Matthew Goode partner

Sophie Dymoke with partner Matthew Goode (Photo: imgix.bustle.com) Indeed, the couple is blessed with three children, a baby daughter Matilda Eve Goode born on 1st March 2009. In September 2013, they made an addition to their family with another girl child naming her Teddie Eleanor Rose Goode and later in August 2015, the duo was blessed with a ... While Matthew Goode frees the knot of a complicated relationship between a vampire and witch on a TV show, he relishes marital life with a lovey-dovey wife, Sophie Dymoke, in Surrey. The duo has witnessed the afar success of long-term relationships turning into wedding bliss. goode, lt. col. david matthew, jr. (USAF Ret.), beloved husband of Rose Marie Goode , loving father of Beverly Ann Haffeman (Lenn), Lt. Col. David M. Goode , III (Lt. Col. Paula), Andrew Goode and Major Julia Goode , devoted grandfather of Matthew and Peter Goode , Lauren and Michael Haffeman, dear brother of Gloria Gold. Goode was born on April 3, 1978, in Exeter, Devon, England, the UK as Matthew William Goode. His nickname is Goodey. Her height is 6' 2' (1.88 m) tall. His birth sign is Aries. Goode has four siblings. a brother, two half-brothers, and a half-sister. He attended Exeter School, University of Birmingham and London's Webber Douglas Academy of ... Matthew Goode Partner at Hollander, Goode & Lopez, PA Miami/Fort Lauderdale Area 157 connections. Join to Connect. Hollander, Goode & Lopez, PA. Nova Southeastern University Shepard Broad College ... Sophie Dymoke has been in a long relationship with her partner Matthew William Goode for a long time and the couple is blessed with three children. There is a conflicting report about whether the two got married or not. Goode Partners LLC is a New York-based private equity firm that focuses on investment opportunities in the retail, restaurant, apparel, direct marketing and branded consumer products sectors. The firm leverages its unique combination of investment capital, a team of professionals with experience investing in and operating some of the world’s ... Matthew Goode, a charming English actor who starred alongside Benedict Cumberbatch in The Imitation Game (2014) is the winner of 2014 Fangoria Chainsaw Awards.Known for his work in romantic comedy Leap Year and Australian drama Burning Man, Matthew is also in the limelight for his perfect relationship with his wife, Sophie Dymoke.. Matthew and Sophie are married for around four years and are ... Matthew Goode Matthew Goode appeared in the show towards the end of its run, playing Henry Talbot. The actor married his long-term partner Sophie Dymoke in 2014 after being in a relationship for ... Relationships. Matthew Goode has been in relationships with Margot Molinari (2004 - 2005).. About. Matthew Goode is a 42 year old British Actor. Born Matthew William Goode on 3rd April, 1978 in Exeter, Devon, he is famous for Chasing Liberty in a career that spans 2002–present.

Wrestling Observer Rewind ★ Sept. 23, 2002

2020.09.30 14:28 daprice82 Wrestling Observer Rewind ★ Sept. 23, 2002

Going through old issues of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter and posting highlights in my own words. For anyone interested, I highly recommend signing up for the actual site at f4wonline and checking out the full archives.
PREVIOUSLY:
1-7-2002 1-14-2002 1-21-2002 1-28-2002
2-4-2002 2-11-2002 2-18-2002 2-25-2002
3-4-2002 3-11-2002 3-18-2002 3-25-2002
4-1-2002 4-8-2002 4-15-2002 4-22-2002
4-29-2002 5-6-2002 5-13-2002 5-20-2002
5-27-2002 6-3-2002 6-10-2002 6-17-2002
6-24-2002 7-1-2002 7-8-2002 7-15-2002
7-22-2002 7-29-2002 8-5-2002 8-12-2002
8-26-2002 9-2-2002 9-9-2002 9-16-2002
  • We open with the fallout from last week's HLA segment and the Billy and Chuck wedding. WWE surprisingly got some positive news coverage for being a progressive company with a breakthrough gay marriage on TV and talked about how Billy and Chuck as gay characters weren't being sent out to get heat from the crowd and get boos. Even GLAAD got involved, with their spokesman appearing in numerous media outlets to praise WWE for the characters. Dave seems pretty surprised by all this, given the fact that Billy and Chuck are absolutely designed to play for laughs and, at least a few times, to play on people's homophobia for heat. This is also the same company that gave us Goldust, who's gimmick for years was getting crowds to chant the F-word at him while everyone he wrestled acted grossed out. When they turned Goldust babyface, the first thing they did was have him cut a promo and establish that he's not gay so fans would cheer (and indeed, they did). And that's pretty much what happened here. As this angle blew up and got so much publicity, Billy and Chuck became babyfaces and the blow-off to the wedding was once again, "We're not actually gay." That, as WWE of course expected, got the biggest pop of the night and the show ended without the promised wedding.
  • Turns out, GLAAD was none too happy to have been duped. "The WWE lied to us two months ago when they promised that Billy and Chuck would come out and wed on the air," the GLAAD spokesman said in an interview after the angle aired. In fact, he said he spoke with WWE the day after the wedding was taped (but before it aired) and claims that WWE again lied to him and told them the wedding had taken place. GLAAD has a ton of egg on their face, with multiple media outlets calling them fools for allowing themselves to be tricked by WWE. Bill O'Reilly talked about it on his show, trashing WWE and claiming they were mocking gay people (who is this guy and what have they done with Bill O'Reilly?) but O'Reilly also went further when he found a way to tie this into the Lionel Tate case. O'Reilly said that Tate, "flat out admitted he killed a little girl because he was watching wrestling," which Dave says is patently untrue and unfair (ah, there he is). From wrestling fans, the reaction to the angle seemed to be pretty much....meh. It was a midcard wrestling angle that had a pretty great Eric Bischoff reveal, but otherwise, Dave doesn't think wrestling fans give a shit about Billy and Chuck any more or any less than they did before (he's not wrong. Everyone remembers the Bischoff reveal but Billy and Chuck were back to doing nothing of note almost immediately after). Dave references an old Jake Roberts promo. The promo is about a boy who picks up a dying snake and nursed it back to health, only for the snake to bite him when he was healthy. When the boy asked why, after all he had done for him, the snake replied, "When you picked me up the first time, you knew I was a snake." In other words.....this is WWE. What did GLAAD and all these other media outlets expect to happen?
  • Then on Raw, the other story....the lesbians. This didn't get nearly the same mainstream coverage as the Billy and Chuck angle, but it was no less controversial. TNN executive vice president Diana Robina stated publicly that they had concerns about the segment and had a talk with WWE about it after the fact. Instead of shying away from the angle, WWE is moving forward with it, even releasing 2 images on their website for HLA t-shirt designs. One of them was a silhouette of two women with HLA. The other one, a little less subtle, was a cartoon of a tongue on a red box. On WWE Confidential, Vince McMahon addressed the controversy saying that the women in their underwear was fine, but perhaps the making out and rubbing on each other was "a bit much." Speaking of Vince, Dave says he looks like the stress of business declining has gotten to him badly since he was last on TV, he looked haggard. The kissing and rubbing was edited off the show by almost all of WWE's broadcast partners outside of the U.S. But otherwise, he defended the entire thing, saying their goal is to shock people and he didn't understand why anyone would think the lesbian angle was a desperate ratings grab, claiming everyone in TV pulls stunts for ratings sometimes. Well, for what it's worth, it didn't work and, in fact, after the lesbian segment, ratings plummeted for the main event like never before. People stuck around for the lesbians, but then they turned off the TV in record numbers after.
  • CMLL's 69th (nice.) Anniversary show is in the books and only notable for two things: Negro Casas losing a hair match and getting his head shaved. And after the match, a fan ran into the ring and attacked Tarzan Boy. The crowd thought it was an angle, but nope. Tarzan Boy jumped up and "made a comeback" on the guy until security dragged him out. (About the 13 minute mark)
WATCH: Negro Casas vs. Tarzan Boy - CMLL 69th (nice.) Anniversary Show
  • After some rocky financial times that reminded many of ECW's dying days, Puerto Rico's WWC held its 29th Anniversary show with hopes that the show would be a success and give the company a desperately needed financial boost. Well, WWC is in the midst of a vicious competition with IWA, which has become the #1 promotion in Puerto Rico and, in an effort to hurt WWC's show, IWA decided to run its own event in another arena 30 minutes away at the same time, headlined by WWC's former top star Ray Gonzalez (still wrestling under a mask as Fenix, even though everyone knows it's him). The decision to keep Gonzalez under the mask for now, aside from the contractual legal battle with WWC, is because IWA's business is good right now. So why mess with something that ain't broke? The idea is that, if business starts to go down anytime soon, then they can do a big unmasking angle with Gonzalez and boost business again. No sense blowing their load now. Anyway, both of these shows were outdoor events and Mother Nature decided to have a little fun by making it pour rain on both of them. WWC was counting on a crowd of 10,000 or more in the big stadium and thanks to the storms and the IWA competition, they only drew 1,300. By the time they got to the main event, only 300 or so people remained, the rest driven away by the weather. Twenty miles away, IWA fared much better, drawing 6,000 fans to their show in the rain. WWC held indoor shows later in the week, including a complete re-do of the Anniversary show, and it drew well. But all the promotion, the TV hype, the publicity and mainstream coverage was all geared toward promoting the outdoor show and it was a disaster. To say this weekend was a devastating blow to WWC would be an understatement.
  • Remember how last week Dave looked at top draws based on who had headlined the most PPVs with 1.0 or higher buyrates? Doing the same thing this time, except it's looking at wrestlers who have headlined shows that drew 30,000 or more fans. Shinya Hashimoto, Keiji Muto, and Genichiro Tenryu are all tied for first with 11 each, followed by Hogan, Inoki, Nobuhiko Takada, and Atsushi Onita. Hogan is the only non-Japanese wrestler on that list.
  • Lucha Libre star El Sanguinario passed away last week at age 33. He reportedly was having trouble breathing and then collapsed and was pronounced dead of a heart attack at the hospital. Sounds like he was a midcard dude in AAA for a lot of the 90s, Dave recaps his career. Dropping dead of a heart attack at only 33 is some scary shit.
  • The family of a wrestler named Brian Ong, who died while training at All Pro Wrestling's training school in May 2001, has filed a lawsuit against the promotion and its owner, Roland Alexander. The lawsuit alleges that Ong was training with a 7'3 wrestler who weighed 400 pounds when he suffered a fatal injury. The only wrestler who fits that description is NJPW's Giant Singh (better known these days as Great Khali), who was indeed training at the APW school around this time in 2001. The lawsuit claims Ong suffered a concussion earlier in the practice and instead of getting medical treatment, he was told to continue practicing. The suit claims the 5'7 Ong was put in the ring against Singh and after taking a flapjack bump, hit his head on the mat again and lost consciousness and never woke up. 911 was called and Ong died in the ambulance on the way to the hospital. The lawsuit claims Ong wasn't provided with protective gear or proper supervision and that the mats were not adequate cushion. It also argued that Ong should never have been put in a "match" with someone so much larger than him. Dave is flabbergasted that this story somehow stayed secret for 16 months and says the few people who must have been involved clearly tried to keep it quiet. He notes other well-known instances of trainees dying in wrestling schools, most famously an incident in NJPW's dojo in the 90s.
  • Raw did the 2nd lowest rating it's done in four years. Even worse was the pattern of viewership, with fans dropping off in droves. In fact, Jericho vs. Jeff Hardy for the IC title lost almost half a million viewers, which is almost 10% of the total audience that bailed on the show in the middle of the match. "If anyone thinks RVD is over because of crowd pops, boy are they mistaken," Dave says. Probably shouldn't get your hopes up for him winning the title from Triple H at the next PPV. Meanwhile, Smackdown's rating was the best it's done in awhile, likely from all the Billy & Chuck publicity.
  • Rumor is AJPW and Fuji TV have reached an agreement that would see AJPW finally back on TV. They've been without since losing their TV deal after the NOAH exodus. AJPW is holding a retirement party on 9/30 for Motoko Baba, where she is planning to turn the promotion over to Keiji Muto. The idea is that Muto will then announce the new TV deal as his first act as new AJPW President.
  • Bob Sapp is under contract to K-1 and they loan him out to PRIDE. But as you can imagine, NJPW and AJPW are both trying to sign him as a pro wrestler (they both end up using him).
  • NJPW announced the lineup for its upcoming Tokyo Dome show and it appears to be pretty underwhelming. It's headlined by IWGP champion Yuji Nagata vs. Kazuyuki Fujita....in a non-title match. Dave doesn't understand the logic behind that, especially when they need all the help they can get trying to put fans in the Tokyo Dome. He runs down the rest of the matches and just blows right past Masahiro Chono vs. Chyna without even commenting on it. He even recaps a few shows with angles building up to the match which included Chyna shoving a birthday cake in Chono's face (a cake in wrestling always ends up on someone in America but it's never been done in Japan that Dave can recall) and another instance where Chyna hit Chono with a lariat and a brainbuster. He just recaps the facts, without a single word of opinion. I expected Dave to be shitting rage-bricks over this.
  • Speaking of the dismal shape of this company, NJPW debuted a new, fake Great Muta, since they own rights to the name apparently. This "Muta" is a blond American wearing a mask and is part of Inoki's group of guys. Fans did not give a remote shit about this Muta and Dave thinks those who don't learn from history (fake Diesel and Razor) are doomed to repeat it. Man, Inoki never heard a bad idea he didn't like, huh? Anyway, this show was in Nagoya which is usually an easy sellout for NJPW but for only the 2nd time Dave can recall in the last 20 years, it was not a sellout.
  • Hiroyoshi Tenzan slipped off the top rope doing a moonsault and landed on his head in a scary botch last week. Tenzan said later that he thought he was going to die in that moment. Dave has seen the photos and said it looks scary, with Tenzan landing right on his head similar to how Hayabusa was paralyzed. But Tenzan only missed a week or so of action and is back working, although he's not 100% (I've heard people talk about this botch before but I can't find video or even a picture of it).
  • Messiah returned at a CZW show in the old ECW Arena and cut a promo about his thumb getting cut off. Firstly, he talked about it now being the CZW Arena and not another promotion (in reference to XPW claiming it was theirs). He also showed off his missing thumb and cut a promo about it not being a work. He said he wouldn't name who he thinks did it, but says they didn't get the job done. The crowd started chanting "Fuck Rob Black!" to which Messiah told them not to even say that piece of shit's name and got them to chant CZW instead. Sounds like Messiah wasn't naming names, maybe for legal reasons, but it's clear that he (and everyone else) believes Rob Black was behind the attack. The America's Most Wanted episode featuring this story is scheduled to air this week.
WATCH: Messiah returns to CZW
  • Dave says there's a lot of ex-WCW wrestlers out there struggling right now. When WCW first went under, a lot of them (who weren't signed by WWE) were still able to use their name value to get decent work on the indies. But with the business drying up, a lot of those indies going under, less places to work, and the economy struggling, and time passing by, a lot of guys who were making 6-figure incomes a couple years ago in WCW are suddenly finding it hard to pay their bills.
  • TNA appears to be getting an influx of new money, because they increased their budget significantly for the 9/18 show and are planning to bring in bigger name stars. Scott Hall, X-Pac, Marcus Bagwell, and Road Dogg are all supposed to be there, along with NASCAR driver Hermie Sadler and Saved by the Bell star Dustin Diamond (and this is the first whiff of that new Panda Energy money we're gonna be hearing a lot about soon).
  • Notes from Raw: Dave says the only way to enjoy Raw these days is to find things he can laugh at, which is how he used to get through Nitro. This doesn't sound like it's gonna be a glowing recap. Bischoff opened the show saying Raw won't be a boring, formulaic show like Smackdown, which was immediately followed by Triple H coming out and cutting the standard opening segment 20 minute promo. Dave jokes that he ate dinner and still had time to watch a short movie because this promo went so long and even gets in a jab about Triple H manipulating the show because he's "banging the head writer." Dave came packing heat this week. Rico (fresh off switching to Raw) beat Flair in a 4 minute match and instead of putting Rico over like he accomplished something, they had Triple H berate Flair (who is facing Jericho for the IC title at the next PPV) about how he's washed up and even a lowly nobody like Rico can beat him, which is a pretty great way of burying both Flair and Rico at the same time. Booker T vs. Test was so bad that Dave jokes that he thought Jackie Gayda had possessed Test's body. This really is reading like one of Dave's snarky 2000-era Nitro reviews, where he wasn't even pretending to be nice or objective. This show sucks and he's determined to let us know. RVD tapped out to Jericho. Dave thinks it's good that babyfaces sometimes tap out to heel submissions, but RVD is challenging Triple H for the world title on PPV in 3 days. Having him tap out to someone he's not even feuding with 3 days before that match is basically the dumbest possible finish. Triple H gave RVD a pedigree after the match for good measure (and then, he will of course be beating RVD at the PPV and moving on. Triple H Reign of Terror era is in full effect at this point). To be fair, later on in the show, RVD did come back out and attack Triple H and leave him bloody in the ring. But don't worry. Valiant babyface Triple H overcame the odds and still managed to get back up and beat Jeff Hardy in 5 minutes to end the show. Dave also notes that Jeff Hardy, once again, looks terrible these days (drugs are bad, mmm'kay).
  • Notes from Smackdown: it was in Minnesota and the crowd was super into Lesnar. Eddie & Chavo Guerrero make a great tag team and had an awesome match with Edge & Cena. Dave thinks Cena needs a new look, the little shorts aren't good. They also called Cena "the rookie" half a dozen times in this match and Dave thinks that's the kiss of death for a new guy. Anyway, the big angle of the show was of course the wedding of Billy and Chuck, which ended with a hell of an angle with Bischoff as the minister in disguise. Dave says Rico and Bischoff in particular were amazing during this whole segment. And of course, the show ended with Brock Lesnar threatening Undertaker's pregnant wife backstage (needless to say, if you've never seen the Billy & Chuck wedding angle, it's a must-see classic).
WATCH: Billy & Chuck wedding
  • Bradshaw will be out of action for about 6 months after tearing his bicep on Raw. He continued to work his match and even did a run-in later in the show, but flew to Birmingham the next day where he was diagnosed and underwent surgery that same day. Meanwhile, Faarooq is not injured, he's just sitting at home because creative has no ideas for him right now.
  • WWE does seem to have interest in Nathan Jones now that it looks like his legal issues in Australia are going to be cleared up. He'll likely be sent to OVW first because he's nowhere near ready for prime time yet (lol, nope. He never worked a match in OVW. Vince took one look at him and said, "Gimme that big motherfucker!" He works a few months of main roster house shows then straight to TV).
  • This week on WWE Confidential, they basically told the history of the Big Gold Belt (now known in WWE as Triple H's World Heavyweight Title). They talked about how the NWA title kinda morphed into the WCW title and Dave, of course, can't let that one slide without briefly touching on the real story of that split. Lots of interviews with past champions like Flair and Booker T and Big Show. They also had Bischoff on and everybody talked about certain guys who weren't worthy of being champion (everyone buried Goldberg, for instance) and Bischoff claimed Sting was never 100% committed to wrestling. Booker T claimed DDP's success was all manufactured and they pretty much said DDP was only ever the champion because he was friends with Bischoff.
  • There's some backstage friction between management and the UnAmericans group. It's a bunch of little small issues. Vince wanted them all to dress the same and have a matching look. And since Lance Storm doesn't have long hair and can't grow it anytime soon, Vince wanted Test and Christian to cut their hair short like his. As you can see, neither of them has done so yet and that didn't go over well. There was also an issue because they wanted more security when they were leaving the building after the flag burning angle at MSG. That led to them being told that they are being given a golden opportunity and if they're scared of getting "too much heat" then maybe they don't deserve to be in that spot.
  • David Flair is being sent to work some indies over in the UK. He's still signed to developmental in OVW, but he's been on the bubble for awhile and may not make it past the next round of cuts. Same kinda goes for Eric Angle and Horace Hogan and Dave says all 3 guys have been spared thus far more due to their last names than any other reason. But Dave doesn't have high hopes that David Flair is gonna last much longer.
  • Latest on Steve Austin is that he's focused on fixing his marriage and has no interest in coming back to wrestling right now. He recently called off his divorce filing. As for WWE, they've been marking down Austin 3:16 shirts to as low as $3 bucks at live shows and word is they've been selling like crazy. Seems like WWE is trying to get rid of its stock of Austin merch.
  • Dave found a newspaper interview from 2000 back when Brock Lesnar first got signed to WWE. He admitted in the interview that he doesn't really care for the fake punches and soap opera aspect of wrestling, but WWE is the only game in town, so that's what he decided to do. When talking about the business, he said, "It's in my mind, but not in my heart." In other words, what we've always known: Lesnar's here to get PAID. Period.
  • Various WWE notes: the Island Boyz got a lot of heat for how rough they were when beating up the lesbians on Raw, particularly the poor girl that got a brutal thrust kick right to the ribs. New England Patriots new offensive lineman Stephen Neal once beat Brock Lesnar in the NCAA tournament finals in 1999. Chris Jericho's band Fozzy's new album has only sold 11,000 copies which has to be a disappointment given how much it's been mentioned on WWE TV. Vince McMahon was listed as the #386th richest American in Forbes, with a net worth of $570 million (down from $700 million last year). Howard Stern claimed Vince McMahon offered him a deal to do a WWE appearance but said the money wasn't good and said after the Billy & Chuck wedding debacle, he wouldn't appear for WWE for less than $2 million. Josh Matthews from Tough Enough debuted doing backstage shilling segments on TV.
  • And finally, a metric ton of letters in this issue. Over the years, the letters section has dwindled down to almost none, but there's a bunch in this issue. Let's see if there's anything noteworthy. Former St. Louis wrestling announcer Larry Matysik writes a long letter to talk about the style of wrestling that Sam Muchnick promoted in that territory and whether it would work today. Then there's several letters about the Todd Martin essay a few issues back regarding racism in wrestling. Lots of interesting notes in here. One guy says it's a good thing Jesse Ventura's political enemies never dug into old wrestling footage and found some of his comments during the 80s. Also says he has a tape from pre-WM1 of Paul Orndorff calling Mr. T and other black people "porch monkeys." And finally, lots of thoughts on the Observer Hall of Fame. Several people upset that Shawn Michaels didn't get the votes because he obviously deserves it. Someone else writes in about Ring of Honor and says their shows he's attended have been some of the most unexpected, surprisingly awesome shows he's ever been to, with multiple MOTY candidates on every show. It's kinda cool getting to re-live the days when ROH was getting buzz simply for putting on quality shows month after month.
  • And finally, someone else writes in to argue that Undertaker isn't nearly as special as WWE portrays him. Says Undertaker had a brief main event run in 1991, and then spent the next 5 years in midcard feuds. Wasn't until 1997 that he got back to the top again, and even throughout the Attitude Era, he's always been 2nd or 3rd fiddle behind Austin, Rock, and at times, even Triple H. And during those years, he's been involved in some of the worst drawing feuds and most embarrassing, poorly written, dumbest angles in WWE history. The only time he was a top draw was when he was feuding with Austin in 1998-99 and, let's be honest, Austin could have sold out a stadium against Brooklyn Brawler at that point. The Wrestlemania he headlined was the lowest WM buyrate in company history, he's never been a proven draw on his own. He's also pretty much never been that special as an in-ring wrestler either. He's been a popular character because he's been extremely protected, rarely selling for anyone, and always booked to come out on top in his feuds, but that's all WWE booking, not anything to do with Mark Callaway being great. So all in all, WWE's claim that Undertaker has been a top star for a decade doesn't really jibe with the facts and the author of this letter doesn't really understand why anyone thinks Undertaker has had a HOF-level career (you know, my gut feeling is to argue against this because it's Undertaker and he's a legend, but when you step back and try to look at it objectively....the guy kinda brings up some good points. Obviously, some of Taker's best years were still ahead of him. But in 2002, it's kinda hard to argue this. We all loved the gimmick as kids, but what had he ever really done at this point that made him stand ahead of anyone else?)
NEXT WEDNESDAY: Death of Flyboy Rocco Rock of Public Enemy, WWE Unforgiven fallout, more on Brian Ong death, Nicole Bass/WWE lawsuit goes to trial, and more...
submitted by daprice82 to SquaredCircle [link] [comments]


2020.09.30 12:06 Spentworth How to interpret 1 Corinthians 7:8-9?

So I've had a few discussions lately with fellow Christians on the question, "Does a Christian have to have their lust under control before marriage?"
The passage that keeps coming to mind is 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 (ESV used throughout):
8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
The most straight-forward reading of this passage seems to be that if a Christian is failing to control their sexual urges which is either leading to overwhelming temptation, lust, or sexual sin then the best solution is to get married.
As support for this reading I'd look to v2 earlier in the chapter:
2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.
The implication seems to be that it is common for many to be unable to control their list outside of marriage.
It also seems to be that this doesn't merely apply to those who are dating/engaged and dealing with desire for their partner, otherwise v8 would not refer to widows, and also the betrothed are dealt with later in the chapter. v25 reads:
25 Now concerning the betrothed, I have no command from the Lord, but I give my judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy.
The first 4 words shows that this is an issue separate from the earlier issue, and then the issue itself is dealt with in v36:
36 If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry—it is no sin.
It seems appropriate then if one can't control their lust to get married. This interpretation also seems consistent with Jesus's words in Matthew 5:29-30...
29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.
...which encourages us to take appropriate action to deal with sin. It seems then that marriage is a provision given for dealing with lust which is further supported by 1 Corinthians 7:3-5:
3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
I'd also be tempted to say that this was the reformers' historical position too. Sexual sin amongst priests was also a major issue during the Reformation and the reformers let ministers marry partially because of how frequent sexual sin was amongst Catholic priests.
Why does this matter?
Okay, so the reason I bring this up is that I commonly see expressed the idea that a Christian must be free of lust/masturbation/porn/sex before marriage but this doesn't seem consistent with the interpretation above. It seems to me like Christians who are struggling with those things should be more urgent about marriage, while carrying on fighting those sins with the usual methods too (accountability partners, prayer, scripture memorisation, etc), and that those things don't disqualify one's suitability for marriage.
I'd like your opinions too, though, as this passage has always seemed tricky and I don't want to misread in such a way that seems favourable to those struggling with these issues.
What do y'all think?
submitted by Spentworth to Reformed [link] [comments]


2020.09.30 01:09 hannahtacka6 Letters to my love....

Love of my life You are the love of my life. My best friend & soulmate. I know your feelings for me have completely changed but I want to know why. I never cheated on you, I never talked badly about you. I loved you so fucking much that it hurts so bad. My brother saw the bruise from where you pushed me to the ground and hit me. He told Alex because seeing something like that makes people want to fight back for a woman who is unable. You hurt me. You mentally and physically hurt me and I still fucking love you. I am obsessed with our love and the love we shared. I don’t like this, at all. I want you to come down from this so I can have a normal conversation with you. You are my whole world I have never ever loved anyone so much, you have to please for once consider how this is effecting me. I miss you. I miss everything. I have never been broken up with before I have always ended relationships. I don’t know what to do. I don’t know if you will come down from this soon or if I’m ever going to get you to communicate with me like normal. Why won’t you listen to me? Why won’t you look at the proof I sent you a little harder? I never cheated on you matthew. I’m sorry you think that. I am so sorry that is in your brain. The video, the photos, whatever the hell you’re talking about. It’s not fucking me. I can’t take this anymore. These panic attacks. Everything was so perfect so I thought. So many broken promises so much emptiness in my fucking heart right now. You left me for no reason. I don’t understand what I did to deserve this. I was loyal to you, I loved you so hard. I just want to be with you. I want to sleep next to you, I want to hug you, I want to kiss your face. I don’t care about the hurtful things you said. I know that is not you. I want things to be right and ok. I don’t want to just be friends. I want to love you and be by your side for the rest of my life. Please! I don’t know how you can just not love me at all anymore....what the hell babe what the hell is happening?! We could have enjoyed the mania together we could have done whatever you wanted! I would have been right there by your side. I’m not afraid of you I’m afraid of losing you forever! Don’t you understand....the comments on the porn site got taken down because me and my father flagged them...you can’t post shit like that I know it was you writing all of those comments with my name. So fucking disgusting man I cannot believe you really did not know my body after almost a year and a half...a v shape in my back..?? Okay....lots of chubby girls look similar from behind I’m sure! Matthew, you made me so happy. You made me feel like a better person. You took my worries away. You have to understand that you did this...there was a distance between us towards the end because of how shitty you treated me for not doing “a good enough job” helping with the psoriasis. But I am not a doctor I could not give you everything you needed. I can’t tell if you actually fell out of love with me or if this is just due to the mania? I’m confused and I’m hurt I have been by your side since D-1 dude....are you serious that you’re going to let our relationship fail after everything we have been through? I’ve been trying so hard I don’t know what else I can do.... I know it must be nice for you to do whatever you want knowing I’m just sitting at home obsessing over you and our relationship. I put a lot of work into us. A lot of time, a lot of compromise. I was a good fucking partner and team mate. I don’t know why you would allow this to happen. I’m am completely crushed and hurt. You are my man. You are my soulmate. I love you so much I love everything about you. Please. I am not going to be able to get over this. I still feel so much love for you after how badly you’ve hurt my feelings. I know we are meant to be together. I know it because I could feel it deep in my soul I could see me and you together forever I could actually picture it. I have never been able to do that before. I know we are co dependent but we can work on it we can grow together. We can move away like we talked about we can do anything. I was ready to care for you for the rest of my life. You don’t understand I spiritually committed myself to you. I don’t want to date again I don’t want to do this again. Matthew please. I fucking miss you. I don’t understand why you’re pushing out the person who cares about you the most. These internet people don’t care, they don’t know you! I am here to love and care forever! I love all sides of you we just have to decide what we can do when you start freaking out on me... i want to be by your side for the rest of your life.....
submitted by hannahtacka6 to u/hannahtacka6 [link] [comments]


2020.09.29 14:41 eduvina Joel Embiid for Paul George trade?

Obviously this is hypothetical and I’ll breakdown on why both teams may agree to this trade. There are only two contingencies in this deal which are obviously needed for this deal to push through
  1. Kawhi throws PG under the bus and wants new partner in crime
  2. Sixers fully commits on building around Simmons
Now, if you won’t buy into this contingency, I’m pretty sure you’ll disagree and it’s okay. Even ESPN experts look stupid when things already play out anyway.
Now going back, assuming the 2 contigencies are established, this will be beneficial for both teams. I believe a fair deal would be
Clippers gives Paul George and Landry Shamet for Sixers’ Joel Embiid
Why Clippers will do it?
  1. Aside from the contigency that Kawhi wants to move on with PG, it makes sense to have a big man as his partner to win another championship. As this playoff tells us, teams with 2 players playing the same role didn’t reach that far. The farthest one was Celtics’ Tatum and Brown. As much as having 2 two-way players in the wing, it’s not as efficient as having all facets covered.
  2. Embiid fits their timeline. As opposed to what PG said, it’s championship or bust for a player like Kawhi. They are riped and ready to win. They’re not like the Nuggets whose stars are still figuring it out. With Embiid being in his peak, he and Kawhi can dominate the playoffs. This also gives the Clippers a few more years to contend. Remember they gave all their picks to the wizard Presti. Another reason is they can load manage Embiid as well together with Kawhi. The Clippers had been willing to give Kawhi the luxury of resting regular season games and they still managed to be fine. With Lou and Morris on the team, they can win some games with either Kawhi or Embiid. Their regular season record may not be promising but this squad in the playoffs will be scary first round opponent.
  3. Everyone knows their role. Assuming they let go of Harrell, I think their next priority is bagging Marcus Morris. Their lineup will be Beverley-Mann-Kawhi-Morris-Embiid with Lou as their 6th man. Mann may raise a lot of eyebrows but they gotta give Shamet back to the Sixers. Besides, Mann has shown potential during his time with the Clippers last season. Lou will still get the majority of the minutes while Jackson is a steady point guard off the bench as well. Keeping Green and Jackson will complete the squad. This is a more complete team rather than they fielded this year. They can easily attract cheap veterans to complete the holes anyway. Matthews and Bradley will be their ideal signing this offseason.
Why Sixers will do it?
  1. Aside from the contigency that Sixers will wanna build around Simmons, he’s a better player to build around with. I know you may be raising your eyebrows with this. But with the current situation the Sixers fell into, it’s just hard to build around Embiid. The Horford deal pretty much ties them up with flexibility during Embiid’s peak. With an option to have PG, I think they’ll consider this seriously. Going back, it’s hard to build around Simmons and Embiid because they’re gonna need shooters. Unfortunately, their 2 next highest paid players are lane cloggers. Harris and Horford are both talented and will win games but it’s proven they can’t be a serious contender with this lineup. Even with Simmons healthy, I doubt they’ll win against Celtics. With Embiid gone, they can maximize Horford as well at the 5. The market has an abundance of bigs this season anyway so they can easily fill their bench with a decent big.
  2. More responsibility for Simmons. I believe he is ready to take on the next step especially if he gets a little boost from the management and build around him to complement his skillset. He’s a legit 2 way player and having an all star wing with him will make his job easier. Let’s say the lineup will be Simmons-Richardson-PG13-Harris-Horford with Melton, Matisse, Korkmaz, and Shamet on the bench. The starting lineup is more balanced and everyone can shoot. The spacing for Simmons to operate will be easier and they will also able to maximize Horford and Harris. Horford as the screener and Tobias as their secondary shot creator. Everyone is talented in the lineup and they can complement each other better. Their bench is filled mostly with guards but it’s okay since Simmons will gladly accept the 4 position now. They can field a lineup of Melton-Shamet-PG-Simmons-Horford and they’ll be fine. As I’ve said earlier, big is the last of their problem. There’s Noel, Baynes, Poetl, Gasol, Millsap, Ibaka, Whitside to name a few. Really depends on their budget.
  3. MVPG13 season for PG. It’s not a coincidence that PG’s best season was with the Thunder with Russ. The offense is built around him and Russ and he is able to play off ball with Russ handling and creating plays. This can be replicated with Simmons around this time. Westbrook may have more usage but Simmons is far more effective than Russ. It’s also a good thing that he’ll have Harris as their 3rd scorer as opposed to Adams. Also, PG13 will have more offensive options as well without a big clogging up the lane. Horford is as smart as Adams as well so that’s a plus. This team is also filled with shooters and great role players to complement HIS game. It’s gonna be Simmons AND PG’s team.
Overall, both teams fail this season despite having an all star lineup because of how their team is built. Remember that 19-20 Celtics outperformed 18-19 Celtics despite them literally having an additional Kyrie Irving, Marcus Morris, Terry Rozier, Al Horford, Aaron Baynes in their roster. Won’t do much research but I’m pretty sure that will sum up to close to 50 ppg from these 5. It’s because guys like Smart and Brown were utilized more this season and know their role. I believe it will have the same effect on both of this teams next conference.
It’s a blockbuster trade and is pretty much not gonna happen but it’s fun to create scenarios like this. Who knows. One scout reading this may give them an idea to do it. Or maybe Kawhi sees the upside of this trade. Who knows haha. What do you guys think?
submitted by eduvina to nba [link] [comments]


2020.09.29 13:53 8486321 Will God save a pervert like me? I feel like I'm on my last leg before I give up.

I'm a 22 year old unmarried guy who has struggled with porn for the past 9 years. There's been short seasons where it's been better but ultimately it's never gone away. I'm inclined to believe that I'm not saved.
Recently I've been really struggling with faith to believe. Not that God exists but that God would save me. I don't doubt that he's able to but I doubt that he intends to. I don't know what to do. I always think of Matthew 7:21.
I'm tired of disappointing my accountability partner and myself and God. At this point I kind of wish I could die and get it all over with. I keep going back to porn again and again even though I know it's wrong and I know it's not going to help. I've prayed that God would cleanse me but I feel that he's turned away from me and doesn't hear me. I've got covenant eyes and everything but then I just don't care and do it anyway.
This past week has been the worst it's been in a long time. It's typically 1-2 times a week but this week it was almost every day. I don't know how I can face my accountability partner now, I'm so ashamed.
I listened to a lot of Tim Keller sermons concerning idols that I thought were really applicable to me. The problem is that I love the pleasure or the thought of a woman's love and approval or whatever more than I love God and His approval. But I don't know how to love God more since I can't just do it as an act of my will? I don't know how to stop desiring a woman's approval and be content loving by myself with no one around that cares about me until the day I die.
I know Christ is my only hope but it seems that He isn't helping me. So I'm lost in a hopeless state. Can anyone sympathize or offer encouragement? Has anyone been saved from such strong passions and ingrained addictions? I really feel like I'm too far gone already. I know His grace is sufficient but I just can't bring myself to believe it's applicable to me. I feel like I can't just assume He really forgives me, I always feel like my repentance isn't good enough and it's only bringing more judgement on me.
I'm stuck in an endless cycle of sin and despair. I don't think I'm suicidal but I just want to die and be done with it all. I'm so tired.
submitted by 8486321 to Reformed [link] [comments]


2020.09.29 04:50 expressionism Where do they go from here? (Robin and Strike)

!!! SPOILERS FOR TROUBLED BLOOD AHEAD !!!
I just finished reading Troubled Blood and I absolutely loved it. I think it's the best one of the series. I loved the slow burn of Strike and Robin's relationship throughout this book (the series, really) and how everyone around them sees the obvious compatibility and attraction between them... And then, when Strike brings it up during their curry/whiskey night... I legit screamed! I was really hoping we would get to see their "date" and a good night kiss at the end of this book. I think Strike changing his number shows that he is finally ready to move on from Charlotte. And the fact that he was thinking about his conversation with Polworth about marriage as he walked Robin to drinks on her birthday says volumes about how much his view of her has progressed from "just his partner" to someone for whom he's willing to go through the trouble just to see her smile... And maybe even contemplate a serious relationship with. His comment about how a break up their business would be akin to a divorce really stood out to me because it showed how entangled their lives already are... So both of their fears about "mucking things up" are really too late because it doesn't matter. They are already in too deep, so they might as well follow their hearts and go all the way. I hope they both realize that.
Also, was it me or was this the first time Robin has acknowledged that she would've run out on Matthew on their wedding day if Strike had asked her? I really loved seeing her inner monologues this book and how much she struggles with societal expectations... I think she is certainly starting to be more honest about her feelings to herself now, I hope she gets to a point where she admits her feelings towards Strike as an ongoing thing... I hope they both do! It would be interesting to see how they navigate a blossoming relationship while working together... even the best of couples are bound to have challenges if they are around each other all the time!
submitted by expressionism to cormoran_strike [link] [comments]


2020.09.27 10:14 notXxCadex2 Booking Roman Reigns Title/heel Run Part 1 (with detail)

Every thus far stays the same ( 》《 indicate start and end of matches)
( sorry if there's messed up grammar I'm tired lol)
Clash Of Champions 2020: Gold Rush
( earlier in the night Alexa Bliss distracts Nikki cross causing bayley to retain her championship. After that match Sasha Banks attacks bayley and holds up the smackdown Women's Championship)
Roman Reigns vs Jey Uso Universal Championship
Jey Uso makes his entrance hyped up and ready to have his First World title match against his cousin. Roman Reigns makes his entrance with a new look and music https://youtu.be/7TCRC-_AAVw with Paul Heyman. ( his new ring gear is basically the same except he has no vest and his pants have a different design) Jey Uso looks concerned but confident while Roman Reigns stares him down almost the entire time.
" ladies and gentlemen, my name is Paul Heyman. And I Am The Advocate to The man who owns this yard, this island, who owns the WWE. The reigning defending Undisputed Universal heavyweight champion of the world, Roman Reigns! " Says Heyman.
》 the match starts off quick with Jey Uso flying around the ring until Roman Reigns gets in control and hits a huge Samoan drop on him to slow him down. He then starts to dominate Uso slowly beating him down, until Jey Uso is finally able to slip out of Reigns hands and is able to hit a Samoan drop of his own to get a breath of air. Jey Uso picks up Roman up but then is hit with a hard right hand and then a Superman punch to send him out of the ring. Roman Reigns then throws Jey Uso into the ring and then is met with a superkick from Jey. Roman then retreats to the corner where Jey Uso traps him and attacks him. Uso then runs to the other corner and back only to be met with a spear out of nowhere from Roman. 1..2..kickout! Jey Uso is winded while Roman Reigns realizes his cousin has more fight in him than he expected. Roman ranks then sets up for another spear, jey gets up slowly, roaming charges at Jey Uso only to be met with a superkick, but roman is still on his feet. Jey Uso then hits another one and Roman finally falls to the mat. Jey Uso is now hyped up and climbs up the turnbuckle. He Hypes up the virtual crowd as in hits Uso splash on Roman, he takes out at 1... Jey Uso is now shocked as so the crowd is. Jay realizes it's going to take more to defeat his cousin, he pinned him once he can do it again. Jey Uso waits for Roman to fully get back up to his feet and sets up another super kick, he goes for it but misses and Roman Reigns then bounces off two ropes and hits a second spear Jey Uso. Roman then doesn't pin him but sits in the corner and watches as his cousin struggles to get up, he's in sets up another spear when Uso gets up. He hits it...its over. After the third Spear Roman puts him down. Roman holds his Universal Championship up I alongside Paul Heyman and wins his first title defense on Pay-per-view. After the match Roman, out of respect for his family lifts Jey Uso up and hugs him and tells him he did good, Heyman leaves the ring to give them their moment. Jey Uso and Roman have an emotional moment and Roman holds Jey Usos hand up high... Only to attack him right after. People are shocked as they didn't expect this to come from Roman, Roman shouts as he's beating Down Jey Uso that he has no family anymore and the only thing he cares about is his Universal title and family means nothing to him saying Jey Uso was never his family. He then walks out of the Arena with a evil smirk on his face holding his Universal championship. Minutes later a network exclusive shows that while jey was walking to the back he was getting custom "thank you Jey chants" and then he turns his head back towards the ring to reflect and smiles...BUT IS HIT WITH A SPEAR BY REIGNS OUT OF NOWHERE. This is a different Roman than we thought.《
** the next Smackdown**
Promo: Roman Reigns opens up Smackdown alongside Paul Heyman Universal championship in hand. He Man grabs the mic introduces Roman, he then goes on a rant about how Roman runs the WWE and what you saw last night is what you should expect from anyone who challenges him and that he will show no mercy to any of his opponents. He confirms that ju so suffered minor injuries and won't be back for a bit and that he is victim to the Roman Reigns sweep list ( I don't know what to call it right now but if you have a better name in mind feel free to suggest it) . Roman Reigns then grabs the mic, he says that last night he did what he said he was going to do and thats wreck Jey Uso and leave with his Universal Championship. And now he doesn't care about family because he doesn't need it all he needs is his Universal Championship and his manager Heyman. He doesn't care who he's put up against he will wreck them and leave. He then calls out any superstar in the back to have a match for the universal championship right now. Bray Wyatt music hits but then Alexa Bliss his music interferes with it and she makes her way to the ring. Roman confused Paul Heyman ask Alexa why she's out here, she responds that she won't speak to paul. She ask roman how he's been since he's been back and how the universal championship feels on him right now. She says she noticed how much he's changed like her and for the better. She then goes from compliments to warnings and she says that he never really has felt the real power of the fiend and what he can do to you. That's when nikki cross interups and is looking for answers. She asked why Alexa with cost for the smackdown Women's Championship in that at this point she's done trying to get let's go back to his senses, and that Alexa Bliss is not the same person and she's done trying to help her. Alexa then goes on to say Nikki would have lost anyways in that she would have never had won anything without her she's the only reason Nikki cross is a two-time women's tag team champion because Alexa had to do it all on their own. Blah blah blah Nikki cross wants a match with Alexa but things change and it's announced it will be Alexa Bliss and Roman Reigns vs Nikki cross and a partner of her choosing.
▪︎ Roman Reigns is sitting on his couch with Paul Heyman standing next to him. They're having a conversation when someone rudely interrupt them.."bbroo" it happens to be Matt riddle. He friendly greets Roman Reigns and acts happy to see him because he's never seen him in person since being on the main roster. But then he quickly make fun of Roman in a way by saying " I don't dig the new music or ring gear so bro " which you can see bothers Roman, and then Matt stares down Paul Heyman and says I expected you to be a lot shorter. Not Riddle then looks at the universal championship and says goodbye to Roman and then instead of just saying goodbye to Paul Heyman she says tell Brock I said hi and walks out of the room.
▪︎ Matt riddle is able to convince Nikki cross to choose him as her partner and the match is now set for the main event.
▪︎ the match Goes on for about only 10 minutes where Roman and Matt riddle don't really get involved at all until the very end. Roman and we'll go at it for the first time ever and riddle caches with him some kicks bring you Roman to a knee for hitting a dropkick on some Romans face knocking him on his back for a couple seconds Roman is then able to hit Matt riddle with a surprise Superman punch to stun him and then sets up the spear. Charges at Matt but Nikki cross gets in front of Matt and stops Roman in his tracks, that is until Alexa Bliss attacks Nikki cross and then Roman is met with a clothesline from Matt riddle. Eventually after about 2 more minutes Riddle makes the tag to cross and Alexa and cross go at it ring to steal my ring gets back up onto his feet riddle walks into the ring after Alexa Bliss hits is Sister Abigail on Nikki cross and Reigns hits a spear on Matthew Riddle for the win.
▪︎ after the match Roman celebrates with Alexa Bliss, that's when Romans in the center of the Ring and red lights turn on an Alexa Bliss start noticeably acting strange and she starts screaming and falling falling to the floor. The lights go back to normal and Alexa Bliss gets up with messy hair and a smile on her face (similar to aj Lee and Kanes kiss moment) Alexa Bliss then skips around Roman Reigns Roman very confused and a bit surprised. She's then stops and looks at Roman, she slowly draws him in and tries to go for a kiss until Romans stops her kind of shoved her away and says no something's the matter with you(yes I put roman in a romantic angle for about 30 seconds). Alexa then starts doing a Sinister laugh says YOU WILL LET HIM IN HAHAHAAH. The lights go out for a second and then turn it back on and Roman Reigns disappears. Now it's just Alexa Bliss with a almost dead face looking halfway down, it's silence then the Bray Wyatt outro plays and that is the end of SmackDown.
I hope you enjoyed this first part of my Roman booking please send feedback on stuff might have liked or disliked it'd be really appreciated. Part 2 soon!
submitted by notXxCadex2 to fantasybooking [link] [comments]


2020.09.24 11:11 Tommy2Boys B1067 - Modern Slavery Bill - Final Division

A01-A04 all passed and have been applied to the bill

Modern Slavery Bill 2020

A
BILL
TO
Consolidate offences of modern slavery and human trafficking; introduce reparation orders to support victims of these crimes; give clearer powers for the seizure of vehicles involved in trafficking; introduce a prevention order to restrict actions that those convicted of human trafficking or modern slavery could take; ensure victims forced into committing crimes by virtue of human trafficking or modern slavery have protections in law; introduce reporting requirements for businesses to shine a light on this crime in supply chains; and connected purposes.
BE IT ENACTED by the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:–
1. Interpretations
(1) For the purposes of this Act-
“modern slavery and human trafficking” means conduct which commits an offence under:
(a) Section 59A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003
(b) Section 4 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004
(c) Section 22 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003
(d) Section 47 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2003
(e) Section 2 and 3 of this Act
“hold a person in slavery or servitude” or to “require a person to perform forced or compulsory labour” are taken to mean the definitions contained within Article 4 of the Human Rights Convention.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulation, amend legislation into Section 1(1) if they deem them to be materially similar crimes.
2. Slavery Offences
(1) Any person who—
(a) holds a person in slavery or servitude where the circumstances are such that the person knows or ought to know that this person is held in slavery or servitude.
(b) requires a person to perform forced or compulsory labour where the circumstances are such that the person knows or ought to know that this person is being required to perform forced or compulsory labour.
shall be guilty of an offence
(2) In determining whether a person is being held in slavery, servitude or required to perform forced or compulsory labour, regard may be had to all the circumstances, such as the person’ personal circumstances which may make the person more vulnerable.
(3) The consent of a person kept under the conditions listed in subsection (1) does not preclude the person from a determination that they are being held in slavery or servitude, or required to perform forced or compulsory labour.
3. Human trafficking and exploitation
(1) It is an offence to arrange or facilitate the travel of another person (“A”) with a view of A being exploited.
(2) It is irrelevant whether “A” has consented to travel.
(3) A person has committed an offence under subsection (1) only if—
(a) the person intends to exploit A, whether in the United Kingdom or not, during or after the travel, or
(b) the person knows or ought to know that another person plans or is likely to exploit A, whether in the United Kingdom or not, during or after the travel.
(3) For the purposes of this section, “travel” is taken to mean arriving, entering, departing or travelling within any country.
(4) For the purposes of this section, A is a victim of exploitation if —
(a) it involves the commission of an offence under section 1 of his Act, or would do so if it were to happen in England and Wales.
(b) it involves the commission of an offence under—
(i) section 1(1)(a) of the Protection of Children Act 1978, or
(ii) Part 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 as it has effect in England or Wales, or would do so if it were to happen in England and Wales.
(c) it involves the commission of an offence under section 32 or 33 of the Human Tissue Act 2004, or would do so if it were to happen in England and Wales.
(d) A is subject to force, threats or deception designed to get A to—
(i) provide services of any kind;
(ii) provide another person with benefits of any kind, or;
(iii) enable another person to acquire benefits of any kind.
(e) another person has chosen “A” for a purpose within Section 3(4)(d) of this Act on the grounds that—
(i) they are a child, mentally or physically ill or disabled, or has a family relationship with a particular person, and
(ii) that person would likely refuse to be used for that purpose if it was not for the fact they are a child, mentally or physically ill or disabled, or has a family relationship with a particular person.
4. Reparation Orders
(1) A reparation order is an order requiring the person against whom it is made to pay compensation to the victim of an offence under this Act for any harm resulting from that offence.
(2) The court may make a reparation order against a person if—
(a) that person has been convicted of an offence under Section 1 or 2, and
(b) a confiscation order is made against the person in respect of such an offence.
(3) The court may make a reparation order against a person if—
(a) a confiscation order has been made against a person in respect of an offence under Section 2 or 3 by virtue of Section 28 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and
(b) that person is later convicted of the offence.
(4) If the court considers that—
(a) it would be appropriate both to impose a fine and to make a reparation order, but
(b) the person has insufficient means to pay both of these things,
the court must give preference to the reparation order.
(5) Where the court has the power to make a reparation order but does not do so, the court must give reasons why this decision was made.
(6) In determining the amount to be paid by the person under a reparation order, the court must have regard to-
(a) the amount of work undertaken by the victim and how much they would ordinarily have earned from that work, or work they were previously employed at immediately before the exploitation began, and
(b) the toll the crime has taken on the physical and mental health of the victim.
(7) The court may decide that, due to Section 3(6)(b), the reparation order should be the value of Section 3(6)(a) multiplied by one, two or three. a whole number not less than three and not greater than 10
(8) A reparation order and a compensation order under section 130 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 may not both be made in respect of the same offence.
(9) For the purposes of this Section, “the court” means—
(a) the Crown Court, or
(b) any magistrates court that has the power to make a confiscation order by virtue of an order under section 97 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.
(10) For the purposes of this Section, a “confiscation order” means an order under Section 6 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
(11) Section 6 of the Immigration Act 2015 is hereby repealed.
5. Seizure of land vehicles, ships or aircraft
(1) The court may order the seizure of a vehicle used or intended to be used in connection with an offence under Section 2 if the convicted person—
(a) owned the land vehicle at the time the offence was committed;
(b) was at that time a director, secretary or manager of a company which owned the vehicle;
(c) was at that time in possession of the vehicle under a hire-purchase agreement;
(d) was at that time a director, secretary or manager of a company which was in possession of the vehicle under a hire-purchase agreement;
(e) was, in the case of a ship or aircraft, a charterer of it;
(f) was, in the case of a land vehicle, driving it in the course of the commission of the offence, or
(g) was, in the case of a ship or aircraft, committed the offence while acting as captain of it.
(2) Where a person who claims to have an interest in a vehicle applies to a court to make representations about its forfeiture, the court may not order its forfeiture without giving that person the opportunity to make representations.
(3) If a person has been arrested for an offence under Section 2, a vehicle may be temporarily detained—
(a) until a decision is taken as to whether or not to charge that person with the offence.
(b) if that person is charged, until that person is acquitted, the charges are dismissed or the proceedings are discontinued.
(c) if that person is convicted, until the court decides whether or not to order the forfeiture of the vehicle.
(4) For the purpose of this Section, a “vehicle” is taken to mean a land vehicle, aircraft or ship.
6. Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Order
(1) A modern slavery and human trafficking prevention order prohibits the person for whom it is made against from doing anything described in that order which are necessary for the purpose of protecting persons or a particular person from the physical or psychological harm which would be likely to occur if the defendant committed a model slavery or human trafficking offence.
(2) The order may prohibit someone from doing things inside or outside the United Kingdom.
(3) The order may prohibit foreign travel for a fixed period of not more than 5 years.
(a) If the court is satisfied it is necessary, this may be extended by a further 5 years an indefinite number of times.
(b) The court may order the surrender of a passport if all foreign travel is prohibited for a period of not more than 5 years, which may be renewed under Section 6(3)(a).
(4) The order may specify different periods of time for different prohibitions in the order.
(5) The court may make an interim order under this section until it has made a determination on the merits of a full order if it is deemed necessary for public good.
(5) The Secretary of State must, within 90 days of the passage of this Act, pass such regulations which are necessary to support the implementation of this section.
(a) These regulations must include guidance on the appeals process.
(b) These regulations must contain further guidance on factors the court must consider before granting an order in this section.
(7) A person who breaks a modern slavery and human trafficking prevention order, or knowingly facilitates someone doing that, commits an offence.
(a) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend into Section 6(7) any similar prevention orders under the law of Scotland or Northern Ireland.
7. Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking Statement
(1) A commercial organisation must prepare a “Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking Statement” for each financial year.
(2) A statement under Section 2(1) of this Act should include:
(a) actions, if any, that they have taken in the financial year to ensure slavery and human trafficking is not taking place in the supply chain of the commercial organisation or the commercial organisation itself;
(b) the policies of the commercial organisation towards modern slavery and human trafficking;
(c) the due dilligence process that the commercial organisation undertakes with regards to modern slavery and human trafficking in its business or supply chain;
(d) which parts of the business or supply chain are at a high risk of seeing model slavery or human trafficking and what steps are taken to assess and manage this risk;
(e) how effective the commercial organisation has been in ensuring modern slavery and human trafficking is not taking place in its business or supply chain, and how effective it has been in taking action where it is found to be, and;
(f) how relevant staff are trained on identifying and dealing with modern slavery and human trafficking.
(3) A statement under section 2(1) must be
(a) approved by the board of directors (or equivalent) and signed by a director (or equivalent) if the organisation is a body corporate other than a limited liability partnership.
(b) approved by the members and signed by a designated member if a limited liability partnership.
(c) approved and signed by a general partner if a limited partnership registered under the Limited Partnerships Act 1907.
(d) approved and signed by a partner if any other kind of partnership
(4) A statement under section 7(1) must be published on a company’s website or, if not possible, provided in writing to anyone who makes a written request for a copy of the statement within 30 days.
(5) A statement must be published within 30 days of the end of the financial year.
(a) The first Section 7(1) statement need only be made 30 days after the end of the financial year for which this Act receives royal assent in.
(6) For the purposes of this Section, a “commercial organisation” is something which:
(a) supplies goods or services, and;
(b) has an annual total turnover of £12 million or more.
(3) For the purposes of this Section, “partnership” is taken to mean:
(a) a partnership within the Partnership Act 1890,
(b) a limited partnership registered under the Limited Partnerships Act 1907, or
(c) a firm formed under the law of a country outside the United Kingdom.
8. Victims who commit an offence
(1) A person is not guilty of an offence if—
(a) the person is aged 18 or over when the person does the act which constitutes the offence,
(b) the person does that act because they are compelled to do so,
(c) the compulsion is attributable to modern slavery or human trafficking, and
(d) a reasonable person in the same situation as the person and having the person’s relevant characteristics would have no realistic alternative to doing that act.
(2) A person may be compelled by another, or by the person’s characteristics.
(3) Compulsion is attributable to slavery or to relevant exploitation if-
(a) it is, or is part of, conduct which constitutes an offence under this Act, or,
(b) it is a direct consequence of a person being, or having been, a victim of slavery, or a victim of relevant exploitation.
(4) In this section, all references to an act include references to an omission.
(5) A person is not guilty of an offence if—
(a) the person is not aged 18 or over when the person does the act which constitutes the offence,
(b) the person does that act because they are compelled to do so, and
(c) the compulsion is attributable to modern slavery or human trafficking.
9. Defence not to apply with certain offences
(1) A defence in section 8 does not apply if the offence is listed in subsection (2).
(2) The offences to which a defence in section 8 does not apply are the following—
(a) murder;
(b) treason;
(c) kidnapping;
(d) an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003;
(e) an offence under section 4 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act 2004 (Trafficking people for labour and other exploitation);
(f) an offence against the person;
(g) an offence under the Terrorism Act 2000, the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, or the Terrorism Act 2006; and
(h) an offence under section 3 of this Act.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend subsection (2), subject to the affirmative procedure.
10. Witnesses in criminal proceedings
(1) For the purposes of this section, “the Act” means The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999
(1) In Section 17(4) of the Act, add after “section 4 of the Asylum and Immigration (treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004”, “or Section 1 and 2 of the Modern Slavery Act 2020,”.
(2) In Section 25(4)(a) of the Act, add after “section 4 of the Asylum and Immigration (treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004”, “or Section 1 and 2 of the Modern Slavery Act 2020,”.
(4) In Section 33(6)(d) of the Act, add after “section 4 of the Asylum and Immigration (treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004”, “or Section 1 and 2 of the Modern Slavery Act 2020,”.
11. Duty to notify the Secretary of State about suspected victims
(1) If a public authority has reasonable grounds to believe that a person may be a victim of human trafficking or modern slavery, they must notify the Secretary of State or, if regulations are made, anyone in those regulations.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations issue guidance on who public authorities must notify.
12. Extent, Short Title and Commencement
(1) This act shall extend to—
(a) England and Wales in the case of Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9.
(b) the United Kingdom in the case of Sections 6, 10, 11 and 12.
(1) This act shall extend to—
(a) England and Wales in the case of Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11.
(b) the United Kingdom in the case of Sections 1, 7 and 12
(2) This act may be referred to as the Modern Slavery Act 2020.
(3) This act shall come into force the day after royal assent.
This Bill was written by The Rt. Honourable Sir Tommy2Boys KT KCB KBE CT LVO PC MSP MP, Secretary of State for Defence, and is cosponsored by The Rt. Honourable Sir MatthewHinton12345 KG GCMG MBE MP, First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for the Home Department, on behalf of the 26th Government. This Bill is inspired in part by the Modern Slavery Act 2015
submitted by Tommy2Boys to MHOLVote [link] [comments]


2020.09.23 15:22 beta-one ProntoForms (TSXV:PFM) - CDN Small-Cap Play Pt II

Good morning. I'm back with a new small-cap play out of the Great White North. Some of you may recall I had a write-up on a company by the name of Converge Technology Solutions (TSXV:CTS) several months ago when the stock was ~$1.30. The stock has run up to about $2.30 with a bought deal financing announced yesterday (the second one in 4 months!) for $20m at $2.05. Hopefully some people did well on that name and I still believe it is a hold with a price target now raised from my original $2.50-$3 to $3.00-$3.50.
My next play is ProntoForms (TSXV:PFM) - a pure SaaS company with traditional SaaS metrics. From a high level - they develop workflow forms on mobile devices for field workers. Simple right?
Yes. Very simple idea in theory. But what happens when you need your forms to talk to each other? What happens when you want the information collected to go straight to head-office and quick analytics run on it? What happens when If A, open form B, but if A has caveat X, open form C. Might be simple on Excel, but not so simple to translate into a working solution out on the field.
I should clarify a bit. When I see field worker I mean guys in Oil & gas field (PG&E), elevator repair men/women (Otis), facilities management teams/HVAC (Johnson Controls). Those brackets? Yea, those are ProntoForms clients. Download the investor deck from their website and you will see all of those names. These are what the clients call "Enterprise Clients" which consist of companies that pay more than $100k annually in revenue. These types of companies account for 38% of total ARR which is impressive.
The Investment thesis: digitalization of the workforce was already happening. COVID has expedited this. That's not a novel idea, but ProntoForms has a head start. They've been going at this for a decade and with customers like the ones listed above (just to name a few) they already have inroads with massive accounts. I expect huge contracts out of some of these names of the coming year or so.
Let's jump into the financials a bit. Like any good SaaS company I'm going to refer to some traditional SaaS metrics but mainly Annual Recurring Revenue (ARR). (All numbers are in USD).
ARR as of Q2 2020 was USD $16.1m compared to $13.7m in '19. 18% growth in crazy COVID times compared to 26% growth form '18 to '19. I'll take it. This revenue has a margin of 90%. Churn rate for the company has historically been less than 5% annually.
Total revenue consists of a recurring component (about 90% of the total base) and 10% professional services (i.e. maintenance and implementation fees). Total revenue recognized in '19 was 15.1m while analysts have them doing about 17.1m this year (15% growth compared to historical growth between 20-30% annually).
Now what about profitability? Well my friends, we are in the world of SaaS where the only black ink involved comes out of eating octopus in Silicon Valley (bit of a stretch but I got nothing better sorry). So there is no real profitability. But that's ok
The company historically shows a loss of $200k-$400k in "non-GAAP op loss" (which is effectively their adjusted EBITDA). However, on a cash flow basis (annually), they are effectively cash neutral. That's the beauty of this size SaaS company - they deferred revenue they receive allows them to fund themselves without having to raise any money. They may show a loss here and there, but there is no need to worry about financing to dilute. With $5m cash on the balance sheet, no worries about financings.
A few more points on this - in Q2 they showed a small profit. That is a function of COVID reducing their ability to travel which is a big part of sales and marketing. That will always be about 50% of revenue - this is a growth story after all.
Ok I'm rambling but a lot more to say. 3 more important points - valuation, ownership and the end game.
Valuation
Right now, about 3.5x 2021 sales. An absolute steal when you look at some of the dog shit companies out there. If this company were in the US, it would be trading at 10x EV/S. SO you're looking at an easy double at minimum.
Ownership
I've never seen such smart money behind this story. A lot of you are going to come out of the woodworks and say "This thing has no liquidity! muh muh my liquidity!". This isn't a liquidity story. This company might as well be private. 80% of the shares are locked up between management and institutions. Pender Funds? Yea, they own just under 20% of this company. Terry Matthews, founder of Mitel, he is a seed investor in PFM and I suspect he owns well over 10% as well. Phil Deck, another big tech investor out of Canada and board member owns a good chunk of this company as well. This is a smart money play.
So what you end up seeing are days in the market where 1m shares trade and then 3 weeks of very little. Those big blocks are US and Canadian institutions hunting down shares to take positions. This is the type of story where you set it and forget it in your RRSP and wait for the end game.
Speaking of: The End Game
Hopefully you've made it this far.
Like my last play CTS, the end game here is a takeout. This will never be a billion dollar market cap because Private Equity or a strategic will come and take it out. Go download the investor presentation and look at the deck - if you come across the channel partner slides you will find several logical buyers.
Don't believe me? Let's look at GoCanvas. Mobile forms based out of the US. They were acquired by PE last year. Details on the transaction are murky but from what I understand it was between 8-10x recurring revenue. That would take us to the above valuation I mentioned earlier or by today's metrics, $160.1m USD. Convert that to Canadian, you're looking at ~216m CDN or $1.80 per share.
Feedback appreciated. Happy to answer questions and defend my thesis.
submitted by beta-one to CanadianInvestor [link] [comments]


2020.09.23 00:18 thatforensicgirl Today Is Going To Be Visual: The Story Of Mark O. Barton's Surreal Killing Spree

Today Is Going To Be Visual: The Story Of Mark O. Barton's Surreal Killing Spree

Background, family life, and early troubles

Mark O. Barton
Mark Orrin Barton was born on April 2, 1955, in Stockbridge, Georgia. He was later raised in South Carolina and grew up as an only child.
Despite an ongoing drug habit that plagued him as a teenager, Barton was able to attend Clemson University, and then the University of South Carolina, where he graduated in 1979 with a degree in chemistry. Barton then moved back to Georgia, residing in Atlanta, and married his longtime sweetheart, Debra Spivey.
Their first child, a son named Matthew, was born in 1988. Their daughter, Michelle, came along in 1991. The Bartons were an average suburban family; Debra got along just fine with most people that she met and she adored being a mother, while Mark was on his way to becoming a successful chemist. Eventually, Barton's employer required him and his family to move to Alabama.
One of the first issues that came to light regarding Mark Barton was his seemingly out-of-the-blue paranoia. Acquaintances believed that the move to Alabama had riddled him with anxiety; he was in a new place, working around strangers, and had no nearby friends or immediate family to contact. This paranoia led him to distrust Debra. On several occasions, he accused her of cheating and threatened to take the kids away. Debra relented and soon ignored his accusations altogether. She reportedly told her parents that she was looking into divorce lawyers, and one friend recalls that Debra mentioned how Mark was physically abusive.
Around this time, Mark Barton had also gotten into trouble with his place of employment. His behavior and poor performance led to him being fired. One night, he broke into the building to sabotage computer data, resulting in him being arrested for burglary. Though he served a short jail sentence, the company declined to pursue further charges as long as Barton stayed away from his boss and limited contact with his former co-workers. This event drove the couple further apart. Bill Spivey, Debra's father, said that, during a phone call, his daughter casually mentioned how "it's a good day" when "Mark doesn't speak to [her]." They eventually refused to sleep in the same bed, with Mark choosing the couch.
One evening, Debra turned the tables on her husband, accusing him of being the unfaithful one. Her suspicions turned out to be true since Mark was, in fact, cheating. He had secretly been dating Leigh Ann Vandiver, a 20-year-old secretary. Vandiver was well-aware that Barton was married and had children, but it didn't stop their affair. Apparently a divorce was also on Mark's radar, and Leigh Ann didn't mind waiting. Her sister, Dana Reeves, expressed concern and chastised her.
"There were several times when I asked [Leigh Ann], 'How well do you know him?' and she would hesitate. When I found out that he was a married man, I was critical of her judgment."
But nothing swayed Leigh Ann's actions. She, too, was caught in a seemingly loveless marriage. She and David Lang had been high school sweethearts. While her family thought it was a match made in Heaven, Leigh Ann had a completely different viewpoint; they had rushed into things and, several months later, she realized that she wanted to be with someone else.
Mark continued to give Leigh Ann empty promises, so she stayed by his side.

1993 double homicide

Debra Barton and her mother, Eloise Spivey
Debra Barton and her mother, Eloise Spivey, had made plans for Labor Day Weekend. They rented a caravan at the Riverside Campground in Cedar Bluff, Alabama while leaving Mark in Atlanta with the kids. The two were last seen alive on the afternoon of September 4, walking peacefully around Riverside.
After failing to hear from his wife and daughter, Bill Spivey contacted a campground employee and asked if they could perform a wellness check. With no response from either Debra or Eloise after knocking on the door of their camper, the authorities were called. Upon making an entrance, two officers discovered the already-decomposing bodies of Debra Barton, aged 36, and Eloise Spivey, aged 59.
The day after Debra and Eloise had arrived at the campground, a man who had gone fishing for several hours was returning back to his caravan when he heard "a real loud fight." This was around 9 p.m., he later told police. He mentioned that he heard both a man and a woman yelling.
Another witness spotted a tall figure jogging away from a camper that turned out to be rented in Eloise Spivey's name. When asked to describe the figure, the witness recalled that it was a male, taller than 6'0" and weighing somewhere over 200 pounds. Unfortunately, the witness did not see a face because it was dark outside and could recall no other details. Another witness gave a similar account, but, instead of jogging, he referred to the figure as "running like [he'd] done something bad."
Though their graves indicate that they were murdered on September 4, a post-mortem investigation reveals that the two women were actually killed on the evening of September 5, which is backed up by the eyewitness accounts of a domestic disturbance coming from Spivey's camper.
An investigator stands by Eloise Spivey's rented camper
Various news sources cite Spivey and Barton as being stabbed, while others refer to their deaths as bludgeonings. However they died, the camper was a mess. The walls and floor were splattered with blood. It was noted that jewelry and cash had been strewn about, but nothing of value had been taken. In fact, a .32-caliber pistol, registered to Spivey, was found on the small kitchen counter. It was speculated that she'd brought the gun with her as a means of self-defense. Since Cedar Bluff and the surrounding areas weren't known to have a high crime rate, especially with violence, police theorize that Spivey was paranoid that "someone she knew" was following her and her daughter. Eerily enough, this proved to be true; the violence inflicted upon Debra Barton and Eloise Spivey appeared to be personal.
Bill Spivey was alerted to the homicides. He then contacted Mark Barton, fearing that he'd have to hear his son-in-law break down and sob over the phone. Oddly enough, Mark was calm and this surprised Bill. The two met up and drove down to Alabama. Bill recalls that Mark "didn't say much" during the car ride.
Riverside Campground in Cedar Bluff, Alabama
When they arrived at Riverside Campground, Bill heard Mark Barton say: "Huh, I've never been here before." He found that remark to be really suspicious and later told a nearby officer. Police were even more baffled at Barton's demeanor and behavior--he acted like nothing bad had happened. Not once did he ask how the pair had been killed. He didn't even appear to be sad. Thinking that Barton was just in shock, the investigation proceeded with officers asking him where he'd been on the evening of September 5. "I was at my house all day," Barton told them nonchalantly. "I was spending time with my kids."
Many had their suspicions about Barton right away. There was a limit as to what Alabama investigators could do, so authorities in Georgia were contacted and informed. Going back and forth, it was confirmed that, yes, Barton did have a criminal record, but nothing violent was found on his record.
A neighbor of the Barton family came forward a few days later, telling investigators that on September 5, he noticed that Barton's car had departed the residence "at some point after four-thirty in the afternoon." Then he mentioned that Barton hadn't returned until close to midnight. This contradicted Barton's claim that he'd been at home all day. If Barton had gone to Cedar Bluff then it would've been close to a two-hour drive. If he'd gotten back around midnight then he would've had plenty of time to go to Alabama, commit the murders, compose himself, and drive back.
Eventually, Mark Barton admitted that, yes, he'd left the house at one point, leaving the kids with Leigh Ann as a babysitter. But he hadn't gone to Alabama, he told them. First, he said he went shopping and then saw a movie; he couldn't provide receipts or a ticket, though. Mark then changed his story, claiming that he went to look for a new job. "That late in the afternoon?" he was asked. Mark Barton recanted everything and asked for a lawyer.
The sheriff went to Debra Barton's funeral to pay his respects. As soon as the service was over, he noticed that Mark was already hurrying outside. Even more shocking, Barton casually waited for a red car to pull up. Behind the wheel was Leigh Ann Vandiver, who had skipped the service altogether. The pair drove off, leaving Matthew and Michelle behind with their widowed grandfather. The sheriff was now definitely convinced that Mark Barton had something to do with the double homicide of his wife and mother-in-law.

Revelations and evidence

Leigh Ann and Mark, pictured in December 1994
Mark Barton and Leigh Ann Vandiver got married in 1995. Bill Spivey was repulsed and reportedly tried to get custody of his grandchildren, fearing that the worst was yet to come. But Mark was granted sole custody because he was their biological father and did all he could to cut Debra's surviving family members out of the picture. Even more so, Mark's own parents were given limited access to Matthew and Michelle.
"After the murders, I barely saw those kids," Bill Spivey once recalled. "I was lucky enough to visit them for their birthdays, but it still wasn't much. [Mark] didn't like having me around because he knew I thought he was guilty."
As the investigation proceeded, it was revealed that Mark Barton had taken out a $600,000 life insurance policy on Debra just a few weeks before she was killed. Of course, as big as this revelation was, it wouldn't have been enough to charge Barton and go to trial.
Mark and Leigh Ann took the kids and moved into an apartment in Stockbridge while investigators did all they could to try and connect Barton to the crime scene. Debra had sustained self-defense wounds, but there was no DNA of the killer underneath her fingernails. The only thing they had that potentially pointed to the killer's identity was vomit that had been discovered in the camper's toilet. This led to numerous theories, one of which being that Barton had thrown up after brutally killing his two family members.
"Whoever did this wasn't exactly a professional," said Richard Igou, one of the investigators. "They either lost control, rampaged, and came down from the adrenaline, or they had this planned but still couldn't stomach it."
In 1993, DNA testing wasn't as advanced as it is today. Even if it had been, vomit usually contains only shed cells, but it wouldn't have been easy to determine who it belonged to. Interrogating Mark Barton on what he had eaten the day his wife and mother-in-law died probably would've been seen as "silly" or useless. But the vomit proved to be a dead-end; the medical examiner, however, confirmed that it didn't belong to Debra Barton or Eloise Spivey, as the puke didn't match anything from the contents found in their stomachs.
The murders soon became a cold case. Anything that pointed to Barton was still on the grounds for speculation. His DNA hadn't been found at the scene, nobody confirmed that it was him who'd been running away from Spivey's camper, and Barton himself was refusing to talk to the authorities as the days went by, so a confession didn't exist or seem evident.
After just a few years of marriage, it's speculated that Leigh Ann wanted a divorce but was hesitant to leave because she feared what Mark would do if he was left alone with Matthew and Michelle
There was a point in the investigation when, in 1998, Leigh Ann was questioned. While she complied more than Barton ever had, she still didn't say much. She told them that she thought Mark was innocent but did admit that his behavior "bothered" her from time to time.
"Leigh Ann," one of the investigators told her, "if you don't feel safe living with him, or if he's threatened you, you need to tell us."
Reportedly, Leigh Ann Barton said that she was fine and that her main priority was making sure Matthew and Michelle were okay. After almost four years of marriage with Mark, there was a strong indication that she no longer viewed him as a successful, charming man. The 26-year-old woman left in a hurry and she never spoke with investigators again.

Barton's day-trading "career"

In 1994, Barton earned close to $600,000 from Debra's life insurance policy
From what we know, Mark Barton used the money he earned from Debra's life insurance policy to start his career in day-trading. To simply put it, day-trading was a way to check out the stocks and invest in them. It was a quick way to make cash but it was extremely risky.
In late-1998, Barton began day-trading at Momentum Securities. It was one of the eleven companies located at the Two Securities Center in Buckhead. Almost every day, Barton would drive from Stockbridge to Atlanta to invest in various stocks. On his best days, when he made tons of money, Barton was nicknamed "Rocket" or dubbed "The Rocket Man" due to his positive attitude and high energy. The first few weeks were promising for the former chemist. However, Barton didn't heed the warnings that he could lose money just as fast as he made it if he wasn't careful.
By May of 1999, Barton had gone through most of his money and was in debt of close to $100,000. Momentum Securities closed his account and informed him that he could no longer trade at their company. While Barton took this news extremely hard, he said that he understood their reason and left without incident.
Not one to be persuaded from day-trading, though, Mark Barton instead took the opportunity to invest elsewhere. Across the street from Momentum Securities was the Piedmont Center, which housed the offices of the All-Tech Investment Group. No more than a week after he'd been let go from Momentum, Barton was trading over at All-Tech.
The stock market was not too kind to Barton
Brent Doonan, a 25-year-old business school graduate and the co-founder of All-Tech, took notice of Barton immediately. He seemed to be a cheerful guy and had no problem giving the other traders advice on where to invest. Unbeknownst to Doonan, Mark had lied about his previous day-trading experience. He called himself a rookie and convinced everyone that he was new to the business. As he began to rake up another huge debt, All-Tech was contacted by Momentum Securities. Had Barton disclosed his debt of $100,000 that he owed to Momentum, All-Tech would've denied him an account.
Doonan was given the difficult task of informing Barton that they, too, would be closing his account. The pair had grown somewhat close and Doonan cringed at the idea of having to let a "good buddy" like Barton go. But his business partner reminded him that they were a new company and couldn't take a risk with someone like Mark O. Barton.
Barton understood All-Tech's position on the matter and promised Doonan that he'd return one day with all of the money that he owed them. He left without incident, just like he'd done at Momentum. But something about Mark's seemingly calm departure bothered Doonan and a few of the other employees.
"I guarantee you that's not the last of him that we'll see," a female co-worker told Doonan.

The Atlanta Day Trader Murders: July 29, 1999

A crime scene photo from the aftermath of the All-Tech shooting
On July 29, 1999, Brent Doonan was in a conference room when he was informed that Mark Barton was there to see him. "I think he's back with my money," Doonan joked quietly to a secretary. "He can come in! Mark?"
Barton popped his head into the room and said: "Hey Brent, you got a minute? Come here, you're gonna love this!"
Smiling, Doonan politely excused himself from the meeting and walked to his office with Barton in tow. Upon entering the small room, Barton closed the door and blinds. Confused, Doonan was waiting patiently for Barton to hand over a check or give him an update on the money he owed. Instead, Barton's smile faded. "Today," he said, towering over the five-foot-ten Doonan, "is going to be visual..."
In an instant, he pulled out two handguns and fired. Doonan felt "an intense pressure" in his chest, then he fell to the floor. Barton turned his attention to those who were outside of Doonan's office. Calmly walking out, he aimed at the table of day-traders on the main floor. Bang! Bang! Bang! Shots fired were fired at random. One man had no time to react and slumped dead in his seat, killed instantly by a shot to the head. Another person heard Barton taunt: "I hope this doesn't ruin your trading day!"
Nell Jones' computer after Barton had attempted to shoot her in the head
Taking aim at trader Nell Jones, Barton was caught off-guard by Doonan attempting to tackle him. The bullet missed Jones and wound up shattering her computer screen. Doonan's act of bravery gave numerous people time to flee, but the larger man overpowered him, firing rapidly towards Doonan's body. The 25-year-old was struck an additional three times but he managed to stagger down a hallway as Barton turned to shoot someone else.
As Doonan and others ran for their lives, 911 calls came flooding in, but not from All-Tech.
Unbeknownst to many, Barton had already opened fire elsewhere. A few minutes before he walked over to the Piedmont Center, Barton had gone to Momentum Securities to look for the office managers. One of them was on vacation but the other manager, Kevin Dial, wasn't so lucky. After attempting to speak with Barton, Dial was killed by numerous shots to the chest at close-range. Before he left Momentum, Barton killed four people and wounded several others. As he headed towards All-Tech, a civilian walked by and noticed the red blood droplets on Barton's legs and shorts. The civilian would later admit that he thought Barton "had just finished painting something."
Brent Doonan was a \"prime target\" in Barton's rampage
Doonan found his way to a service elevator, rapidly pressing the button as Barton's gunfire grew closer. As the doors opened, Doonan looked back to see Vadewattee Muralidhara running towards him. Barton "appeared out of nowhere" and shot her in the head. Doonan stumbled into the elevator and managed to close the doors as Barton raised his gun to finish him off. Panicking, Doonan went up instead of down. He found himself in another company's office, surrounded by strangers.
"I've been shot! He's shooting people!" Doonan told the workers. They hesitated, wondering if it was a prank. Doonan pleaded with them to get him, and themselves, inside of a locked room because Barton was probably coming upstairs to kill everybody.
In the confusion and mass hysteria, the workers tended to Doonan's wounds while calling 911. After nearly two hours, the SWAT team reached Doonan and took him to an ambulance. Had they arrived just a few minutes later, Doonan would have bled to death.
In less than thirty minutes, Mark Barton had killed nine people in two different locations, wounded numerous bystanders, and evaded police as he drove off in his green minivan.

Barton's suicide and the murders in Stockbridge

Mark Barton's body is removed from his green minivan after he commits suicide
A few hours later, police received a lead that Mark O. Barton was in Acworth.
After failing to take a teenage girl hostage, Barton veered on to the highway, where a patrolman spotted him driving erratically. Within minutes, his vehicle was cornered at a Shell gas station. Backup arrived and they ordered Barton to surrender. As they approached his minivan, Barton put his Colt .45 against his temple and fired, killing himself instantly. He was 44-years-old.
When they could not make contact with his immediate family, the door to Barton's apartment in Stockbridge was kicked in. Leigh Ann Vandiver Barton, aged 27, was found in the hallway closet; Mark had bludgeoned her to death with a hammer, presumably while she slept. Upon further inspection, Matthew, aged 11, and Michelle, aged 8, were found in a back bedroom. They were also killed with the same weapon. Barton had tucked them into their beds and left individual notes on their bodies, explaining why they had to perish. Michelle's baby doll was found cradled in her arm; next to Matthew's body was a toy truck.
Left to right, the Bartons: Michelle, Leigh Ann, Mark, and Matthew
Another note was found on the coffee table in the living room. Mark Barton explained that he killed Leigh Ann two nights prior, on July 27, because "she was one of the main reasons for his demise." He killed Matthew and Michelle the next night, on July 28, after taking them out to dinner and buying them toys at a nearby Wal-Mart. Barton also explained in his suicide note that he killed the children in order to "spare them from a lifetime of pain." He says that he couldn't imagine them growing up and living in the shadow of "what he had planned to do [in Atlanta]."
Barton spoke of his first wife and mother-in-law, but he still denied having anything to do with their murders. He mentioned "waking up at night [...] nobody should feel that level of fear while alive." He acknowledged that something was wrong with his mental health but he couldn't explain it.
I don't plan to live very much longer, just long enough to kill as many of the people that greedily sought my destruction, Barton's letter concludes.

Aftermath

Brent Doonan survived Barton's killing spree after being shot five times and nearly bleeding to death
After being shot five times, Brent Doonan underwent numerous surgeries, which included having one of his ribs removed, as well as a portion of his diaphragm. In 2006, he helped co-write the book Murder at the Office, which detailed Mark Barton's early life, killing spree, and Doonan's road to recovery. He is now married with a son.
Several people who were wounded during Barton's killing spree also faced permanent injuries. One survivor committed suicide a few years later.
Bill Spivey criticized the investigators of his daughter and wife's murders, claiming that if they'd done more and arrested Barton years earlier, then "twelve more people wouldn't have died at his hands." Spivey passed away in 2005.
On the tenth anniversary of the shootings, a few former investigators who handled the 1993 double homicide agreed in unison that Mark Barton was "absolutely responsible" for the deaths of Debra Barton and her mother, Eloise Spivey.
Barton's mother was once quoted as saying that she couldn't comprehend or understand her son's actions, but that she forgives him.
The All-Tech Investment Group disbanded a few years after the massacre, despite support from the community. The same thing happened to Momentum Securities, who was unable to recover from the tragedy. The buildings where the massacres took place still stand to this day.

Victims

  • Leigh Ann Vandiver Barton, 27
  • Matthew Barton, 11
  • Michelle Barton, 8
  • Russell J. Brown, 42
  • Dean Delawalla, 52
  • Joseph J. Dessert, 60
  • Kevin Dial, 38
  • Jamshid Havash, 45
  • Vadewattee Muralidhara, 44
  • Allen Charles Tenenbaum, 48
  • Edward Quinn, 58
  • Scott A. Webb, 30
  • Debra Barton, 36\*
  • Eloise Spivey, 59\*
*While Mark Barton was never officially charged with the murder, I feel it's appropriate to remember them, too. I also believe that he is responsible for their deaths due to strong evidence.
Sources: Murder at the Office, AP Archives, Wikipedia, Who The F\*k Did I Hire?*
submitted by thatforensicgirl to TrueCrime [link] [comments]


2020.09.22 14:48 ManonFire63 Circumcision of the Heart

As I write about a Circumcision of the heart, many of you reading this......you didn't have one. You may have had a degree or two and were educated. You failed in God's Classroom thus far. Possibly whatever divinity school you graduated from was working to tolerate Kabbalaic Judaism or worse. 2020 has taught that no moral man tolerates everything.
What is Mysticism? Someone is experiencing cause and effect with the Spiritual. Someone experiencing cause and effect with the Spiritual may be able to point out some spiritual things for you in profound ways. Any Christian growing in Faith and seeking God, may be in some form of Mysticism as they grow in Faith. They may not consider themselves a mystic. It means that they experiencing God. Today the topic is Hearts of Stone and The Bible.
Given someone were to do an internet search of "Heart of Stone and Jews" someone may be able to find a lot of valid information very quickly from a variety of sources. Christian sources, Jewish source, Professors, and other news sources. Having a Heart of Stone may be a particular spiritual condition with cause and effect to it. Talmudic Jews have been said to have hearts of stone, and do mean things to gentiles. In the media, someone with a Heart of Stone, like the Rolling Stones song, "Heart of Stone," may be someone who behaves as a love'em and leave'em type. He may be a self-centered seeker of pleasure. He may not care about love or marriage. Harvey Weinstein was a married man. He used his position of authority in such a way as to pressure women who were not his wife towards being with him. Harvey Weinstein may of had a Heart of Stone.
I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. (Ezekiel 36:26)
For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' (Matthew 13:15)
Testimony:
As a 29 year old man, I was calloused. Not just my heart. I had been through some rough things in my late 20's, and I was a calloused man. I wasn't a tough guy. I was a callused man. I received a calling from God. I worked to grow in Faith. I developed a close relationship with him. June 2014, at the age of 30, I suddenly felt like a was a New Born Child. Having been calloused, I was hardened against certain stimuli. Watching certain movies or Youtube videos, I was hardened against various stimuli like violence or whatever. Suddenly, one day, due to my relationship with God, I felt like I was a child. Stimuli that I had previously been hardened against would effect me like I was an innocent and starting over. To get into the Kingdom of Heaven someone has to be like a Child.
Prior to my calling, I was aware of Don Cheadle as Captain Planet. I thought it was funny. After my calling, based on my experiences, I saw something else with it. One day God challenged me to create a "Captain Planet" for him. I didn't really understand what it all meant at the time, but having a new born innocent spirit as a 30 year old man, it hit me just right, and helped build me up.
Don Cheadle is Captain Planet.
break
Earth!
Fire!
Wind!
Water!
Heart!
Go Son of Man!!!
The above may have been created around June - July 2014. At the same time, God had been shepherding me to be a Bridegroom. In the Bible, Jesus is a Bridegroom looking for a Bride. Given you internet search "Jesus is the Bridegroom" you may find many articles very quickly about it, and a Bible concordance. I was not Jesus. I had lived like a Prodigal Son for a few years. God was pushing to be a Bridegroom. I would pick up my iphone4, and I started deleting out any females that I was not interested in marrying, and did not have a strictly professional relationship with in someway. Given they were in my phone, and I belied or knew there could be something that wasn't leading to marriage, or there were there for the wrong reason, I deleted their numbers. I worked to marry about six females from my past that summer, one at a time, like a was "Black Jesus" Everlast. I would put all my hope, love and future into each one. I was working for God full time. That was my job. God may have told me about their number, as in former partners, and showed me ugly things about them. I would get to the point where I found they were playing games with me, God would show me their true hearts, and/or it just wasn't going to work out. I would kick them out of my heart.
Have you ever heard the terms "She got her hooks into him." Given a young man meets a pretty woman, and after a few days he thinks about her a lot or likes her, she got some hooks into someone. Given she likes him, she works to get more hooks into him until they marry? With old girl friends or people someone knew, they may have in their subconscious, some of those hooks. They may not think about it. They may have been married to someone else for many years. There may be some hooks or emotional attachments there. In a man's heart, given he was in sin or hook up culture, there may be lingering hooks he doesn't know about or think about. Over the process of working to marry six females from my past, I found that I had things lingering in my heart. I worked to kick them out. How? I don't care. I don't care about them. They are not my responsibility. They may live or die. I don't care.
Circumcision of The Heart.
Bible Verses:And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live. (Deuteronomy 30:6)No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person's praise is not from other people, but from God. (Romans 2:29)
At one point growing in Faith, and having a relationship with God, it felt like what I had felt below the belt, on some level, went up into my heart. Before I may of had a callused heart like there was something around it. Afterwards I was more aware of my heart in a way that brings greater meaning and understanding to The Word of God. This happened around Spring 2014 or so, but as I worked through being a Bridegroom, I found my heart had been wrapped around a few females from my past.
Given someone were to research people with "Hearts on Fire for Christ" or "Sacred Heart" in the Catholic Church, they may be able to find people, Saints, with valid testimony of having cause and effect, and circumcision of the heart.
Question: Did that mean you stopped feeling things below the belt?
No.
God is love. I became more aware of his love. God is Holy and Separate from sin.
A man walks by a woman on the street. What does he think about? There is nothing wrong with appreciating beauty. Is a woman in God's plan for someone? A man may be aware of these things, and he doesn't allow his mind to drift other places. He has God's Fatherly Love, and he would like Good things for people.
submitted by ManonFire63 to theology [link] [comments]


2020.09.22 02:31 NoYeezyAtWeezyHeezy All Album Releases for Summer (June - August) of 2020

Below is a list of all the albums and EP's that were released in June through August. If there are any I missed or anything you think should be added, let me know and I'll gladly add it because I'm sure there are many I have missed. I've linked all of the ones that there have been album discussions if you would like to go leave your thoughts or rank the album. Also leave a comment below if one or multiple albums stood out to you for the month. Enjoy!

June 1st

June 2nd

June 3rd

June 4th

June 5th

June 7th

June 9th

June 10th

June 11th

June 12th

June 13th

June 14th

June 18th

June 19th

June 20th

June 22nd

June 26th

June 27th

June 30th

July 1st

July 3rd

July 4th

Dissolver No. 7 - Star Spangled Punch
Oak Grove - Must You Have Love Handles Before You Have a Handle On Love?
Victor Camozzi - Black Dog

July 8th

July 10th

July 17th

July 20th

July 23rd

July 24th

July 27th

July 31st

August 1st

August 6th

August 7th

August 10th

August 11th

August 12th

August 14th

August 15th

August 18th

August 19th

August 21st

August 22nd

August 25th

August 28th

August 29th

submitted by NoYeezyAtWeezyHeezy to CountryMusicStuff [link] [comments]


2020.09.22 01:32 SomeFunPun The Leafs Roster Compared to Stanley Cup Winners

The Athletic posted this article today, looking at their player evaluation model as it relates to cup winning rosters this decade. The results are here, for those who are subscribed: https://theathletic.com/2077279/2020/09/21/cup-checklist-analyzing-the-rosters-from-the-last-decade-of-champions/
The model isn't perfect, of course, and it shouldn't be used to evaluate players in a vacuum, but because Dom also posts his model's look at every NHL team, it should be fair to compare his model's average Stanley Cup winner against the Leafs roster during the play ins.
The Leafs roster can be found here for anyone with a subscription: https://theathletic.com/1957765/2020/07/30/2020-nhl-qualifying-round-preview-maple-leafs-vs-blue-jackets/
For those without access to the Athletic, here's the rundown:
Offense:
Matthews is significantly above the average Stanley cup winning 1C. Marner is slightly above average as the best winger, but Hyman on that line is below the value of a top line winger. The line averages out to a value of 9.8, which is well above the 9.3 value of an average first line on a cup winner.
Tavares is significantly better than the average second line center, but below the level of a cup winning 1C. Nylander is slightly below the level of a teams 2nd best winger, which is usually spread onto the second line rather than stacked on the top line. Mikheyev is above the average for the last top six winger. Overall, they're valued at 6.9, whereas a second line is normally valued at 5.8.
Third line is where the Leafs hit some trouble. An average third line is valued at 2.8, whereas the Leafs group with Robertson was valued at 1.9. Swapping Johnsson for Kapanen won't make up the difference either, so third line is an issue, at least until Robertson takes another step in the NHL.
Surprisingly, The Leafs fourth line is actually making up some lost value. A stanley cup average fourth line is rated at .6, whereas the Leafs are extracting 1 win of excess value from our trio.
Engvall on the fourth and Robertson's continued development bode well for us to run four above average lines next season, should we bring this exact group back! If Kerfoot settles into the lineup earlier and plays all of next season like he played during the play-ins, he might also see a boost. If not, he's a player to look at to upgrade.
Defense:
The model actually has an average stanley cup team playing a first pairing that features a team's best defenseman, and their 5th best beside them! The average team gets 3.4 wins from their top pairing, but the Leafs are mustered 2 wins from Rielly and Ceci (Rielly was a 2.2, .3 under a top pairing D, and Ceci was a -.2, 1.1 wins under the average 1D partner).
Average second pairings feature a teams second best and third/fourth best player. On the Leafs Muzzin was worth 1.5 wins and Holl was worth just .5 wins -- average second pairings feature a D worth 1.6 wins and a partner worth 1.1 wins. Again, the Leafs are underperforming here.
Third pairings feature a defenseman worth 1.1 wins, and a partner worth .4 wins. Barrie alone is worth 1.4 wins, and he did play like one in the post season given he wasn't a defensive liability during the play-ins. Travis Dermott is worth .6 wins here, which means our third pair this year exceeded expectations.
Overall, the defense needs work. Reilly and Muzzin are SLIGHTLY under the thresholds we want for our best and second best defensemen, but Holl and Dermott need to see a big jump if they want to be worth of anything more than third pairing playoff duties. Adding a true 1D bumps every player into a better spot, however -- Pietrangelo and Muzzin gives us an above average first pairing, Rielly - Dermott/Holl gives us an average second pairing, and hopefully growth from Sandin gets the third pairing to average status as well!
Goaltending:
Average winning goalies are worth 3 wins on their own. Freddie is worth 2. Additionally, in a later section Dom shows that winning goalies play hot -- on average they almost double their value to be worth 5 wins in the post season. Freddie is solid for us, and we've seen him that hot this past November, but he hasn't been anywhere near that level in the post season so far. The lowest ranking goalie to win a cup this decade was worth 2.1 wins, so Freddie CAN win, but it's certainly not very likely.
What do the Leafs need:
1) Third line center or winger growth! Our third line is underperforming and needs a boost. Outside that one player, the entire forward group is above average, from top six to the fourth line. There's depth in the organization.
2) A 1D. Rielly is above average as a teams second best defensemen, and Muzzin is above average as a teams third best defenseman, and grabbing a true 1D lets the top four play in better positions to succeed.
3) Stronger (or luckier) goaltending. This past play-in showed team defense isn't the issue in important games -- most analysis show the Leafs punching above their weight defensively, but having goalscoring issues which sank them. Getting the same goaltending we faced would have had the Leafs win in four!
What can the Leafs afford to give up?
1) Marner -- no. You lose him and you don't have a strong enough winger to replace him anywhere in the top six. Winners have a elite center and an elite winger, and we don't get that without Marner.
2) Nylander -- no. Again, you need a second winger of that high calibre to win according to the averages.
3) Tavares. Downgrading him actually makes the roster fit closer to what an average stanley cup winning team looks like, but to downgrade him, we need to get back a high end 2C AND a 1D! Otherwise we are better off with Tavares.
...That's it.
When we look at the roster, it has its strength on offense, a weakness on defense that can only be fixed with a 1D, and a need for an even better goalie (Freddie is great, so if he gets hot or elevates his playoff games, then he's good enough)! Letting Robertson grow should help with third line depth, just like Sandin's growth will give us a genuine third line driver. Despite that, we are short a 1D and don't have the current assets to trade for one without significantly impacting the roster as it is currently.
The Way Forwards:
Sign Pietrangelo and sacrifice third line assets -- they aren't providing excess value anyways. That's the only solution we have right now, and its a gamble since it guts the third line and HEAVILY relies on growth from prospects, or cheap replacement signings.
submitted by SomeFunPun to leafs [link] [comments]


2020.09.21 20:44 skip2myluka Why the Mavericks' 2020 Offseason is So_Freakin_Important

Why the Mavericks' 2020 Offseason is So_Freakin_Important
The Mavs took a major leap this season, going from the lottery to a mid-playoff seed. That said, the Mavericks should be even better next season—with or without major roster changes**.**
For the first time in a long time, MFFLs can feel good about the trajectory of the team. But, despite projected improvements, the team is at least a high-level piece away from contending for a title.
Most of the speculation around the Mavs adding talent focuses on 2021. That summer, Tim Hardaway Jr. and several other contracts come off the books.
However, it seems to me that opportunities in the 2020 offseason are being treated with complacency in the current discourse.
Much of the reason for the focus on 2021 derives from the latest Dallas big-fish free agent target:
The Giannis-to-Dallas clamor is reaching a fever pitch.
Th absurdity of the Mavs FO putting a lot of chips into this plan cannot be overstated. We have seen how well dry powder and superstar chasing has served us in the past.
If the Mavericks were not as close to a championship as they were, this kind of restraint would make a lot more sense.
But, given that the Mavs are a relatively small piece away from a contention-level roster, does it really make sense to forgo a perfectly good offseason just so we can put our roster improvement chips all-in on a Giannis pot with incredibly long odds?

I find it useful to think about Luka’s time in Dallas in terms of ‘eras’.
Eras, in this sense, can be loosely defined as some period of team continuity in roster, coach, style etc.
For example, most recently, the Warriors completed two eras—pre-KD, KD—and have begun a third—post-KD. You could also say that each Lebron destination is an era of its own. Dirk’s 20 years in DFW came with its own set of eras (Pre-Star, Nash, Avery Johnson, Kidd, Monta, Lottery).
If we map ahead a bit, the outline of a 10+ year career for Luka with several distinct ‘eras’ begins to come into frame.
Luka Eras
True NBA greats get no developmental years. For better or worse, Luka is on the clock right now. The goal of Luka’s rookie contract era should be a simple, yet daunting one—win an NBA championship.
In pursuit of that goal, however, it is important to understand the dynamics of coming eras and how to best position the Mavs for sustained success. It is also important not to undervalue each year the team has an opportunity to compete for a championship.
Let’s take a look at what the ‘Eras’ of Luka Doncic basketball could look like from a roster management perspective:
https://preview.redd.it/dkorr7xhojo51.png?width=1866&format=png&auto=webp&s=8474b925419b6a6897e0a8713fd64243d76b7699

Era 1 in Focus: Rookie Contract
While it seems like the timeline for 21 year-old Luka Doncic is just beginning, life comes at you fast. Having star talent in their youth does not absolve a team from hard decision making; just ask the Pelicans, Sixers, and Bucks of late.
The early, tough decisions the Mavs must face center on building a contention-level team around Luka before his max extension. At that point, Luka will be more correctly compensated for his impact with the 30% designated player max contract.
While most Mavs fans are justifiably excited about the prospect of opening space in the 2021 offseason, it also seems that many may be mis-pricing just how fast it will close—with or without new talent.
At the start of the 2022-23 season, Luka’s max extension (which he can sign next summer) is going to hit the books. At that point, Luka and KP will be eating roughly 60% of the Mavs cap.
In addition, the Mavs will have key role players locked in to team-friendly multiyear deals representing another 25-30%.
Filling out the roster with 10-25% of the cap will be an uphill battle. Filling it with the pieces needed to vault this team into the title conversation will be near impossible.
https://preview.redd.it/cs5u41mjojo51.png?width=1456&format=png&auto=webp&s=bfb4b833afa8e12a224730b31bf2137b21c068ac

While it seems like the Luka Doncic timeline is just beginning, life comes at you fast

Luckily, The Mavs have two offseasons, ‘20 and ‘21, before their window for adding significant talent without gutting their depth closes on them for several years.
The Mavs don’t want to put all of their eggs in the Giannis 2021 basket without doing due diligence on roster upgrades (especially ones that vault us into a contender) in the coming offseason.
Why? Well, because waiting for Giannis and the spoils of 2021 puts a ton of undue pressure on executing within the tight window of one year of free agency.
This is why the 2020 offseason should be treated with the importance it deserves.
Roster
Let’s do a basic inventory of the Maverick stables:
https://preview.redd.it/g97tdrkmojo51.png?width=1236&format=png&auto=webp&s=237faf54495854c65ad577433921fd5a8140b4eb
If we look at high-level team needs, the obvious culprit is defense. The Mavs were a misbalanced regular season team in '19-20; sporting the league’s most efficient offense and 17th most efficient defense.
The Mavericks are especially light on defensive guards and wings. They can find more balance by acquiring defense-minded perimeter players. But, they must also commit to prioritizing their defensive personnel in the rotation.
With that in mind, It is essential that any significant piece brought in to flank Luka and KP be a two-way player.
Given they have $35m locked up between KP and Maxi ($50m if you include Powell, Boban, and Cauley-Stein) it’s highly unlikely the team will look to invest more in the frontcourt—so look for the Mavs to avoid any big attached with a significant price tag. Pour one out for the Ibaka and Millsap truthers (seriously though, these are inferior players to Maxi Kleber…).
In terms of adding personnel, the best archetypal fits are a secondary live-dribble creator (ideally one who can put pressure on the rim) and a two-way perimeter player with plus-shooting or plus-defensive equity.
It would be an added bonus if one or both of these players translated into Luka’s next era, or if the Mavs are able to draft starter-level talent for that era in 2020 or 2022.
To recap, before Luka’s rookie extension kicks in (2022-23) we’d like to generate:
  • A two way secondary creator for this and the next era
  • A two way perimeter player for this and the next era
  • A draft pick who turns out to be a starter in the next era
Routes
Free Agency:
Free agency is probably the most interesting route the Mavs can take to acquire the coveted ‘third & fourth guys’. The 2020 class is generally light but has some impact guys that fit the Mavs needs (Vanvleet, Dragic, Bazemore, Grant, Crowder, Temple, Bogdonavic, Ingram, Melton). The 2021 class offers up some interesting non-Giannis opportunities (Lonzo, Oladipo, Richardson, Dinwiddie, Hayward, Porter Jr, Oubre, Lowry, Conley, Isaac, Bridges, Anunoby, Hart, Caruso, Trent).Trade:
Using one or more of their assets (2020 #18, 2020 #31, Brunson, Maxi, DFS), the Mavs could look to upgrade via trade. The Mavs could opt to snatch up veterans who want to compete at a high level (Paul, Lowry) or younger core pieces (Lonzo, Gordon).
To open up more room in free agency, the Mavs might look to attach 18 and/or 31 to dump the contracts of Hardaway, Delon Wright, Justin Jackson, and/or Dwight Powell.
Draft:
The 2020 draft is an interesting one as the Mavs could trade one or both of the 18 and 31st picks for salary cap relief or in a package for a useful piece.
Alternatively, the Mavs could look to add a future piece by using or packaging their picks to move up in the draft. Because the Mavs do not have their first round pick in 2021—and because most draft picks after Luka’s 1st era will be traded for win-now pieces—my preference is to draft players for the future in 2020 and/or 2022.
https://preview.redd.it/pqml1hsrojo51.png?width=1456&format=png&auto=webp&s=71cf74e5227c7e78b24ba263270de367e00efa71

2020 Offseason
The biggest reason I’m an advocate for being aggressive in the 2020 offseason is this:
I don't want the Mavs don’t squander a perfectly good opportunity to make a run at a title as soon as next season.
This is not to say that I want the Mavs to make moves that jeopardize their future ability to compete for titles—but many of the opportunities to vault us into contention next year don’t necessarily dilute long-term prospects.
The latest murmurs are that the salary cap could come in at a similar figure to ‘19-20, or around $109m. We'll use that figure for modeling purposes here.
Going in to the offseason, let’s see how the Mavs stack up in terms of assets and distressed contracts:
https://preview.redd.it/8h3kr4gvojo51.png?width=1250&format=png&auto=webp&s=402d7193d5230bc77a6298ece7903b0650fa6fa7
Depending on whether the Mavs were interested and able to move Hardaway, Powell, Wright, and/or Jackson in concert with their FRPs; and whether WCS opts out; the Mavs could have between $3m to 48m + the MLE ($9.2m) this summer to add talent.
While going through the options, a lot of you are going to ask why [player’s name] isn’t included on the list. They’ve been filtered out, is why. Here’s a handy legend—to be eligible as “worth pursuing for the Mavericks”, you must:
  • Defend at a high level on the perimeter (seriously folks, we need defenders)
  • Shoot the 3 well and at a high volume
  • Not be a big
As mentioned, the most significant move the Mavs can make towards winning a championship as soon as next season is adding a (two-way) secondary live-dribble creator. With that in mind, here are the potential moves at the Mavs disposal, ranked by expected value.

‘A’ Moves: Field a Contender in 2020

A1) Sign Fred Vanvleet @ $90m/4
For all intents and purposes, the Mavs are free agent players in 2020 if they want to be. There is no excuse for the Mavs not aggressively pursuing FVV this summer.
In my opinion, this is the sole no-brainer unrestricted free agency decision in 2020. Vanvleet is 26, so he fits the Mavs timeline and should not lose much effectiveness on his next contract.
He is also a perfect fit: A secondary three-and-D playmaker who can defend at the point of attack, switch, hit threes off the dribble, drive and kick, and who possesses a championship resume. I especially like the fact that Vanvleet can defend so well up and down the lineup.
Vanvleet would also become the de-facto locker room leader for this team and add a sense of grit and toughness to the team.
The Mavs should pursue an agreement at around $22-23m per over four. If FVV agrees, the Mavs can make room by stretching Tim Hardaway Jr and/or by looking to find a trade partner for he or Delon and Powell’s contracts.

For all intents and purposes, the Mavs are free agent players in 2020 if they want to be.

A2) Draft Hayes and Trade for Paul
Killian Hayes is the type of prospect where I think you gamble on him becoming a core piece during Luka’s prime. I’ll discuss why I like the idea of drafting a point guard from this class so much in a later article.
If you look at the theoretical package for a guy like Chris Paul—a top 10-15 player in the league in ‘19-20—its peanuts. The Mavs could probably package Brunson, Delon, THJ’s 2021 expiring, and Powell for Paul and filler.
This move would give their depth a hit (though, to be fair, Brunson and Powell missed the playoffs, and Delon garnered DNPs), but replace THJ with Chris Paul and you’d have a hard time convincing me the Mavs aren’t title contenders.
Paul’s contract aligns well with this iteration of the Mavericks’ role players. And the money that the Mavs should be able to open up post-Paul is significant, ~$50m in 2023.
While I am fond of several other point guards in case the Mavs stay put and don’t move up for Hayes—Kira Lewis, Tyrese Maxey, Cole Anthony, and Tre Jones—I don’t have quite the same confidence mortgaging the near-future on Paul without Hayes.
A3) Trade for a Veteran
If the Mavs are want to be aggressive in pursuing veterans in 2020, the design space for adding talent becomes a lot more interesting.
Guys like Lowry, Jrue, Hayward, and Dipo would require Hardaway, possibly Kleber, DFS or Brunson, and one or more of the Mavs’ draft picks.
This is a gamble. Dallas would potentially need to re-sign these guys and/or hope they don't deteriorate too much. Otherwise, we could be looking at a tough cap situation until the end of KP’s deal.
A4) Trade for a Like-Age Piece
The Mavs have a number of trade chips: THJ’s expiring contract, DFS, Kleber, Brunson, and the 18 and 31 picks in 2020. I think the Mavs would look to package THJ and any number of Brunson and draft picks to go after the players in this grouping.
I suspect this will be the route many Mavs fans prefer. But consider this; the group of players in this list are roughly between the 65th and 100 best players in the league. Fred Vanvleet is a top 50 player, Jrue and Lowry are top 40 players, and Paul is top 15.
Targets & Proposed Trades:
  • Lonzo Ball, 23 1yr $8m (RFA in 2021) [Kleber + Brunson + 31]
  • Aaron Gordon, 24 2yr $35m [THJ + 18]
  • Josh Richardson, 26 2yr $22m (PO in 2021) [THJ + Brunson]
  • Otto Porter Jr. 27 1yr $28m [THJ + 31]
  • Gary Harris, 25 2yr $40m [THJ + 31 or Brunson]
  • Kelly Oubre, 24 1yr $15m [THJ + 18]
  • Josh Hart, 25 1 yr $1.8m [Brunson + 18]
  • Tomas Satoransky, 28 2 yr $20m [Delon + 18]
  • Bogdan Bogdonavic, 28 Sign-&-Trade [Kleber]
  • DeAnthony Melton, 22 Sign-&-Trade [Delon + 18]

‘B’ Moves: Remain Competitive and Flexible for 2021

B1) THJ Opts In, Fill Out Rotation in Free Agency
The key consideration here is that anyone added from this group would need to be comfortable with a one-year deal, because multiyear agreements would eat in to our ability to add talent with cap space in 2021.
The exception to this case is if we were to nab one of the aforementioned players. If we had already used the space on a Fred Vanvleet or Chris Paul, then we can afford to make a multiyear tender at the full MLE ($9.2m). At that point, a lot of these wing names become much more interesting.
Goran Dragic Would he take a one year deal at the MLE to play with Luka? Tough to tell at this point given the Heat’s success.
Kent Bazemore Baze is exactly what this team needs injected into its second unit. A versatile wing who can shoot, defend, and put the ball on the floor a bit for 20mpg.
Garret Temple Temple is a sneaky interesting move if he’s interested in a one year deal at the MLE. I think he would slot right in to the starting point guard role as an off-ball guy with a bit of size who can defend, shoot, and make some reads as a secondary guy. Age (34) is prohibitive in terms of thinking beyond 2020-21, but a nice stopgap option.
Jae Crowder Does he take a one year MLE? I doubt it. A multiyear MLE, though, seems like it might be in his range. I do wonder if he still feels shortchanged by his first stint here.
Justin Holiday
Wes Matthews
Derrick Jones Jr. Derrick Jones Jr. is a very interesting young prospect who I think could have success as a roll man next to KP and Kleber. I don’t know if he’s a guy I would want to assign long term money to given shooting concerns.
Jerami Grant I think Grant would be somewhat interesting. I just find him too similar to both DFS and Kleber (and probably prefer them both, slightly) to really find him all that valuable. His market may just end up being a multiyear mle.
Bogdan Bogdonavic I like Bogdan, I really do. Unfortunately, I don’t see him fitting in as a 3rd guy type due to a lack of defense; and as a sixth man, its unclear to me that he is an upgrade over Seth Curry. He’ll certainly cost more.
I know this move is a Mavs fan favorite but I don’t see how he makes much sense. Additionally, Bogey is restricted, so we’d need to make space before we can hand him an offer sheet.
DeAnthony Melton Melton is the more interesting RFA option in my opinion. Unlike Bogey, I could see Melton being a long term starter next to Luka. He is also 22 to Bogdan’s 28 and he will very likely cost less to attain. If the Mavs can clear a little space, I would be making inquiries into his availability at the MLE or perhaps a bit higher over 4 years.
B2) Extend Tim Hardaway Jr.
This option seems highly unlikely. The extension of Hardaway needs to be done with the expectation that his new contract could be dumped “for free” at a moment’s notice.
Any contract that makes THJ feel made whole after turning down what is effectively a 1y$19m extension would need to include bigger and longer term money than the Mavs should feel remotely comfortable giving him.
The Mavs would need to extend Hardaway at something like $10-11m per year over 3 (at most) to make the contract bulletproof tradable (in the case they need to make space in ‘20 or ‘21 for a talent upgrade).
The replacement of Hardaway seems inevitable as his $19m expiring contract represents the best opportunity to upgrade on talent before Luka’s extension.
If the Mavs decided to extend Hardaway at a market rate extension based on last year’s production (3-4 years at 14-15+ per year), I fear this could be the single most damaging move to the early Luka timeline.
Consider this—because they lack significant draft assets after this year, the Mavs could be stuck in a loop where they are unable to add high-level talent because they cannot move a multiyear overpay to an aging shoot-first guard. This compounds a similarly unmovable Powell deal.
Extending Hardaway to a large deal could mean that the Mavericks are essentially stuck in the same lineup configuration as ‘19-20 for the next 3-4 years…yikes.
As is, it’s highly likely that Hardaway will not be extended by the Mavs.
Draft
If the Mavs are to draft, combining the picks to move forward as much as possible would be beneficial if it meant a shot at one of several players (Hayes, Vassell, Anthony, Kira).
Otherwise, the Mavs should look to draft best non-big available at 18 (with an eye towards Kira, Maxey, Pat Williams, Poku, Tre Jones) and potentially look to add an impact upperclassman at 31 (Bane, Mich St guy, Syracuse guy, Cassius Winston).

Key Dates
2020 Dates are up in the air, I will update these as they change:
-Draft: Nov 18 (tentatively) -Free Agency Begins: TBD

Looking Ahead to 2021
As mentioned, most fans have an eye toward 2021. I understand. But, imho if the chance to grab Fred Vanvleet is there, we MUST do it and not think twice.
If we can collectively sidestep the Giannis fever dream, the rest of the contenders don’t actually look so great.
Oladipo, 29, is the next best fit and most often mentioned. But Victor has struggled to stay on the court the last few seasons. Does it make sense to lock up $60m in two players who might not be available for Luka when the playoffs come? Likewise, Do we want to pay big bucks for an athleticism-dependent player entering his 30s?
Are consolation prizes like Josh Richardson, Spencer Dinwiddie, Otto Porter, or Kelly Oubre upgrades over Fred VanVleet? I personally don’t think so. I could get behind saving the space for Lonzo or Isaac—but they’re restricted, so there’s no guarantee we’d even be able to land them if we did garner interest.
Second tier RFAs like Anunoby, Hart, Trent, and Caruso could make valuable starting pieces. But, as with other RFAs, there is no guarantee mutual interest would even yield a signing. Last ditch fill-ins like Tim Hardaway Jr and Kentavious Caldwell-Pope may be available, but these outcomes all sound incredibly disappointing in the context of adding central talent for the post rookie-contract Luka era.
This class just doesn’t have much for the Mavs unless you’re counting on guys like Lebron, Kawhi, Paul George, or Anthony Davis joining the Mavs. I’m not.
Wrapping Up
Consider one more thing—Giannis might not even make it to free agency in any practical sense. If Giannis signs the extension this summer or quickly re-signs with the Bucks, the opportunity cost of not pursuing Fred Vanvleet or a veteran third option becomes much higher.
Lastly, IF Giannis IS interested in the Mavs next summer, making a move to clear space—EVEN if we utilize future cap space in 2020— should be relatively simple.
My assumption is the Mavs could move Porzingis and/or FVV rather easily if need be.
Go Mavs.
[P.S. If you're interested in receiving my Mavs essays in your inbox, sign up here]
submitted by skip2myluka to Mavericks [link] [comments]


2020.09.18 13:00 DarthEquus The History of Medicalized Circumcision Part 5: 1980-2019

The History of Medicalized Circumcision Part 5: 1980-2019
A new wave of genital cutting was begun with Wiswell in the '80s based on neonatal UTI incidence. He reached his conclusions by comparing children born in a hospital with universal infant circumcision who were born prematurely and whose poor health had prevented routine circumcision at birth. Notably he also commanded parents to treat the child's foreskin destructively only to use the resultant damage as evidence circumcision was necessary. The bigger question about this unfortunately successful infant genital surgery promotion is how was it ever accepted as valid science? To (1998) found the rate of UTI in Canadian infants was reduced 3.5 times but that was really from only 0.7% to 0.2%. So while it sounds like a lot as a relative rate, it would take almost 200 surgeries to prevent a single UTI.
The much more powerful and significant wave of circumcision activism beginning in the 1980s was the terribly successful lie that male genital cutting could significantly help prevent HIV infection. This idea did not reach significant development until after 2000 when John Hopkins circumcision activists designed and performed the large and expensive African RCTs to "prove" male circumcision prevented HIV infection in men based on studies comparing groups with differing levels of STI awareness counseling, the most likely real cause of the recorded effect. That flaw would be fatal, but there were many other problems with those studies besides that. See Boyle & Hill 2011, Van Howe and Storms (2011), and Green (2008) for critiques of those studies.

1980: ~80% of the newborn American male population is circumcised and 67% of adult men

https://preview.redd.it/m52eo19mlim51.jpg?width=840&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=739f5049e289c17c427740de92e278457d754c54
1980 Edward Wallerstein published Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy detailing the sordid history of the medicalized genital cutting movement in the volume that launched the modern intactivist movement.
1982 Former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, M.D. wrote in the Saturday Evening Post: "All of the Western world raises its children uncircumcised and it seems logical that, with the extent of health knowledge in those countries, such a practice must be safe."
1983 Hugh C. Thompson recognized there did not appear to be any good reason to continue circumcision. [The Value of Neonatal Circumcision: An Unanswered and Perhaps Unanswerable Question. Am J Dis Child. — [full text]]
"Neonatologists have regarded the operation [circumcision] as without merit. Physicians in all fields agree on the necessity for careful explanation to the parents, preferably before the infant is born. They deplore the occasional grave complications that are largely produced by poor technique and inexperienced operators. One major reason formerly used to justify neonatal circumcision—correction or prevention of phimosis—has been shown to be untenable by serial studies from birth to adulthood. The major indications now proposed as justifying the procedure are prevention of penile [skin] cancer [which is rarer than male breast cancer] and balanitis and a reduction in herpes genitalis and, possibly, cancer of the uterine cervix [disproved and more recently shown to be caused by HPV]. These diseases are decades removed from the neonatal period, and opponents of circumcision regard them as lacking incontrovertible proof or as inconsequential."
1983 Money & Davison found that four of the five men circumcised as adults in their study rated penile sensitivity as diminished. They didn't describe the difference very articulately but they noted differences included "diminished penile sensitivity, less penile gratification, more penile pain, and cosmetic deformity".
"Removal of the entire foreskin, or even part of it, may require a change in masturbatory technique, insofar as there is less or no redundant [sic] skin to be stretched forward or backward [the eversion of the foreskin is more like rolling but with more fluidity]. Thus, there needs to be more reliance on some other surface, for example, the lubricated skin of the fingers or palm, to provide ether rotary or longitudinal friction directly to the shaft of the penis. What has been lost in circumcision is the stretch effect and hypothetically, receptors that provide proprioceptive stretch sensation from the foreskin. Inside the vagina, the penis must move in and out in the fashion of a finger, rather than being sometimes able, like the head of a turtle to pull in and out of the carapuce of its own foreskin, while the pubococcygeal muscles at the vaginal entrance grip the lower part of the shaft. Stretch sensations may be additionally altered if the frenulum is severed in the circumcision."
[Adult penile circumcision: erotosexual and cosmetic sequelae. J Sex Res.]
1985 Thomas E. Wiswell, a military doctor, used flawed methods to show that circumcision decreased incidence of urinary tract infections by comparing infants born prematurely to infants born at term. [Decreased incidence of urinary tract infections in circumcised male infants. Pediatrics.]
1985 Benjamin Spock finally updated the his best-selling parenting book (first published in 1946): "I strongly recommend leaving the foreskin alone. Parents should insist on convincing reasons for circumcision—and there are no convincing reasons that I know of." Later in a 1989 interview in Redbook, he stated "My own preference, if I had the good fortune to have another son, would be to leave his little penis alone."
1986 Aaron J. Fink claimed that circumcision prevented AIDS. [A possible explanation for heterosexual male infection with AIDS. NEJM.]
1988 Aaron J. Fink invented the idea that circumcision prevented neonatal group B streptococcal disease. [Is hygiene enough? Circumcision as a possible strategy to prevent group B streptococcal disease. AJOG.]
1989 Edgar J. Schoen leads the AAP Task Force on Circumcision declared circumcision is medically beneficial. Reported health benefits are hygiene, penile and cervical cancer, phimosis, STDs, and UTIs.
"In addition to the medical aspects, other factors will affect the parents' decisions, including esthetics, religion, cultural attitudes, social pressures, and tradition."
[Report of the Task Force on Circumcision. Pediatrics]
This report has been extensively criticized for it's failure to provide sound evidence of preventative effects of circumcision, it's lack of a cost-benefit analysis, it's failure to address the functions of the foreskin, and overall bias of the report.
[Matthew R. Giannetti. Circumcision and the American Academy of Pediatrics: Should Scientific Misconduct Result in Trade Association Liability? 85 Iowa L. Rev 1507 (2000).]

1990: ~68% of the newborn American male population is circumcised and 70% of adult men

1991 Edgar J. Schoen implored European doctors to institute mass circumcision. [Is it time for Europe to reconsider newborn circumcision? Acta Ped Scan.]
1991 Aaron J. Fink declares mass circumcision is necessary to prevent sand from getting into the soldiers' foreskins. [Circumcision and sand. JRSM.]
1994 Legal victory: Miltex, one of several Mogen clamp manufacturers, stopped distributing the devices in 1994. "Although no obvious defect has been found with the clamp's design or manufacturing we have concerns over the possible mishandling of the instrument by practitioners and our inability to ensure the instrument's proper use," Miltex's then-president Saul Kleinkramer wrote in a letter announcing the decision. The manufacturer was then in default on millions of dollars in lost lawsuits before millions more were lost in additional lawsuits, in total over $23 million. ["Injuries linked to circumcision clamps" Hennessy-Fiske. LA Times. 2011.]
1996 J. R. Taylor et al. found the average amount of foreskin amputated was 51% of the total penile skin on average. They identified the "ridged band contains more Meissner's corpuscles than does the smooth mucosa and exhibits features of specialized sensory mucosa."
"The 'ridged band' may be key to the persistent mislabelling of the inner lining of the prepuce as 'skin'; it is clearly visible on inspection of the retracted prepuce, it is continuous with the wrinkled true skin of the tip of the prepuce, and it looks like skin. Histology aside, the 'wrinkles' of the ridged band are regularly transverse and are difficult to efface by gentle stretching. A vascular blush is usually present.
The vascular ridges of the 'ridged band' and its Meissner's corpuscles firmly separate preputial epithelium from true skin and place preputial mucosa amongst other mucocutaneous mucosae. Winkelmann emphasized the structural and functional importance of junctional regions of the body and focused on mucocutaneous end-organs, or 'genital corpuscles', of the glans penis and prepuce. Some of these end-organs resemble Krause end-bulbs; others resemble Meissner's corpuscles.
Meissner's corpuscles of the prepuce may be compared with similar nerve-endings in the finger-tips and lips, which respond in a fraction of a second to contact with light objects that bring about deformation of their capsules. However, complex sensation, at least in the glans penis, may be mediated by free nerve-endings rather than by specialized end-organs."
[The prepuce: Specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision. BJU.]
1996 Political victory against female genital cutting: Non-therapeutic female cutting in all forms were made illegal in the US. [United States Code, 2010 Ed., Title 18, Chapter 7 (Assault), §116 - Female genital mutilation]
1997 Edgar J. Schoen again suggested European countries should institute non-therapeutic circumcision. [Benefits of newborn circumcision: Is Europe ignoring the medical evidence? Arch Dis Child.]
1997 Lander et al. found that circumcision without anesthesia was extremely traumatic for babies. Before this, almost all neonatal cutting were done without anesthetic due to increased risks involved with using it and the prevalent false belief babies were not capable of feeling significant pain or can't remember it. [Comparison of ring block, dorsal penile nerve block, and topical anesthesia for neonatal circumcision. JAMA.]
1997 Taddio et al. wrote on the effect of the pain of infant circumcision being measurable later:
"Preliminary studies suggested that pain experienced by infants in the neonatal period may have long-lasting effects on future infant behaviour. The objectives of this study were to find out whether neonatal circumcision altered pain response at 4-month or 6-month vaccination compared with the response in uncircumcised infants...
"Multivariate ANOVA revealed a significant group effect (p < 0.001) in difference (vaccination minus baseline) values for percentage facial action, percentage cry time, and visual analogue scale pain scores. Univariate ANOVAs were significant for all outcome measures (p < 0.05): infants circumcised with placebo had higher difference scores than uncircumcised infants for percentage facial action (136.9 vs 77.5%), percentage cry duration (53.8 vs 24.7%), and visual analogue scale pain scores (5.1 vs 3.1 cm). There was a significant linear trend on all outcome measures, showing increasing pain scores from uncircumcised infants, to those circumcised with Emla [topical anesthetic], to those circumcised with placebo.
Circumcised infants showed a stronger pain response to subsequent routine vaccination than uncircumcised infants. Among the circumcised group, preoperative treatment with Emla attenuated the pain response to vaccination. We recommend [anesthetic] treatment to prevent neonatal circumcision pain."
[Effect of neonatal circumcision on pain response during subsequent routine vaccination. Lancet .]
1997 The AAP deems infant male circumcision to be an elective procedure rather than routine.
1998 Immerman and Mackey proposed that male genital cutting reorganizes the brain to restrain sexuality and positively influence both social and pair bonding. They noted: "It appears that any sensory deprivation of a system can also lead to cortical changes."
"They assumed desensitizing the penis should reduce sexuality, but that ignores the fact that genital cutting permanently externalizes the orgasmic interior parts of the penis. This sensorial change could as easily be thought to promote sexual thoughts. Supporting the later idea, there are exceptions, but generally homophobia is considerably more common in circumcising cultures or those derived from or strongly influenced by circumcising cultures. This could be because men with circumcised penises have more difficulty perceiving homosexuality as something other than sex."
1999 Cold & Taylor studied the foreskin's specialized innervation and concluded that it is "primary erogenous tissue necessary for normal sexual function." It is specialized, protective, erogenous tissue. A description of the complex nerve structure of the penis explains why anesthetics provide incomplete pain relief during circumcision. [The prepuce. BJU. pdf]
1999 The AAP Task Force on Circumcision reviewed 40 years worth of medical studies and concluded the "potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision… are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision." This report was the first time the AAP acknowledged that circumcision without anesthesia is traumatic and that if circumcision is to be done, anesthesia should be used. Some highlights from the report:
Role of Hygiene: "there is little evidence to affirm the association between circumcision status and optimum penile hygiene."
STDs including HIV: "behavioral factors appear to be far more important than circumcision status."
Penile Cancer: "in a developed country such as the United States, penile cancer is a rare disease and the risk of penile cancer developing in an uncircumcised man, although increased compared with a circumcised man, is low."
Urinary Tract Infections: "breastfeeding was shown to have a threefold protective effect on the incidence of UTI in a sample of uncircumcised infants. However, breastfeeding status has not been evaluated systematically in studies assessing UTI and circumcision status." meaning that the earlier UTIs studies results were confounded. Even if their numbers were accurate, in order to prevent one UTI during the first year of life by circumcising a baby boy, approximately 195 babies who will not get a UTI would need to be circumcised. Curiously, while female infants develop UTIs at higher rates than boys, the standard treatment is antibiotics not surgery. The AAP concludes this section noting that "the absolute risk of developing a UTI in an uncircumcised male infant is low (at most, ~1%)".
[AAP Task Force on Circumcision. Circumcision Policy Statement, Pediatrics 1999;103(3):686-93.]

2000: ~62% of the newborn American male population is circumcised and 75% of adult men

2003 Edgar J. Schoen pressured the AAP to reverse its policy on circumcision, claiming it prevents AIDS. [It's wise to circumcise: time to change policy. Pediatrics.]
2005-2007 Johns Hopkins three studies were all ended early with the conclusion that circumcision is "like a vaccine" that prevents HIV infection. These three African studies were widely reported falsely to be gold-standard evidence of major HIV benefit from circumcision. The results of the African RCTs could easily be explained by the varying levels of STI awareness counseling between the two groups because the counseling was provided along with the surgery. Selection bias in groups of men who wanted the surgery when half were denied what they wanted, while half were given the surgery they wanted and instructed about sexual disease and safe sex. In all the studies, five times more participants were lost than seroconverted. [Auvert, 2005; Bailey & Moses, 2005; Gray, 2007]
2000 The U.S. FDA "issued a public health notice about the Mogen and Gomco clamps after receiving about 20 injury reports a year since 1996, including lacerations, hemorrhaging, penile amputation and urethral damage. Instead of recalling the devices, the FDA advised users to make sure they were using the correct size Mogen clamp and that the space between the clamp's jaws met manufacturer's specifications. The agency also cautioned against using replacement parts on the Gomco clamp, which led it to malfunction.
But complications continued. In the 11 years between the FDA warnings and the Hall settlement, the agency has received 139 additional reports of problems related to circumcision clamps, including 51 injuries, said spokeswoman Amanda Sena. Twenty-one of those reports were related to Mogen clamps, all but one of which involved injuries. ["Injuries linked to circumcision clamps" Hennessy-Fiske. LA Times. 2011.]
2000 Circumcision is described as an intervention with long-term neurobehavioral effects:
"The brain of the newborn infant is particularly vulnerable to early adverse experiences, leading to abnormal development and behavior. Although several investigations have correlated newborn complications with abnormal adult behavior, our understanding of the underlying mechanisms remains rudimentary. Models of early experience, such as repetitive pain, sepsis, or maternal separation in rodents and other species have noted multiple alterations in the adult brain, correlated with specific behavioral types depending on the timing and nature of the adverse experience. The mechanisms mediating such changes in the newborn brain have remained largely unexplored. Maternal separation, sensory isolation (understimulation), and exposure to extreme or repetitive pain (overstimulation) may cause altered brain development. These changes promote two distinct behavioral types characterized by increased anxiety, altered pain sensitivity, stress disorders, hyperactivity/attention deficit disorder, leading to impaired social skills and patterns of self-destructive behavior. The clinical importance of these mechanisms lies in the prevention of early adverse experiences and effective treatment of newborn pain and stress."
[Anand, K. and Scalzo, F. Can Adverse Neonatal Experiences Alter Brain Development and Subsequent Behavior? Biol Neonate]
2001 Kenneth McGrath detailed the anatomy of the frenular delta. [The frenular delta: a new preputial structure In: Denniston GC, Hodges FM, Milos MF, editors. Understanding Circumcision: A Multi-Disciplinary Approach to a Multi-Dimensional Problem]
2002 D. Taves tested the hypothesis the foreskin reduces friction finding it did so more than 10 times (when friction is great enough to engage this feature). [The intromission function of the foreskin. Med Hypotheses.]
2003 Bensley & Boyle found circumcision contributes to vaginal dryness. Women reported they were significantly more likely to have experienced vaginal dryness during intercourse with circumcised than with genitally intact men. [Effects of Male Circumcision on Female Arousal and Orgasm. N Z Med J.]
2007 M. Sorrells tested the fine touch sensitivity of the penis and found the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis, while the glans is the least. [Fine touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis. BJU Int.NSFW diagram comparing circumcised and intact sensitivity (penis graphic)]
"The most sensitive location on the circumcised penis was the circumcision scar on the ventral surface. Five locations on the uncircumcised penis that are routinely removed at circumcision had lower pressure thresholds [i.e., were more sensitive] than the ventral scar of the circumcised penis."
YouTube: Morris Sorrels discusses his test and it's results
2007 The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) recommended against performing female circumcision or other non-therapeutic female genital cutting surgeries, because the promotion of the surgery as sexually enhancing was not based on empirical evidence and the surgeries were not medically indicated. This was the first assertion of what had become common wisdom over only the past 30 years. Female cutting for benefits was being promoted in popular US media into the 1970s.

2010: ~58% of the newborn American male population is circumcised and 73% of adult men

https://preview.redd.it/2j9m4h0ilim51.png?width=600&format=png&auto=webp&s=f9d0171c30fc2358754a2e33b07eee15cfe0c4e6
2010 The American Academy of Pediatrics published a statement on Female Genital Cutting policy proposing a "ritual nick" to be performed by medical professionals. Outrage ensued. The statement was retracted one month later.
[Ritual Genital Cutting of Female Minors. AAP Committee in Bioethics]
2010 Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) stated the foreskin is "a complex, erotogenic structure that plays an important role in the mechanical function of the penis during sexual acts, such as penetrative intercourse and masturbation". The organization also stated "circumcision of male minors is a violation of children’s rights to autonomy and physical integrity."
2011 Morten Frisch et al. examined associations of male circumcision with a range of measures of sexual dysfunction in both sexes.
The relevant graph from Circumstitions.com
"Age at first intercourse, perceived importance of a good sex life and current sexual activity differed little between circumcised and uncircumcised men or between women with circumcised and uncircumcised spouses. However, circumcised men reported more partners and were more likely to report frequent orgasm difficulties after adjustment for potential confounding factors [11 vs 4%, OR(adj) = 3.26; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.42-7.47], and women with circumcised spouses more often reported incomplete sexual needs fulfilment (38 vs 28%, OR(adj) = 2.09; 95% CI 1.05-4.16) and frequent sexual function difficulties overall (31 vs 22%, OR(adj) = 3.26; 95% CI 1.15-9.27), notably orgasm difficulties (19 vs 14%, OR(adj) = 2.66; 95% CI 1.07-6.66) and dyspareunia [painful intercourse] (12 vs 3%, OR(adj) = 8.45; 95% CI 3.01-23.74). Findings were stable in several robustness analyses, including one restricted to non-Jews and non-Moslems.
Our study shows hitherto unrecognized associations between male circumcision and sexual difficulties in both men and women. While confirmatory findings in other settings are warranted, notably from areas where neonatal circumcision is more common, our findings may inform doctors and parents of baby boys for whom the decision of whether or not to circumcise is not dictated by religious or cultural traditions. Additionally, since it appears from our study that both men and women may have fewer sexual problems when the man is uncircumcised, and because preputial plasties may sometimes serve as suitable alternatives to standard circumcision, our study may stimulate a more conservative, tissue-preserving attitude in situations where foreskin pathology requires surgical intervention."
[Male circumcision and sexual function in men and women: a survey-based, cross-sectional study in Denmark. Int J Epidemiol.]
YouTube: Medical researcher Morten Frisch speaks about research finding an increased rate of sexual difficulties correlating with circumcision
2012 S. Podnar found the ability to elicit the penilo-cavernosus reflex was suppressed by foreskin destruction. This reflex was non-elicitable in 8% of healthy intact men and 73% of the men with circumcised foreskin. [Clinical elicitation of the penilo-cavernosus reflex in circumcised men. BJU Int.]
2012 In a short-lived political victory followed by a loss, a Cologne District Court ruled that a boy's non-therapeutic circumcision constituted "bodily harm". In response to this legal precedent and resultant pressure from religious groups on politicians, the German legislature legalized non-therapeutic infant foreskin destruction less than a year later against the opinion of German Pediatricians and the majority of the nation.
2013 G. A. Bronselaer et al. surveyed over 1,000 intact and over 300 circumcised men in Belgium. They found:
"For the glans penis, circumcised men reported decreased sexual pleasure and lower orgasm intensity. They also stated more effort was required to achieve orgasm, and a higher percentage of them experienced unusual sensations (burning, prickling, itching, or tingling and numbness of the glans penis). For the penile shaft a higher percentage of circumcised men described discomfort and pain, numbness and unusual sensations. In comparison to men circumcised before puberty, men circumcised during adolescence or later indicated less sexual pleasure at the glans penis, and a higher percentage of them reported discomfort or pain and unusual sensations at the penile shaft.
This study confirms the importance of the foreskin for penile sensitivity, overall sexual satisfaction, and penile functioning. Furthermore, this study shows that a higher percentage of circumcised men experience discomfort or pain and unusual sensations as compared with the uncircumcised population. Before circumcision without medical indication, adult men, and parents considering circumcision of their sons, should be informed of the importance of the foreskin in male sexuality."
[Male circumcision decreases penile sensitivity as measured in a large cohort. BJU Int.]
2016 Jennofer Bossio publishes a study claiming no difference in penile sensitivity between circumcised and intact men. Though the intact men reported higher sensitivity for touch and vibration, she made her final conclusion based on the two groups response to pain, which showed jo statistical difference. [Examining Penile Sensitivity in Neonatally Circumcised and Intact Men Using Quantitative Sensory Testing. J Urol. 2016 Jun.]
The media, of course, ran with the conclusion, despite the methodological flaws in the study. Brian Earp discusses the study and it's limited impact on our understanding of long term effects of infant male circumcision.
[Infant Circumcision and Adult Penile Sensitivity.]
2017 The 2012 AAP statement on circumcision expired and since then, they have not released any policy statements on the procedure.
2018 In Iceland, the Progressive Party made a motion to ban all non therapeutic genital cutting of boys. The bill received massive pushback from religious communities. It has not been passed, but neither has it been scrapped.
[183/148 frumvarp: almenn hegningarlög]

Looking forward

This timeline is meant to help show the series of events that led us from a circumcision rate of almost zero, to a country of normalized, routine circumcision, and finally to a country desperately trying to justify the practice. Despite the most stubborn traditionalists, the practice is dying out. We can acknowledge the history of medical circumcision and recognize it is nothing but sexual violence and snake oil claims and bring this practice to a swift end, and ensure that out future children will live their lives with their whole bodies. Or we can cling to comforting lies, and allow the insecure and ignorant damage their children for life to protect their own egos. Future generations will look back at us now and have the same reactions of disgust and disbelief many readers here had when looking at the justifications given 100 or more years ago.
Our future children deserve better.

Previous: 1940-1979

submitted by DarthEquus to Intactivism [link] [comments]


2020.09.18 09:55 thechattyshow B1067 - Modern Slavery Bill - Amendment Division

Second Reading

Modern Slavery Bill 2020

A
BILL
TO
Consolidate offences of modern slavery and human trafficking; introduce reparation orders to support victims of these crimes; give clearer powers for the seizure of vehicles involved in trafficking; introduce a prevention order to restrict actions that those convicted of human trafficking or modern slavery could take; ensure victims forced into committing crimes by virtue of human trafficking or modern slavery have protections in law; introduce reporting requirements for businesses to shine a light on this crime in supply chains; and connected purposes.
BE IT ENACTED by the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:–
1. Interpretations
(1) For the purposes of this Act-
“modern slavery and human trafficking” means conduct which commits an offence under:
(a) Section 59A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003
(b) Section 4 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004
(c) Section 22 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003
(d) Section 47 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2003
(e) Section 2 and 3 of this Act
“hold a person in slavery or servitude” or to “require a person to perform forced or compulsory labour” are taken to mean the definitions contained within Article 4 of the Human Rights Convention.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulation, amend legislation into Section 1(1) if they deem them to be materially similar crimes.
2. Slavery Offences
(1) Any person who—
(a) holds a person in slavery or servitude where the circumstances are such that the person knows or ought to know that this person is held in slavery or servitude.
(b) requires a person to perform forced or compulsory labour where the circumstances are such that the person knows or ought to know that this person is being required to perform forced or compulsory labour.
shall be guilty of an offence
(2) In determining whether a person is being held in slavery, servitude or required to perform forced or compulsory labour, regard may be had to all the circumstances, such as the person’ personal circumstances which may make the person more vulnerable.
(3) The consent of a person kept under the conditions listed in subsection (1) does not preclude the person from a determination that they are being held in slavery or servitude, or required to perform forced or compulsory labour.
3. Human trafficking and exploitation
(1) It is an offence to arrange or facilitate the travel of another person (“A”) with a view of A being exploited.
(2) It is irrelevant whether “A” has consented to travel.
(3) A person has committed an offence under subsection (1) only if—
(a) the person intends to exploit A, whether in the United Kingdom or not, during or after the travel, or
(b) the person knows or ought to know that another person plans or is likely to exploit A, whether in the United Kingdom or not, during or after the travel.
(3) For the purposes of this section, “travel” is taken to mean arriving, entering, departing or travelling within any country.
(4) For the purposes of this section, A is a victim of exploitation if —
(a) it involves the commission of an offence under section 1 of his Act, or would do so if it were to happen in England and Wales.
(b) it involves the commission of an offence under—
(i) section 1(1)(a) of the Protection of Children Act 1978, or
(ii) Part 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 as it has effect in England or Wales, or would do so if it were to happen in England and Wales.
(c) it involves the commission of an offence under section 32 or 33 of the Human Tissue Act 2004, or would do so if it were to happen in England and Wales.
(d) A is subject to force, threats or deception designed to get A to—
(i) provide services of any kind;
(ii) provide another person with benefits of any kind, or;
(iii) enable another person to acquire benefits of any kind.
(e) another person has chosen “A” for a purpose within Section 3(4)(d) of this Act on the grounds that—
(i) they are a child, mentally or physically ill or disabled, or has a family relationship with a particular person, and
(ii) that person would likely refuse to be used for that purpose if it was not for the fact they are a child, mentally or physically ill or disabled, or has a family relationship with a particular person.
4. Reparation Orders
(1) A reparation order is an order requiring the person against whom it is made to pay compensation to the victim of an offence under this Act for any harm resulting from that offence.
(2) The court may make a reparation order against a person if—
(a) that person has been convicted of an offence under Section 1 or 2, and
(b) a confiscation order is made against the person in respect of such an offence.
(3) The court may make a reparation order against a person if—
(a) a confiscation order has been made against a person in respect of an offence under Section 2 or 3 by virtue of Section 28 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and
(b) that person is later convicted of the offence.
(4) If the court considers that—
(a) it would be appropriate both to impose a fine and to make a reparation order, but
(b) the person has insufficient means to pay both of these things,
the court must give preference to the reparation order.
(5) Where the court has the power to make a reparation order but does not do so, the court must give reasons why this decision was made.
(6) In determining the amount to be paid by the person under a reparation order, the court must have regard to-
(a) the amount of work undertaken by the victim and how much they would ordinarily have earned from that work, or work they were previously employed at immediately before the exploitation began, and
(b) the toll the crime has taken on the physical and mental health of the victim.
(7) The court may decide that, due to Section 3(6)(b), the reparation order should be the value of Section 3(6)(a) multiplied by one, two or three.
(8) A reparation order and a compensation order under section 130 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 may not both be made in respect of the same offence.
(9) For the purposes of this Section, “the court” means—
(a) the Crown Court, or
(b) any magistrates court that has the power to make a confiscation order by virtue of an order under section 97 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.
(10) For the purposes of this Section, a “confiscation order” means an order under Section 6 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
(11) Section 6 of the Immigration Act 2015 is hereby repealed.
5. Seizure of land vehicles, ships or aircraft
(1) The court may order the seizure of a vehicle used or intended to be used in connection with an offence under Section 2 if the convicted person—
(a) owned the land vehicle at the time the offence was committed;
(b) was at that time a director, secretary or manager of a company which owned the vehicle;
(c) was at that time in possession of the vehicle under a hire-purchase agreement;
(d) was at that time a director, secretary or manager of a company which was in possession of the vehicle under a hire-purchase agreement;
(e) was, in the case of a ship or aircraft, a charterer of it;
(f) was, in the case of a land vehicle, driving it in the course of the commission of the offence, or
(g) was, in the case of a ship or aircraft, committed the offence while acting as captain of it.
(2) Where a person who claims to have an interest in a vehicle applies to a court to make representations about its forfeiture, the court may not order its forfeiture without giving that person the opportunity to make representations.
(3) If a person has been arrested for an offence under Section 2, a vehicle may be temporarily detained—
(a) until a decision is taken as to whether or not to charge that person with the offence.
(b) if that person is charged, until that person is acquitted, the charges are dismissed or the proceedings are discontinued.
(c) if that person is convicted, until the court decides whether or not to order the forfeiture of the vehicle.
(4) For the purpose of this Section, a “vehicle” is taken to mean a land vehicle, aircraft or ship.
6. Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Order
(1) A modern slavery and human trafficking prevention order prohibits the person for whom it is made against from doing anything described in that order which are necessary for the purpose of protecting persons or a particular person from the physical or psychological harm which would be likely to occur if the defendant committed a model slavery or human trafficking offence.
(2) The order may prohibit someone from doing things inside or outside the United Kingdom.
(3) The order may prohibit foreign travel for a fixed period of not more than 5 years.
(a) If the court is satisfied it is necessary, this may be extended by a further 5 years an indefinite number of times.
(b) The court may order the surrender of a passport if all foreign travel is prohibited for a period of not more than 5 years, which may be renewed under Section 6(3)(a).
(4) The order may specify different periods of time for different prohibitions in the order.
(5) The court may make an interim order under this section until it has made a determination on the merits of a full order if it is deemed necessary for public good.
(5) The Secretary of State must, within 90 days of the passage of this Act, pass such regulations which are necessary to support the implementation of this section.
(a) These regulations must include guidance on the appeals process.
(b) These regulations must contain further guidance on factors the court must consider before granting an order in this section.
(7) A person who breaks a modern slavery and human trafficking prevention order, or knowingly facilitates someone doing that, commits an offence.
(a) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend into Section 6(7) any similar prevention orders under the law of Scotland or Northern Ireland.
7. Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking Statement
(1) A commercial organisation must prepare a “Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking Statement” for each financial year.
(2) A statement under Section 2(1) of this Act should include:
(a) actions, if any, that they have taken in the financial year to ensure slavery and human trafficking is not taking place in the supply chain of the commercial organisation or the commercial organisation itself;
(b) the policies of the commercial organisation towards modern slavery and human trafficking;
(c) the due dilligence process that the commercial organisation undertakes with regards to modern slavery and human trafficking in its business or supply chain;
(d) which parts of the business or supply chain are at a high risk of seeing model slavery or human trafficking and what steps are taken to assess and manage this risk;
(e) how effective the commercial organisation has been in ensuring modern slavery and human trafficking is not taking place in its business or supply chain, and how effective it has been in taking action where it is found to be, and;
(f) how relevant staff are trained on identifying and dealing with modern slavery and human trafficking.
(3) A statement under section 2(1) must be
(a) approved by the board of directors (or equivalent) and signed by a director (or equivalent) if the organisation is a body corporate other than a limited liability partnership.
(b) approved by the members and signed by a designated member if a limited liability partnership.
(c) approved and signed by a general partner if a limited partnership registered under the Limited Partnerships Act 1907.
(d) approved and signed by a partner if any other kind of partnership
(4) A statement under section 7(1) must be published on a company’s website or, if not possible, provided in writing to anyone who makes a written request for a copy of the statement within 30 days.
(5) A statement must be published within 30 days of the end of the financial year.
(a) The first Section 7(1) statement need only be made 30 days after the end of the financial year for which this Act receives royal assent in.
(6) For the purposes of this Section, a “commercial organisation” is something which:
(a) supplies goods or services, and;
(b) has an annual total turnover of £12 million or more.
(3) For the purposes of this Section, “partnership” is taken to mean:
(a) a partnership within the Partnership Act 1890,
(b) a limited partnership registered under the Limited Partnerships Act 1907, or
(c) a firm formed under the law of a country outside the United Kingdom.
8. Victims who commit an offence
(1) A person is not guilty of an offence if—
(a) the person is aged 18 or over when the person does the act which constitutes the offence,
(b) the person does that act because they are compelled to do so,
(c) the compulsion is attributable to modern slavery or human trafficking, and
(d) a reasonable person in the same situation as the person and having the person’s relevant characteristics would have no realistic alternative to doing that act.
(2) A person may be compelled by another, or by the person’s characteristics.
(3) Compulsion is attributable to slavery or to relevant exploitation if-
(a) it is, or is part of, conduct which constitutes an offence under this Act, or,
(b) it is a direct consequence of a person being, or having been, a victim of slavery, or a victim of relevant exploitation.
(4) In this section, all references to an act include references to an omission.
9. Witnesses in criminal proceedings
(1) For the purposes of this section, “the Act” means The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999
(1) In Section 17(4) of the Act, add after “section 4 of the Asylum and Immigration (treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004”, “or Section 1 and 2 of the Modern Slavery Act 2020,”.
(2) In Section 25(4)(a) of the Act, add after “section 4 of the Asylum and Immigration (treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004”, “or Section 1 and 2 of the Modern Slavery Act 2020,”.
(4) In Section 33(6)(d) of the Act, add after “section 4 of the Asylum and Immigration (treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004”, “or Section 1 and 2 of the Modern Slavery Act 2020,”.
10. Duty to notify the Secretary of State about suspected victims
(1) If a public authority has reasonable grounds to believe that a person may be a victim of human trafficking or modern slavery, they must notify the Secretary of State or, if regulations are made, anyone in those regulations.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations issue guidance on who public authorities must notify.
11. Extent, Short Title and Commencement
(1) This act shall extend to—
(a) England and Wales in the case of Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9.
(b) the United Kingdom in the case of Sections 6, 10 and 11.
(2) This act may be referred to as the Modern Slavery Act 2020.
(3) This act shall come into force the day after royal assent.
This Bill was written by The Rt. Honourable Sir Tommy2Boys KT KCB KBE CT LVO PC MSP MP, Secretary of State for Defence, and is cosponsored by The Rt. Honourable Sir MatthewHinton12345 KG GCMG MBE MP, First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for the Home Department, on behalf of the 26th Government. This Bill is inspired in part by the Modern Slavery Act 2015
OPENING SPEECH
By Tommy2Boys
Mr Deputy Speaker
I rise today to present this comprehensive piece of legislation with regards to modern slavery and human trafficking. At the last election, my party stood on a manifesto which, in part, spoke about fighting issues just like this. In the year ending up to March 2019, over 5000 cases of modern slavery were recorded by police in the UK. This is clearly a problem in our country, and I am immensely proud that the first piece of legislation that this Government will present will go a long way in tackling this matter. I want to thank the Home Secretary for their support in crafting this legislation and the Justice Secretary also for his advice and guidance on it.
Section 2 and 3 introduce new, clearly defined definitions for the offences of modern slavery and human trafficking. Section 2(3) specifically means that even though someone may consent to it, that does not mean they are not a victim. This is important because someone may agree to something not being fully aware of what they signed up to, or not being aware that they are being exploited in the first place by what they have agreed. Section 3 also includes provisions that if exploitation is intended to be committed outside of England and Wales, the smuggling of the potential victim, whether consented or not, can still be a crime if the aim is to exploit them when they get to their destination.
Section 4 introduces reparation orders. These ensure victims of these horrific crimes will get fair compensation. This section repeals a part of the Immigraton Act 2015. The reason we have done this is partly to have modern slavery all in one bill, but also to tighten the law around them and make the guidance easier for courts to understand.
Section 5 gives clear powers for police to seize vehicles, land sea or air, which could be or have been involved in modern slavery or human trafficking. Safeguards of course exist in the legislation, but it is right that such vehicles be taken away to ensure this cannot happen again.
Section 6 creates prevention orders. Courts will have the power to issue these prevention orders primarily to those who have already committed a modern slavery or human trafficking offence. These may include, for example, blocking someone from travelling abroad if it is likely they will commit offences abroad which would be illegal in England and Wales with regards to exploitation, modern slavery and human trafficking.
Section 7 is perhaps the longest section of the bill, but is actually a very simple concept. Businesses should not be using modern slavery in their supply chains. By shining a light on it, the public will know which businesses they buy from have it in its supply chain, and businesses will be able to move away from using them so that nobody is benefiting from this practice.
Section 8 ensures victims who may be forced into committing other crimes are not punished for it, with obvious reasonable safeguards in place.
Section 9 introduces new protection for victims involving giving evidence. Section 9(1) gives them assistance.
Finally Mr Deputy Speaker, Section 10 ensures there is a duty to notify the Secretary of State or relevant bodies once regulations are published where they believe modern slavery or human trafficking is taking place. This will ensure that public authorities will play their full part in the fight against these crimes.
This is a Bill which I have long been passionate about passing. Let’s give the Government and authorities the powers they need to tackle these crimes, whilst ensuring businesses and public authorities do their bit as well. I commend this bill to the House.
A01
In Section 11(1) of the bill, substitute—
(1) This act shall extend to—
(a) England and Wales in the case of Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10.
(b) the United Kingdom in the case of Sections 1, 7 and 11.
Explanatory Note: The author of the legislation has said that due to some last minute changing around of sections, the extent clauses are currently slightly inaccurate as to what should extend to England and Wales, and what should extend to the whole United Kingdom. Section 6 and 10 should apply to England and Wales only, whilst Section 7 should apply to the whole United Kingdom. These are the only changes in this amendment.
jas1066
A02
In Section 4 (“Reparation Orders”) (7) strike “one, two or three” and replace with “a whole number not less than three and not greater than 10”
Explanation: My Lords, such amendment will ensure that those engaging in labour exploitation and modern slavery always run the risk of ending up paying much higher reparations than if they did the lawful and moral right by employing people according to the law of the land. It is, as such, a straightforward amendment that I hope the House will accept.
Quentivo
A03
Insert a new section 8(5):
(5) A person is not guilty of an offence if—
(a) the person is not aged 18 or over when the person does the act which constitutes the offence,
(b) the person does that act because they are compelled to do so, and
(c) the compulsion is attributable to modern slavery or human trafficking.
sosaturnistic
A04
Insert a new section 9 and renumber:
9. Defence not to apply with certain offences
(1) A defence in section 8 does not apply if the offence is listed in subsection (2).
(2) The offences to which a defence in section 8 does not apply are the following—
(a) murder;
(b) treason;
(c) kidnapping;
(d) an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003;
(e) an offence under section 4 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act 2004 (Trafficking people for labour and other exploitation);
(f) an offence against the person;
(g) an offence under the Terrorism Act 2000, the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, or the Terrorism Act 2006; and
(h) an offence under section 3 of this Act.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend subsection (2), subject to the affirmative procedure.
sosaturnistic
Vote on each amendment, you know the drill.
Division ends 20th.
submitted by thechattyshow to MHOLVote [link] [comments]


2020.09.14 22:43 thechattyshow B1067 - Modern Slavery Bill - Amendment Reading

Second Reading

Modern Slavery Bill 2020

A
BILL
TO
Consolidate offences of modern slavery and human trafficking; introduce reparation orders to support victims of these crimes; give clearer powers for the seizure of vehicles involved in trafficking; introduce a prevention order to restrict actions that those convicted of human trafficking or modern slavery could take; ensure victims forced into committing crimes by virtue of human trafficking or modern slavery have protections in law; introduce reporting requirements for businesses to shine a light on this crime in supply chains; and connected purposes.
BE IT ENACTED by the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:–
1. Interpretations
(1) For the purposes of this Act-
“modern slavery and human trafficking” means conduct which commits an offence under:
(a) Section 59A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003
(b) Section 4 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004
(c) Section 22 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003
(d) Section 47 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2003
(e) Section 2 and 3 of this Act
“hold a person in slavery or servitude” or to “require a person to perform forced or compulsory labour” are taken to mean the definitions contained within Article 4 of the Human Rights Convention.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulation, amend legislation into Section 1(1) if they deem them to be materially similar crimes.
2. Slavery Offences
(1) Any person who—
(a) holds a person in slavery or servitude where the circumstances are such that the person knows or ought to know that this person is held in slavery or servitude.
(b) requires a person to perform forced or compulsory labour where the circumstances are such that the person knows or ought to know that this person is being required to perform forced or compulsory labour.
shall be guilty of an offence
(2) In determining whether a person is being held in slavery, servitude or required to perform forced or compulsory labour, regard may be had to all the circumstances, such as the person’ personal circumstances which may make the person more vulnerable.
(3) The consent of a person kept under the conditions listed in subsection (1) does not preclude the person from a determination that they are being held in slavery or servitude, or required to perform forced or compulsory labour.
3. Human trafficking and exploitation
(1) It is an offence to arrange or facilitate the travel of another person (“A”) with a view of A being exploited.
(2) It is irrelevant whether “A” has consented to travel.
(3) A person has committed an offence under subsection (1) only if—
(a) the person intends to exploit A, whether in the United Kingdom or not, during or after the travel, or
(b) the person knows or ought to know that another person plans or is likely to exploit A, whether in the United Kingdom or not, during or after the travel.
(3) For the purposes of this section, “travel” is taken to mean arriving, entering, departing or travelling within any country.
(4) For the purposes of this section, A is a victim of exploitation if —
(a) it involves the commission of an offence under section 1 of his Act, or would do so if it were to happen in England and Wales.
(b) it involves the commission of an offence under—
(i) section 1(1)(a) of the Protection of Children Act 1978, or
(ii) Part 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 as it has effect in England or Wales, or would do so if it were to happen in England and Wales.
(c) it involves the commission of an offence under section 32 or 33 of the Human Tissue Act 2004, or would do so if it were to happen in England and Wales.
(d) A is subject to force, threats or deception designed to get A to—
(i) provide services of any kind;
(ii) provide another person with benefits of any kind, or;
(iii) enable another person to acquire benefits of any kind.
(e) another person has chosen “A” for a purpose within Section 3(4)(d) of this Act on the grounds that—
(i) they are a child, mentally or physically ill or disabled, or has a family relationship with a particular person, and
(ii) that person would likely refuse to be used for that purpose if it was not for the fact they are a child, mentally or physically ill or disabled, or has a family relationship with a particular person.
4. Reparation Orders
(1) A reparation order is an order requiring the person against whom it is made to pay compensation to the victim of an offence under this Act for any harm resulting from that offence.
(2) The court may make a reparation order against a person if—
(a) that person has been convicted of an offence under Section 1 or 2, and
(b) a confiscation order is made against the person in respect of such an offence.
(3) The court may make a reparation order against a person if—
(a) a confiscation order has been made against a person in respect of an offence under Section 2 or 3 by virtue of Section 28 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and
(b) that person is later convicted of the offence.
(4) If the court considers that—
(a) it would be appropriate both to impose a fine and to make a reparation order, but
(b) the person has insufficient means to pay both of these things,
the court must give preference to the reparation order.
(5) Where the court has the power to make a reparation order but does not do so, the court must give reasons why this decision was made.
(6) In determining the amount to be paid by the person under a reparation order, the court must have regard to-
(a) the amount of work undertaken by the victim and how much they would ordinarily have earned from that work, or work they were previously employed at immediately before the exploitation began, and
(b) the toll the crime has taken on the physical and mental health of the victim.
(7) The court may decide that, due to Section 3(6)(b), the reparation order should be the value of Section 3(6)(a) multiplied by one, two or three.
(8) A reparation order and a compensation order under section 130 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 may not both be made in respect of the same offence.
(9) For the purposes of this Section, “the court” means—
(a) the Crown Court, or
(b) any magistrates court that has the power to make a confiscation order by virtue of an order under section 97 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.
(10) For the purposes of this Section, a “confiscation order” means an order under Section 6 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
(11) Section 6 of the Immigration Act 2015 is hereby repealed.
5. Seizure of land vehicles, ships or aircraft
(1) The court may order the seizure of a vehicle used or intended to be used in connection with an offence under Section 2 if the convicted person—
(a) owned the land vehicle at the time the offence was committed;
(b) was at that time a director, secretary or manager of a company which owned the vehicle;
(c) was at that time in possession of the vehicle under a hire-purchase agreement;
(d) was at that time a director, secretary or manager of a company which was in possession of the vehicle under a hire-purchase agreement;
(e) was, in the case of a ship or aircraft, a charterer of it;
(f) was, in the case of a land vehicle, driving it in the course of the commission of the offence, or
(g) was, in the case of a ship or aircraft, committed the offence while acting as captain of it.
(2) Where a person who claims to have an interest in a vehicle applies to a court to make representations about its forfeiture, the court may not order its forfeiture without giving that person the opportunity to make representations.
(3) If a person has been arrested for an offence under Section 2, a vehicle may be temporarily detained—
(a) until a decision is taken as to whether or not to charge that person with the offence.
(b) if that person is charged, until that person is acquitted, the charges are dismissed or the proceedings are discontinued.
(c) if that person is convicted, until the court decides whether or not to order the forfeiture of the vehicle.
(4) For the purpose of this Section, a “vehicle” is taken to mean a land vehicle, aircraft or ship.
6. Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Order
(1) A modern slavery and human trafficking prevention order prohibits the person for whom it is made against from doing anything described in that order which are necessary for the purpose of protecting persons or a particular person from the physical or psychological harm which would be likely to occur if the defendant committed a model slavery or human trafficking offence.
(2) The order may prohibit someone from doing things inside or outside the United Kingdom.
(3) The order may prohibit foreign travel for a fixed period of not more than 5 years.
(a) If the court is satisfied it is necessary, this may be extended by a further 5 years an indefinite number of times.
(b) The court may order the surrender of a passport if all foreign travel is prohibited for a period of not more than 5 years, which may be renewed under Section 6(3)(a).
(4) The order may specify different periods of time for different prohibitions in the order.
(5) The court may make an interim order under this section until it has made a determination on the merits of a full order if it is deemed necessary for public good.
(5) The Secretary of State must, within 90 days of the passage of this Act, pass such regulations which are necessary to support the implementation of this section.
(a) These regulations must include guidance on the appeals process.
(b) These regulations must contain further guidance on factors the court must consider before granting an order in this section.
(7) A person who breaks a modern slavery and human trafficking prevention order, or knowingly facilitates someone doing that, commits an offence.
(a) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend into Section 6(7) any similar prevention orders under the law of Scotland or Northern Ireland.
7. Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking Statement
(1) A commercial organisation must prepare a “Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking Statement” for each financial year.
(2) A statement under Section 2(1) of this Act should include:
(a) actions, if any, that they have taken in the financial year to ensure slavery and human trafficking is not taking place in the supply chain of the commercial organisation or the commercial organisation itself;
(b) the policies of the commercial organisation towards modern slavery and human trafficking;
(c) the due dilligence process that the commercial organisation undertakes with regards to modern slavery and human trafficking in its business or supply chain;
(d) which parts of the business or supply chain are at a high risk of seeing model slavery or human trafficking and what steps are taken to assess and manage this risk;
(e) how effective the commercial organisation has been in ensuring modern slavery and human trafficking is not taking place in its business or supply chain, and how effective it has been in taking action where it is found to be, and;
(f) how relevant staff are trained on identifying and dealing with modern slavery and human trafficking.
(3) A statement under section 2(1) must be
(a) approved by the board of directors (or equivalent) and signed by a director (or equivalent) if the organisation is a body corporate other than a limited liability partnership.
(b) approved by the members and signed by a designated member if a limited liability partnership.
(c) approved and signed by a general partner if a limited partnership registered under the Limited Partnerships Act 1907.
(d) approved and signed by a partner if any other kind of partnership
(4) A statement under section 7(1) must be published on a company’s website or, if not possible, provided in writing to anyone who makes a written request for a copy of the statement within 30 days.
(5) A statement must be published within 30 days of the end of the financial year.
(a) The first Section 7(1) statement need only be made 30 days after the end of the financial year for which this Act receives royal assent in.
(6) For the purposes of this Section, a “commercial organisation” is something which:
(a) supplies goods or services, and;
(b) has an annual total turnover of £12 million or more.
(3) For the purposes of this Section, “partnership” is taken to mean:
(a) a partnership within the Partnership Act 1890,
(b) a limited partnership registered under the Limited Partnerships Act 1907, or
(c) a firm formed under the law of a country outside the United Kingdom.
8. Victims who commit an offence
(1) A person is not guilty of an offence if—
(a) the person is aged 18 or over when the person does the act which constitutes the offence,
(b) the person does that act because they are compelled to do so,
(c) the compulsion is attributable to modern slavery or human trafficking, and
(d) a reasonable person in the same situation as the person and having the person’s relevant characteristics would have no realistic alternative to doing that act.
(2) A person may be compelled by another, or by the person’s characteristics.
(3) Compulsion is attributable to slavery or to relevant exploitation if-
(a) it is, or is part of, conduct which constitutes an offence under this Act, or,
(b) it is a direct consequence of a person being, or having been, a victim of slavery, or a victim of relevant exploitation.
(4) In this section, all references to an act include references to an omission.
9. Witnesses in criminal proceedings
(1) For the purposes of this section, “the Act” means The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999
(1) In Section 17(4) of the Act, add after “section 4 of the Asylum and Immigration (treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004”, “or Section 1 and 2 of the Modern Slavery Act 2020,”.
(2) In Section 25(4)(a) of the Act, add after “section 4 of the Asylum and Immigration (treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004”, “or Section 1 and 2 of the Modern Slavery Act 2020,”.
(4) In Section 33(6)(d) of the Act, add after “section 4 of the Asylum and Immigration (treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004”, “or Section 1 and 2 of the Modern Slavery Act 2020,”.
10. Duty to notify the Secretary of State about suspected victims
(1) If a public authority has reasonable grounds to believe that a person may be a victim of human trafficking or modern slavery, they must notify the Secretary of State or, if regulations are made, anyone in those regulations.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations issue guidance on who public authorities must notify.
11. Extent, Short Title and Commencement
(1) This act shall extend to—
(a) England and Wales in the case of Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9.
(b) the United Kingdom in the case of Sections 6, 10 and 11.
(2) This act may be referred to as the Modern Slavery Act 2020.
(3) This act shall come into force the day after royal assent.
This Bill was written by The Rt. Honourable Sir Tommy2Boys KT KCB KBE CT LVO PC MSP MP, Secretary of State for Defence, and is cosponsored by The Rt. Honourable Sir MatthewHinton12345 KG GCMG MBE MP, First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for the Home Department, on behalf of the 26th Government. This Bill is inspired in part by the Modern Slavery Act 2015
OPENING SPEECH
By Tommy2Boys
Mr Deputy Speaker
I rise today to present this comprehensive piece of legislation with regards to modern slavery and human trafficking. At the last election, my party stood on a manifesto which, in part, spoke about fighting issues just like this. In the year ending up to March 2019, over 5000 cases of modern slavery were recorded by police in the UK. This is clearly a problem in our country, and I am immensely proud that the first piece of legislation that this Government will present will go a long way in tackling this matter. I want to thank the Home Secretary for their support in crafting this legislation and the Justice Secretary also for his advice and guidance on it.
Section 2 and 3 introduce new, clearly defined definitions for the offences of modern slavery and human trafficking. Section 2(3) specifically means that even though someone may consent to it, that does not mean they are not a victim. This is important because someone may agree to something not being fully aware of what they signed up to, or not being aware that they are being exploited in the first place by what they have agreed. Section 3 also includes provisions that if exploitation is intended to be committed outside of England and Wales, the smuggling of the potential victim, whether consented or not, can still be a crime if the aim is to exploit them when they get to their destination.
Section 4 introduces reparation orders. These ensure victims of these horrific crimes will get fair compensation. This section repeals a part of the Immigraton Act 2015. The reason we have done this is partly to have modern slavery all in one bill, but also to tighten the law around them and make the guidance easier for courts to understand.
Section 5 gives clear powers for police to seize vehicles, land sea or air, which could be or have been involved in modern slavery or human trafficking. Safeguards of course exist in the legislation, but it is right that such vehicles be taken away to ensure this cannot happen again.
Section 6 creates prevention orders. Courts will have the power to issue these prevention orders primarily to those who have already committed a modern slavery or human trafficking offence. These may include, for example, blocking someone from travelling abroad if it is likely they will commit offences abroad which would be illegal in England and Wales with regards to exploitation, modern slavery and human trafficking.
Section 7 is perhaps the longest section of the bill, but is actually a very simple concept. Businesses should not be using modern slavery in their supply chains. By shining a light on it, the public will know which businesses they buy from have it in its supply chain, and businesses will be able to move away from using them so that nobody is benefiting from this practice.
Section 8 ensures victims who may be forced into committing other crimes are not punished for it, with obvious reasonable safeguards in place.
Section 9 introduces new protection for victims involving giving evidence. Section 9(1) gives them assistance.
Finally Mr Deputy Speaker, Section 10 ensures there is a duty to notify the Secretary of State or relevant bodies once regulations are published where they believe modern slavery or human trafficking is taking place. This will ensure that public authorities will play their full part in the fight against these crimes.
This is a Bill which I have long been passionate about passing. Let’s give the Government and authorities the powers they need to tackle these crimes, whilst ensuring businesses and public authorities do their bit as well. I commend this bill to the House.
A01
In Section 11(1) of the bill, substitute—
(1) This act shall extend to—
(a) England and Wales in the case of Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10.
(b) the United Kingdom in the case of Sections 1, 7 and 11.
Explanatory Note: The author of the legislation has said that due to some last minute changing around of sections, the extent clauses are currently slightly inaccurate as to what should extend to England and Wales, and what should extend to the whole United Kingdom. Section 6 and 10 should apply to England and Wales only, whilst Section 7 should apply to the whole United Kingdom. These are the only changes in this amendment.
jas1066
A02
In Section 4 (“Reparation Orders”) (7) strike “one, two or three” and replace with “a whole number not less than three and not greater than 10”
Explanation: My Lords, such amendment will ensure that those engaging in labour exploitation and modern slavery always run the risk of ending up paying much higher reparations than if they did the lawful and moral right by employing people according to the law of the land. It is, as such, a straightforward amendment that I hope the House will accept.
Quentivo
A03
Insert a new section 8(5):
(5) A person is not guilty of an offence if—
(a) the person is not aged 18 or over when the person does the act which constitutes the offence,
(b) the person does that act because they are compelled to do so, and
(c) the compulsion is attributable to modern slavery or human trafficking.
sosaturnistic
A04
Insert a new section 9 and renumber:
9. Defence not to apply with certain offences
(1) A defence in section 8 does not apply if the offence is listed in subsection (2).
(2) The offences to which a defence in section 8 does not apply are the following—
(a) murder;
(b) treason;
(c) kidnapping;
(d) an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003;
(e) an offence under section 4 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act 2004 (Trafficking people for labour and other exploitation);
(f) an offence against the person;
(g) an offence under the Terrorism Act 2000, the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, or the Terrorism Act 2006; and
(h) an offence under section 3 of this Act.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend subsection (2), subject to the affirmative procedure.
sosaturnistic
Go debate these amendments.
In addition, the spag amendments submitted by Saturn and Quentivo have been accepted.
Reading will end on the 16th September
submitted by thechattyshow to MHOL [link] [comments]


2020.09.14 16:05 ZandrickEllison Offseason Blueprint: It may feel like the sky is falling for the Milwaukee Bucks, but they're still in rare air right now

The playoffs continue to rage on, but there are 25 teams sitting at home with nothing to do but twiddle their thumbs, tinker with their fantasy football teams, and wait for next season to start.
For their sake, we wanted to look ahead with the next edition of the OFFSEASON BLUEPRINT series. In each, we'll preview some big decisions and make some recommendations for plans of attack along the way. Today, we're looking at the Milwaukee Bucks.
step one: plug your ears and get back to work
There's no getting around it: the 2019-20 playoffs were a disaster for the Milwaukee Bucks. This was a team that had been # 1 all year in terms of win record, SRS, defensive rating, etc. Consider this. Their +10.1 point differential in the regular season was the best in the entire NBA by a margin of 3.7 (next best was +6.4). That means their point differential was 58% better than the next closest team. Based on all that, losing 4-1 in the second round feels like an abject failure, regardless of whether Giannis Antetokounmpo was hobbled or not, and regardless of whether the Miami Heat were a "tough matchup" or not. Championship teams need to leap past those hurdles on their way to the finish line.
What's more concerning from Bucks' fans perspective is how familiar this all must feel. Forget Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (who won the title before his exit), because younger fans won't remember that period anyway. However, all of us can look around at recent history and feel some sense of deja vu.
Primarily, I'm thinking about LeBron James' first stint in Cleveland. The superstar landed on a small market, and lifted them into high-profile and contender status. In 2006-07, 22-year-old James led the Cavs all the way to the Finals, only to get swept 4-0 by the veteran San Antonio Spurs. After that, we naturally presumed that James and the Cavs would get better and better and eventually reach the promised land. And they did -- in the regular season. By 2008-09, LeBron James had become the league MVP, leading the Cavs to finish with a 66-16 record (best in the NBA.) That season, they lost a tough Conference Finals. The next season, James won MVP again, and the Cavs finished with the best record in the league again. Only this time, they got bounced in round TWO.
The Bucks are on that exact same trend. Giannis has won two MVPs in a row -- the Bucks have grabbed the # 1 seed two years in a row -- and they've disappointed in the playoffs two years in a row.
We all remember what happened after the Cavs' hit that roadblock -- LeBron James left the following year. Giannis isn't a free agent yet, but he theoretically could push for a trade, or he could simply wait until next offseason to fly the coop. We've already started to hear the whispers. Miami. Toronto. Golden State. If he wants to mimic LeBron James' career arc, he may be eyeing the Dallas Mavericks, their cap space, and their young international stars. It can be their own version of a super team: the Big III.
If you're a Bucks fan or executive, that fear should keep you up at night. That paranoia may be real.
But still, you can't live in the fear. You need to keep pushing forward, ignoring all the gossip, all the media rumors, all the instagram tea leaves. Even if some of it's real, you need to block it out. You have a job to do. Win. Championship-caliber teams and title chances don't come along very often in a league with 30 teams. Even if they just run it back, the Bucks have a chance to win the championship. Even if it's just for one more year, even if it's your own Last Dance, you strap on your dancing shoes and go for it.
After all, there's no Giannis trade that's going to make sense from a basketball perspective. If you lose Giannis (via trade or via free agency), you may never be in this position ever again. This is it. This is your chance. Be grateful that you even get one, because most front offices and coaching staffs don't.
step two: build a title machine, not a title team
When you're scared that your superstar may leave, there's a tendency to get desperate with "win now!" moves. The Cleveland Cavaliers did the same with LeBron James, adding players like old Ben Wallace and old Shaq. Didn't work.
There may be some temptation to do the same here, with names like Chris Paul already being thrown around. Presumably, the logic goes that if the Bucks win in 2021, then Giannis won't leave.
But we also have recent history to suggest that's not true either. The Toronto Raptors acquired Kawhi Leonard, won the championship, and still lost him in free agency. Players don't base their decisions around the past; they base decisions about what's best for their FUTURE.
By those standards, the Bucks need to be concerned. They've built the roster around Giannis, but it's a fairly old roster. Khris Middleton is still in his prime, but Eric Bledsoe is already 30 (and under contract for 3 more years.) Brook Lopez is 32 (and under contract for 3 more years.) Wes Matthews is 33, and George Hill is 34. This is a supporting cast that may have peaked, and may get worse and worse over time. Would Giannis want to sign a long-term contract with a team with diminishing returns around him?
With that in mind, the Bucks should only make a major trade if it yields a star in his 20s. No Chris Paul, no Al Horford. The ideal acquisitions for this team would be players like Bradley Beal (27 years old) or C.J. McCollum (28). Both of them can space the floor for Giannis, but also create their own scoring as well. Better yet, their skill sets should age well and keep them valuable for the next 4-5 years. If Giannis gave the greenlight (and signed on the dotted line), the Bucks could make a Clippers-PG3 esque move and mortgage their future drafts to acquire a star like that.
Realistically, that may be too high of a bar. They're the template, but they're likely out of the Bucks' price range in terms of assets. Other candidates that have been floated on the market include Buddy Hield (a super fit as a shooter), and Otto Porter (injury prone and expensive, but still effective as a 3+D player when healthy.) Jrue Holiday may be an intriguing option, although he'd technically break our rule because he just turned "30" in June. Still, Holiday is a great guy and a versatile defender, so he may be worth betraying our bolded mandate.
step three: no weak links allowed in the machine
We've been taught through history lessons and Michael Jordan mythology that the best player in the NBA is supposed to win the title, no matter what. Alas, it's nearly impossible in today's climate for a superstar to win a championship without a great supporting cast. Either you need a superstar teammate, or an incredibly balanced roster around you.
The Bucks have a very good supporting cast, but it's probably a little shy of title worthy. The shooting guard position is a potential weak link.
Current starter Wes Matthews is a tough dude who fits the 3+D profile, but his 3 and his D ain't quite what it used to be. He still fights admirably, but he's approaching 34 and saddled with a lot of mileage and injury history. This season, he struggled to find his rhythm offensively, registering a 54.7% true shooting. That's actually not a bad number on its own, but it was the lowest among the Bucks' top 10 rotation players.
With Matthews aging, the hope is that 23-year-old Donte DiVicenzo can step up and grab hold of that mantle. That's still up in the air. DiVicenzo has virtues: good athleticism, good energy, solid defense, but he's still developing his shot and learning to play under control. It may be a leap of faith to presume that he'd be ready to start for a title team next season. Meanwhile, Pat Connaughton is OK, but he's a free agent and wouldn't be any great shakes himself.
Presuming we don't land a great trade, what do we do here? The options may be limited, given the lack of cap space and movable trade assets.
The Bucks may need to find a place-holder again until they're confident that DiVicenzo can play 25-30 minutes a night. You may be able to find a decent stopgap in the trade market: someone like Terrence Ross (ORL), or Reggie Bullock (NYK), or Jeremy Lamb (IND).
The New Orleans Pelicans would intrigue me as potential trade partner, given their abundance of riches (and question marks) at the guard position. They'll have Jrue Holiday and Lonzo Ball under contract, as well as promising combo guards like Nickeil Alexander-Walker and Josh Hart. Those latter two may be great options for the Bucks' long-term approach. If "short term" is the goal, then you'd have to consider J.J. Redick as well. The defense and age are issues, but Redick still lit it up to the tune of 45% shooting from 3 this year. Platooning Redick and DiVincenzo isn't a terrible option. And hell, let's throw one more Pelican into the mix. If I ran the Bucks, I'd try to sign free agent E'Twaun Moore, an underrated 3+D player who got lost in the shuffle this season. Moore has enough length to play the 2 or 3, and could soak up 25 minutes for the team. Adding more competent wings would also give the team some flexibility in their lineups and rotations to go big or small as they please.
step four: if all else fails, embrace organic farming
Let's say the Milwaukee Bucks don't acquire a third star. Let's say they don't land an upgrade on the margins either. Let's say they have to enter 2020-21 with this exact same roster. If that's the case, they're still likely going to win 50+ games, still likely going to be a threat to make the Finals. It's not the end of the world by any stretch.
However, if the Bucks can't shake up or tweak their roster, then they're going to have to rely more on internal improvements. We already mentioned Donte DiVincenzo as a major piece of the future and a potential starter down the road. It'd be great if we could see that trajectory for PF D.J. Wilson as well. After doing nothing as a rookie, he started to find some footing as a sophomore (playing 18.4 minutes a night.) But instead of improve again, he took a sizable step back.
If Wilson can shake it off and get back on schedule, it would be very helpful for the team. PF Marvin Williams is retiring, and PF Ersan Ilyasova is 33 years old himself. It's imperative that the Bucks find a capable stretch PF for the future, not only to back up Giannis at the 4 but also to play alongside him when he slides over to the 5.
This draft may also represent an opportunity to add a rotation player. The Bucks will have Indiana's draft pick -- # 24 overall. It's not likely to yield a star, but they should be able to find a contributor.
Let's take a look at some names to file away. Tyrell Terry (Stanford) is a smaller guard, but he's an elite shooter (41% from 3, 89% from the FT line.) Perhaps he can be our C.J. McCollum -- or at least, our Seth (not Steph) Curry off the bench. Terry's ranked in the 20s, but some sites like The Ringer have him a lot higher (# 9 for them.) Speaking of potential sleepers, I'd be intrigued by PF/C Killian Tillie (Gonzaga). He's also a top notch shooter for his position. He's limited in terms of defense and durability, but playing next to Giannis can cure a lot of problems. I also like SF Robert Woodard II (Mississippi State), a 6'7" wing with 3+D potential.
Regardless of who the Bucks take, they need to show that they can develop him well. As we've mentioned numerous times, this is an older supporting cast that will slowly decay. Replacing those talents with competent rotational players will be key to sustaining the team's success.
step five: have a Plan B, C, D and E in your back pocket
Coach Mike Budenholzer has gotten a lot of flak for his playoff performance, and there's validity to that criticism. Throughout his career, Bud has done a lot better in the regular season than the postseason. He's gotten spanked too many times, losing 3-4 games in a row in a fashion that shouldn't happen for a high-level coach. At times, he appears to be a step slow to adjust, freezes, and watches the train roll over him.
In some ways, I wonder if the Bucks were a victim of their own success here. They've been SO GOOD in the regular season that they've never seemed to need a Plan B. They can lock you down on D, use those transition opportunities to score at will, and dominate the game so easily that Giannis can check out and eat gyros by the 4th quarter.
However, we can see the pitfalls of that when teams slow down their typical gameplan, and cause the Bucks to scramble for new looks. Does this team have the ability to counter-punch?
One potential wrinkle I'd be curious to see is whether they'd be more effective in playoff games with Eric Bledsoe coming off the bench. While George Hill is old, he's still a good 3+D player who can hold the fort at PG. In fact, he's a better shooter and spacer than Bledsoe. For his part, Bledsoe is more of a playmaker and wrecking ball who could theoretically have more freedom and more impact in leading a second unit.
Is that the answer? Is going small the answer? Is playing Giannis closer to 40 minutes (in the playoffs) the answer?
I dunno. But I'm not paid to know. And I'm not expecting Coach Bud to have all the answers right now. But from what we've seen, the team needs to be more willing to throw some potential solutions at the wall and see what sticks rather than allowing themselves to get stomped out of another playoff series. Because if this happens again, they may as well call up United Airlines and get the blond flight attendants ready, because Giannis will be flying out of here.
previous offseason blueprints
CHA, CHI, IND, GS, MIN, NYK, POR, SA, SAC, UTA
submitted by ZandrickEllison to nba [link] [comments]


2020.09.14 11:41 bumblebee_55 don’t invest in someone based on how much you like them, invest based on how much they invest in you.

But we don't follow this. It's good to read this, but when we like someone we drop our standards and go ALL IN.
We invest based on our instinct - my investment is proportional to how much I like them, not how much I am seeing there’s a mutual investment. This is a mistake, no point putting someone on a pedestal.
EDIT1 : Note: This is applicable in early days of dating only. Not once you are in a relationship and if your partner is going through tough times, then it's not applicable as they are consumed by that. This is only applicable in early stages of dating. This idea has also been shared by Matthew Hussey.
submitted by bumblebee_55 to dating_advice [link] [comments]


2020.09.14 08:50 Azrael_Ze Hero Guide - Rean Part 2

Hero Guide - Rean Part 2
The second part of Rean’s guide is here! Check it out!

4. Recommended Enchantments:
Clock
[Clock] is usually the first choice, whether for PvP or PvE. Rean is a hero who operates and develops in battle at a slow pace. In PvP situations, Rean's late-match ability is the best among all AoE heroes, and Clock allows him to continuously suppress your opponent more effectively. With the continuous development of his various buff from his talent, plus the powerful debuffs at his disposal, he becomes stronger and stronger through the course of battle, while his enemies become weaker and weaker. After reaching late-match , it's difficult for a well-developed, fully boosted Ogre-form Rean to lose.

Magic
[Magic] will be considered only when you're going for a full-team AoE rush. This gameplay style won't give Rean much time to develop himself to his full potential, so the 15% AoE skill damage boost will maximize your initial AoE damage. You can take advantage of the Heal Reversal, silence, and other powerful debuff effects of Rean's Ogre talent to limit the enemy's healing and damage output, so that he can then work with his teammates to form deadly combos.

Breeze
[Breeze] is similar to [Magic], it is best-suited to an AoE rush. Although it grants 5% less damage than Magic, Breeze's additional 2 Mobility can stack with Ogre form's 1 Mobility boost, which means that when Breeze is triggered while Ogre form is active, Rean's Mobility will be increased by 3. When wearing Speed Boots, an Ogre Rean enchanted with Breeze can move up to 7 blocks. As you may know, Mobility is the most important consideration for any good AoE lineup, allowing Rean to follow up his teammates' attacks and take out more enemies at the same time. This is what makes Breeze a good choice.

5. Recommended Equipments:
SSR Demonslayer
Rean's Sword Saint class's SKILL certainly isn't low (its SKILL is only a little lower than Archer Narm’s and much higher than Leonhardt's), so after critting while using Demonslayer, you can restrict the enemy by dispelling one buff and applying a debuff.


SSR Blood Sword Hrunting
When going for highest damage value, Blood Sword Hrunting should be your first choice. Currently, most healers will be equipped with functional accessories, such as Jugler Plushy and Goddess Tear, and will rarely be immune to fixed damage. Blood Sword Hrunting can be used in conjunction with a wave of attacks from your teammates, which will help to eliminate you opponent's squishy heroes faster.


SSR Balanced Blade
The range granted by this sword can allow Rean's 3-Cost skill and Gale EX to reach a huge span of 3x5, and the straight line span of Arc Slash to reach 7 blocks, making it more difficult for your opponent to avoid Rean's skill span. The disadvantage is the loss of ATK and damage, but if you're more concerned with applying debuffs and restricting as many of your opponent's units as possible, it'll make your job a lot easier.

SSR Giant's Resolve
With a 10% max DEF bonus and a 20% reduced chance of being critically hit, it can grant Rean better protection against Assassins.


SSR Aeolus' Battle Armor
As a melee unit, Rean is susceptible to all kinds of ranged attacks, but once Aeolus' Battle Armor is triggered, 30% range damage reduction is enjoyed by his whole unit, and Rean's Ogre form also grants 30% unit damage reduction. This means Rean can enjoy 60% damage reduction, and when combined with the Highland Warrior's 15% additional damage reduction, his soldiers can achieve 75% damage reduction, resulting in an unbuffed Yusuke being barely able to scratch them with his 3-Cost skill.


SSR Fury of Tyr
When Rean transforms, Fury of Tyr's damage boost effect will trigger on that turn, meaning he'll be able to use a high-damage AoE attack on the next turn. Fury of Tyr's 10% DEF bonus is also excellent for Rean.


SSR Aeneas' Helmet
A Rean who has developed steadily through positional warfare doesn't need to pay much attention to maintaining high HP. In particular, Rean with Clock mainly uses continuous AoE + debuffs to melt down enemy HP and restrict his opponents. Fury of Tyr's effect may be triggered late due to insufficient continuous AoE output, whereas Aeneas' Helmet's 10% Max HP boost and 5% DEF boost can save your life in the face of all kinds of damage, better ensuring Rean's survival and development until the end of the match.


SSR Winged Shin Guards
This item not only increases ATK, it also increases DEF significantly when attacked. When combined with Ogre form's 30% DEF reduction, no Assassin will be able to one-shot Rean, except for maybe a Zerida with Bloodthirsty dealing a direct hit.


SSR Swordsmith's Medal
A Rean with Swordsmith's Medal is mainly concerned with applying debuffs, and with the Clock enchant, he plays much like Bozel with Clock and Sorceresses—hard to kill and with no chance of being silenced.
6. Recommended Soldiers:
No.1: Highland Warrior
Rean's first choice is the Highland Warrior, with 15% damage reduction and excellent DEF-boosting Infantry technologies. Emergency Treatment grants 20% DEF reduction when HP is above 80%, Overrun Tactics grants 10% ATK and DEF, and Air Defense Armor grants 20% DEF and MDEF when taking ranged damage, making Rean incredibly hard to kill when in Ogre form. The most important upgrade is Rean's third tier Bond Power, which grants 15% DEF and MDEF, making him even more powerful in combat.

No.2: Steel Wing Warrior
If you're looking for defensive soldiers, Steel Wing Warriors are also a good choice, gaining 30% DEF and MDEF when taking ranged attacks, which can stack with Ogre form's 30% damage reduction. In addition, Steel Wing Warriors also have high base MDEF, providing excellent protection when targeted by single-target Mage attacks. In addition, when equipped with Fliers, Rean's unit is classified as mixed forces, which can trigger the Ground-air Coordination Flier technology, increasing DEF and MDEF by 20%. Fliers also take 20% reduced damage on any defensive terrain.

7. PvP Partners:
Matthew
Matthew is a free SSR everyone has access to, and when using Rean in PvE, Mathew's Protagonists faction Fusion Power is Rean's best choice. The characters of the Protagonists faction perform excellently in PvE, and Rean can be counted among them. Matthew can even summon a unit in PvP, which can be sacrificed to help Rean increase the duration of his Ogre form.


Aka
Aka is an excellent summoner, automatically summoning a unit when anyone is killed, regardless of which team they're on. At high star levels, Aka can passively summon once per round, which can help Rean enter his permanent Ogre form early on when facing tough foes. She also has Bestial Outbreak and Wild Power. One allows a unit to act again, leading to increased damage, and the other can increase ATK by 30% and Mobility by 2, allowing Rean to deal higher damage and hit more targets with his AoE skills. (Wild Power's +2 Mobility and Ogre form's +1 Mobility can stack to grant +3 Mobility.)

8. PvP Counter Heroes:
Knight of Mystery
Rean is very vulnerable to the Knight of Mystery's Broken Spear skill when she's using Unicorn soldiers, but her large-span AoE skill Thunderzone won't be able to kill an Infantry Rean outright (although it will gravely wound him). However, as a Cavalry Mage with high Mobility, the Breeze enchantment, and high damage from 2 blocks away, she is still a major threat to Rean.

In terms of survival, there aren't really any other heroes Rean should watch out for in particular. Firstly, it is very difficult for traditional low Mobility Mages to take him out when he's in his fully developed state. Secondly, Ogre form Rean + Highland Warriors or Steel Wing Warriors are very tough. A fully-upgraded 6-star Deedlit with extremely high INT, maxed-out Cavalry training, Unicorns, and Breeze granting 5 blocks of Mobility + Sea of Miracles' 15% damage boost + Fury of Tyr's 10% damage boost + Elven Aura's 1.6x single-target skill damage is usually not enough to take out a full-HP 5-star Ogre form Rean. A highly-trained Knight of Mystery, after moving a full 5 blocks to cast Thunderzone, can directly kill a 6-star Infantry Sakura at full HP, but not an Infantry Rean with Ogre status's damage reduction.
When it comes to Assassins, it's difficult for them to kill Rean if they can't hit him directly. Zerida can achieve this with Alhazard Bloodthirster + Killing Blow, but Omega won't be able to use his Surprise Attack to hit Rean directly, as Rean's SKILL is too high for its 3x SKILL trigger condition to take effect. In addition, if Rean is adjacent to Landius, or if he triggers Aeolus' Battle Armor's effect, even if Zerida unleashes her full damage, he won't die.
The heroes best able to counter Rean are healers with strong dispelling ability, such as Liana and Klose. Without a dispelling healer or a Swordsmith's Medal, Rean will be more susceptible to silence. For example, against a Bozel with Soul Stealer Headdress and the ability to inflict numerous debuffs, it will be very hard for Rean to get rid of silence.

9. Overall Evaluation:
Rean is the best Infantry springboard span AoE hero, and you can use Balanced Blade to further increase his range. Leonhardt, Sakura, and Bernhardt cast AoE skills with themselves as the center. Not only do they need to be closer to their opponents, but it is very difficult for them to hit all enemy targets at the same time. Rean's AoE skills use an enemy within 3 blocks as the center of his skills (usually, you can cast it on an enemy behind the front line, in the middle of the enemy formation). In Ogre form, he can achieve a range similar to that of Black Hole, and with Balanced Blade, he can achieve a span larger than that of Black Hole, leaving enemy healers in the back row nowhere to hide.
Rean's Ogre form conditions are very lenient in terms of its transformation and extension trigger mechanisms. Even if he can't permanently transform, with his active transformation + two dead teammates, he gains 7 rounds of Ogre form (3+2+2=7), which is enough to cope with most battles. Ogre form's high damage reduction, plus its powerful ability to inflict multiple debuffs, self-healing without needing to enter battle, and its gradual stat boost of up to 20%, Rean was born for PvP. If not dealt with early on, he becomes increasingly difficult to resist, becoming a godlike hero in the late game.
submitted by Azrael_Ze to langrisser [link] [comments]


2020.09.13 08:05 boobfar BibleQuoteBot is beta

the bible quoting bot is now cloud hosted and live.
Mods of /Christianity partner subs - Feel free to ask for your subreddit to be added to the list of subs monitored by this bot.
Examples:
UPDATE: BibleQuoteBot now parses verses in submission titles and bodies.
Pretty much any book abbreviation and any translation you can think of should work.
Please report any bugs, suggestions, or outages.
The default translation is ESV. For deuterocanon, it is NABRE.
Non-English speakers, I am looking into adding foreign abbreviations. Any help would be appreciated.
New edit: This bot will no longer collide with VerseBot. If you tag VerseBot, my bot will ignore your post and let VerseBot do its thing.
Edit: There was some downtime last night, my apologies. That's what beta testing is for!
Edit 2: I believe I've addressed one of the major causes of last night's downtime. Please report any outages. Thanks, everyone!
Edit 3:

Books and Abbreviations:

Supported English Versions:

(Suppported translations in other languages will be posted in comments)
submitted by boobfar to Christianity [link] [comments]


2020.09.13 01:01 CarbonCopperStar The Bible & Jesus Teach Us Theres One God, Christians of Today Claim There’s 3.

The more I read & look into the bible, the more I see that Jesus was telling us about the oneness of God, that the Father is the true God.
Now, Christians will point out versus, like John 1:1 & where Jesus apparently says “I AM” in reference to proof of Jesus being God.
In every instance, the context, the actual understanding & meaning, refutes this.
What is so CLEAR are the explicit versus throughout the Bible where Jesus clearly is show to be Man, and only Man, and the Father is shown to be God & Only God.
When you take the EXPLICIT verses against the Ambiguous ones, of which I will admit, you could read into it in a different way should you not have the correct understanding, it’s clear that the evidence is overwhelming in that Jesus was a Man, sent by God.
I think I would like to point out references from the bible, and challenge Christians, not to bring Ambiguous versus they think creates this 3-in-1 or 1-in-3 or One Being, 3 Essences, or whatever else Mix that really, over complicates God.
The message within the Bible is clear. God is Alone ONE.
But let’s look at these:
Deuteronomy 5:6:
“God said, "I, am the LORD thy GOD… Thou shalt have no other gods BEFORE ME."
Yet, Christians put Jesus ahead of / Equal to God.
How? Isn’t this clear?
ISAIAH 43:10
God said, "Understand that I am He: Before me there was no God FORMED, neither shall there be (any god FORMED) after me."
Now,
People will say Jesus existed in the beginning - on an equal existence with God. But he was formed again on Earth through birth. So one isn’t possible. I think it’s clear which.
ISAIAH 46:9
"I am God, and there is none LIKE ME."
So if Jesus was Man/Part Man or however you want to call it, there is no question of Divinity because theirs NONE like God.
JOHN 5:37
“You have never heard His voice, NOR SEEN HIS FORM”
TIMOTHY 6:15-16
“God the blessed and only Ruler… Lord of lords, who alone is immortal (Immortal= means that He cannot die) and who lives in unapproachable light, whom NO ONE HAS SEEN OR CAN SEE…”
NUMBERS 23:19
God is NOT A MAN that he should lie; neither the 'SON OF MAN'…
So, what was Jesus again? 🤔
ACTS 17:24
The God who made the world and all that is in it the Lord of heaven and earth does not dwell in sanctuaries (temples) made by human hands, nor is he served by human hands because he needs anything… (God is self-sufficient, without human needs, such as hunger or sleep)
MALACHI 3:6
God does not change, is the only Saviour.
LUKE: 1:47
Mary, who gave birth to Jesus said, "My spirit hath rejoiced in God MY SAVIOR."
JOHN 20:17
“I ascend unto my Father, and your Father, and to MY GOD, and your God.”
This is important.
Christians say that the 3 are Co-Equal.
But God cannot have a God.
God is the ultimate authority.
So here, Jesus shows that he can’t be God if he himself has a God.
Because God, cannot have a God.
MARK 12:29
Jesus said, "…THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD."
He didn’t say, Me, Father & Holy Spirit are one.
Or that 3 of Us are One.
No.
MATTHEW 27:46
Jesus cried with a loud voice, "MY GOD, MY GOD…"
MATTHEW 21:46
They regarded him- (Jesus) as a PROPHET.
LUKE 24:19
He was a PROPHET, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people.
ACTS 3:13
“The God of Abraham, [The God] of Isaac, [The God] of Jacob, the God of our ancestors, has glorified his SERVANT Jesus”
God can be a servant to himself?
ACTS 3:26
“For you first, God raised up his SERVANT and sent him to bless you by turning each of you from your evil ways”
ACTS 2:22
“Ye men of Israel hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, A MAN approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which GOD DID BY HIM in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know”
So how does this conclude that Jesus was God?
JOHN 5:30
Jesus said, "I can of mine own self DO NOTHING."
Jesus himself is powerless, it is God who is the source of power - just the same as with the miracles of other Prophets/Messengers.
If any part of Jesus was God, this wouldn’t be the case.
I could go on, with many more.
But the themes are, all from the bible.
1). God is One & Has no partners.
-Yet Christians have 3 Partners, however you want to frame it, Co-Eternal, Co-Existing, 3-in-1 or 1-in-3, they’re not ONE and you’re putting Jesus as a partner to God, in the bible, The Father is the only God referenced.
2). God is Unseen. His attributes do not compare to Humans/Creation. He is Perfect. Eternal. Immortal. Unchanging.
-So, Jesus was none of this. He wasn’t Unseen. He wasn’t Perfect (in Knowledge at the very least). He was dependent. He isn’t immortal.
Jesus states that the Father is greater than him.
That you shouldn’t call him good, only God is good.
The distinctions are all there.
It’s all clear from the bible.
3). Jesus has a God.
-God cannot have a God. God is the supreme. The ultimate. There is no rank above God.
A rank below God, then you’re not a God.
But as above, Jesus says The Father is greater than him.
Jesus prays to God.
Jesus says Our Lord God is ONE.
Jesus says MY GOD & YOUR GOD.
4). Several references that Jesus was the Messiah. The Servant of God. A messenger. A Prophet. This much is clear. Jesus had a message to bring.
-Christians claim otherwise but the bible isn’t on their side for this. As per above, you cannot just give Jesus divinity when all the evidence is against this.
5). Jesus himself acknowledges that he’s the servant of God. That he’s been sent as a Servant. Just like Past Prophets.
I reference this again:
Acts 3:13
“The God of Abraham, [The God] of Isaac, [The God] of Jacob, the God of our ancestors, has glorified his SERVANT Jesus”
All Prophets, Servants. Jesus is included here.
We all know form above - NONE ARE LIKE GOD.
6). Jesus did nothing of his own. His Miracles came from God. The distinction is made. Jesus references himself simply as a MAN. Never does Jesus claim to have a Godly Nature, or anything Divine AT ALL.
7). MATTHEW 5:24
Jesus said, "I say to you, whoever hears my word (i.e. the message of the Gospel), and believes in the ONE (i.e. God) that SENT me, has eternal life. And shall not come to condemnation; but has passed from death to life."
That’s pretty clear.
8). MATTHEW 15:9
“BUT IN VAIN THEY DO WORSHIP ME, (i.e. 'to take me for an object of worship/a god/deity is in vain') teaching for doctrines (of) the commandments of men."
MATTHEW 4:10
Jesus said, "WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD (alone), AND SERVE HIM ONLY."
So nowhere does Jesus compare to God, claim to be God.
He says he has a God.
His God is your God.
So Matthew 4:10 is really clear.
MATTHEW 19:17
Jesus said, "Why callest thou me good? There is none good but ONE, that is, GOD: (i.e. 'Don't Praise me! Only God is truly good and worthy of Praise and Worship')"but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."
MARK 12:29
Jesus said, "The first of all the commandments is, Hear O Israel; The Lord OUR God is ONE Lord."
So that’s what Jesus emphasised.
God is One.
Not Triune.
No Trinity.
Not him, father and Holy Spirit.
Just the one.
And from the bible, who is the one?
The Father.
9). Son of God?
LUKE 3:38
“Adam, which was the Son of God”
Oh boy, 4 Gods now?
SAMUEL 7:14
God said about Solomon, "I will be his Father, and he shall be My Son."
So 5? I could quote more but the point is made.
SOPHIA OF JESUS CHRIST III, 4:p. 224
“For he- (God) is immortal and eternal, having no birth; for everyone who has birth will perish. He is unbegotten, having no beginning; for everyone who has a beginning has an end”
Many more references.
10). Jesus calls himself Man many times.
He never calls him God.
He never asks for Worhsip.
He never insinuates a Trinity.
He never puts himself before the Father.
Everything shows, he’s Man, a Messenger, as per his Human Title.
Jesus consistently says Son of Man.
This title is given to many, those who do right by God.
He is not unique in this.
———————————
To conclude,
All the SIMPLE & EXPLICIT Versus within the Bible lead you to one conclusion:
That Jesus was Man who taught the oneness of God.
To worship God alone.
To Worhsip the God of Jesus, his God & Your God.
Yet, Christians Worhsip Jesus? To make him equal with God?
But Jesus, shows no Divine Qualities.
He contradicts things God has said, as per the quotes.
God & Jesus are distinctly different.
When it comes to Divinity, they’re separate.
God has even said he is not the Son of God/Man.
That’s Jesus title by his own words.
And so, so much more.
submitted by CarbonCopperStar to DebateReligion [link] [comments]


Leap Year - Interviews with Amy Adams and Matthew Goode Colin Firth, Matthew Goode: Jim and George's Story in 'A Single Man' Stoker Interview : Park Chan Wook, Mia Wasikowska and Matthew Goode - Sundance 2013 Downton Abbey...and their real life partners - Celebrities ... Matthew Goode : someone like you ! Matthew Goode talks movies with Jameson Cult Film Club Official Wine Cabinet Partner  The Wine Show & Tanglewood Premium Wine Accessories Ben Whishaw in Brideshead Revisited clip 1 - YouTube Downton Abbey ... and their real life partners - YouTube

Meet English Actor Matthew Goode and His Wife Sophie ...

  1. Leap Year - Interviews with Amy Adams and Matthew Goode
  2. Colin Firth, Matthew Goode: Jim and George's Story in 'A Single Man'
  3. Stoker Interview : Park Chan Wook, Mia Wasikowska and Matthew Goode - Sundance 2013
  4. Downton Abbey...and their real life partners - Celebrities ...
  5. Matthew Goode : someone like you !
  6. Matthew Goode talks movies with Jameson Cult Film Club
  7. Official Wine Cabinet Partner The Wine Show & Tanglewood Premium Wine Accessories
  8. Ben Whishaw in Brideshead Revisited clip 1 - YouTube
  9. Downton Abbey ... and their real life partners - YouTube

Serving wine at the right temperature can be a challenge. ‘Room temperature’ is not a very helpful note when most homes are heated over 20°C and red wine is best served at 16°C. Similarly ... Images of actor Matthew Goode manipulated by me. No copyright infringement intended. This video is for entertrainment purpose only. Song by Adele. ENJOY JAMESON RESPONSIBLY. Matthew Goode And Teresa Palmer Talk About The New Sky Series 'A Discovery Of Witches' - Duration: 18:50. BUILD Series LDN 204,162 views Downton Abbey...and their real life partners - Celebrities Cover SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE VIDEOS: http://bit.ly/CelebritiesCover_Subscribe Thanks for watching!... It is very difficult to make a fan video of this wonderful film about a gay relationship, and the death of a partner, and the mourning that ensues. I have had to pare things down. I have chosen to ... Park Chan Wook, Mia Wasikowska and Matthew Goode talk about making the film Stoker at the 2013 Sundance Film Festival. Two highway road workers spend the summer of 1988 away from their city lives. Clip from Brideshead Revisited (2008). The Courting of Sebastian & Charles. . . Matthew Goode as Charles Ben Whishaw as Sebastian Because we all need more pr... We had an opportunity to sit down and talk with Amy Adams along with her co-star Matthew Goode to discuss the new movie, working with each other, filming in Ireland and the power old Irish traditions. Who is Laura Carmichael Dating? Who is Laura Carmichael 's Boyfriend? Who is Laura Carmichael 's Husband? Is Laura Carmichael Single? Who is Laura Carmichael...