British citizens. There is no doubt these attacks will provoke some more radical action by the British government. We are 4 days from an election and the polls have been closing the gap between the incumbent and the opposition. "Strong and stable leadership" has been the mantra from the PM so she will want to see this pushed forward ASAP to convince the public the country is safe in her hands. It will be interesting to see the developments. I don't see any chance of some ban on Islam but internment of suspected extremists or imprisonment of those who have travelled to Syria/Libya could well be up for discussion.

It's not a fake. It's not last night at the Arena but it's the Arndale Centre. Here is the picture in context. http://news.sky.com/story/manchester-arndale-centre-evacuated-after-security-alert-10889787

This is the Arndale Centre. It's in the city and is a shopping centre. It was evacuated as a precaution earlier today so I would assume that the brothers were there and told to evacuate, leaving the trolley behind.

The people around you and me that we interact with regularly could not care less about what Serena Williams says or does and how we think it may reflect on Jehovah's Witnesses. I doubt it even registers with them. They will care about what you and I do however. They will notice our behaviour and make opinions of us based on that. For me that's of far more concern than anything some personality with a tenuous link to Jehovah's Witnesses says or does.

As I understand it, any funds handed over to banks for exchange that tally with the expectations based on declared income are fine. It's where the amount are not in line with the tax returns made or where cash is determined to be fake that the problems occur. It's to get rid of fraud and reduce the amount of tax evasion but of course must be a massive disruption.

I thought printing was already shifting to Germany? I was speaking with a brother from Bethel just a couple of weeks ago about this.

Does that include those used in the bull rings?

Then they are not vegetarian. They are pescitarian or, to use the trendy phrase, "flexitarian", choosing to eat fish and/or meat when it suits them. A fish is not a vegetable or fruit. Neither is a chicken. Someone may wish to eat a strictly vegetarian diet 99% of the time however if they choose to eat some form of meat then they are not vegetarian. I am married. If I slept with my wife 99% of the time but 1% with another woman would I be faithful and monogamous or not? I can't be faithful except when I am not. I have no issue with someone calling themselves "semi-vegetarian" if they wish other than it's a wishy washy term for something that already has a definition (e.g. pescitarian or omnivore) but there really is no such thing as a vegetarian who eats meat.

*** steps on soap box *** No there aren't subcategories. Someone is either vegetarian or not. There are people who claim to be vegetarian but then eat fish or whatever but then they are not vegetarian. A person, by definition, cannot eat fish, chicken, beef or anything else that was an animal and call themselves vegetarian. Some people might have a vegetarian diet during the week but then eat meat at the weekends or when they go out socially but that does not mean they are vegetarian. It's simple. By their works you shall know them.... *** steps off soap box **** Vegans are a whole different ballgame since there is always a better (aka more fundamental) vegan than yourself. It's a bit like someone owning a supercar - there'll always be someone else with a more expensive, faster, more exclusive car than you.

This is very, very true. My personal opinion is that given the complex nature of this particular subject that some are inclined essentially to delegate their conscience to the guidance of the F&DS. So if the F&DS state that product A or procedure B is not acceptable but leave product X and procedure Y to conscience then that's where the individual's conscience will be. Of course, the whole point of being sheep in the congregation is to look to the leadership of the F&DS as Jehovah's representatives on the earth so in that sense there is nothing inherently wrong in the above however as you state, really we should be reasoning on the matter ourselves to reach a conclusion that keeps our conscience clear and relationship with Jehovah intact. This is also why the F&DS have pointed out that were our conscience to determine that fractions were unacceptable since blood has had to be donated and processed (noting that we are not permitted to donate blood out of respect for Jehovah's standards) then this would also mean we would need to look carefully at all sorts of products and procedures, including things like some basic vaccinations, that might contain products obtained by processing blood. As a side point, this also makes me recall conversations I had years ago when a number of congregations in the UK, including one local to me, donated funds to allow local hospitals to purchase cell saver machines. This was welcomed by many however my personal opinion was that this was indicating that the congregation, and by extension, the organisation, supported and endorsed the procedure. This, in turn, could make someone whose conscience did not permit them to submit to the procedure feel out of step with the organisation or feel that their position was somehow incorrect even though the literature made it clear this was a conscience matter. It could also cause a problem for an individual if they were admitted to hospital and declined the procedure since the medical staff would be unable to understand how Jehovah's Witnesses could donate a machine to enable bloodless care to be undertaken yet a Witness, perhaps from the congregation who donated the machine, refused the procedure feeling that they would be not following the biblical command to abstain from blood.