Podcasts about church house

Staff writer Francis Martin spent all of last week in the press gallery of Church House, Westminster, reporting on the latest meeting of the General Synod. He reports back to the editor, Sarah Meyrick, about some of the most significant debates and votes, including on the future of safeguarding and proposed changes to the Crown Nominations Commission. Francis was also out and about talking to Synod members. Watch a video of some of the interviews here: https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2025/14-february/audio-video/video/watch-church-times-reports-from-the-general-synod-in-london Read coverage of the Synod on our website: https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/topics/general-synod Synod digest will be published next week (28 February issue) Try 10 issues of the Church Times for £10 or get two months access to our website and apps, also for £10. Go to www.churchtimes.co.uk/new-reader

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION In many areas of life, an explosion of diagnostic labels seem to have expanded far beyond straightforward medical prognosis. Medicine seems to have become tangled up with fashionable identities, and a zeitgeist that stresses vulnerability and victimhood. How do such trends affect medical ethics, let alone reliable medical interventions? One such example is the jokey aphorism ‘we're all neurodiverse now' – from the lawyer of the QAnon Shaman blaming his client's behaviour on his autism to rising diagnoses among students. In workplaces and university campuses, neurodiversity awareness is ubiquitous, with more and more people identifying as ‘on the spectrum'. According to some estimates, as many as 20 per cent of the global population are neurodivergent, spanning everything from severe autism to dyslexia and ADHD. Particularly among women, there has been a sharp increase in ADHD diagnoses in the last year, with record numbers of prescriptions for ADHD medicine in 2024 – the UK is in fact suffering from an ADHD medicine shortage because of increased demand. Elsewhere, there is contention over the explosion of young people who self-identity as gender dysphoric. A readiness to accept social transitioning in what has been described as social contagion amongst teenage girls has led to the conclusion that anyone declaring themselves gender-confused is in need of medical intervention, whether psychotherapeutic, biomedical or surgical. Advocates of transgender medicine argue against medical ‘gatekeeping', demanding access to hormones and surgery as part of a patient's bodily autonomy. However, some mental-health practitioners in the UK and US have testified that they face ideological pressure to put dysphoric patients on a medical pathway. In a 2021 study, 55 detransitioners of a group of 100 stated that they were not given an adequate professional evaluation before receiving clearance for medical transition. What's more, some gender-critical commentators suggest that there is pressure to misdiagnose the confusions of puberty, same-sex attraction and broader mental-health issues as simply gender dysphoria. Central to the debate is the premise that doctors, nurses and therapists are obliged to act in a patient's best interests. But is it always clear what these interests are? Should individuals and their families get the final say? Is the rise in diagnoses due to an actual rise in numbers, expanding definitions, or clinicians and therapists getting better at identifying symptoms? Or are we over-diagnosing the likes of neurodiversity and gender-dysphoria, even pathologising behaviour which in the past may have been described as shy, socially awkward or perhaps a bit quirky? Do medical diagnoses help people understand their difficulties in interacting with the world by giving them a vocabulary and practical accommodations that help manage and alleviate debilitating discomforts? And what are the implications for medical ethics and health policy, when diagnoses have become so closely linked to understanding our identities? SPEAKERS Dave Clements writer and policy advisor; contributing co-editor The Future of Community Dr Jennifer Cunningham retired community paediatrician; board member, Scottish Union for Education (SUE) Dr Az Hakeem consulting psychiatrist; author, Trans and Detrans Sophie Spital speaker; writer; former editor, Triggernometry CHAIR Sally Millard director of finance; co-founder, AoI Parents Forum

On the fifth anniversary of Brexit, listen to this debate recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION In July, on the eve of the General Election, Keir Starmer was asked if he could foresee ‘any circumstances' in which the UK would rejoin the EU's single market ‘in his life'. His response was an emphatic ‘no'. Yet it is clear that Labour wants to ‘reset' the UK's relations with Europe. Reports in July suggested the German government wants to expand Starmer's offer of security cooperation into a ‘mega-deal' that encompasses everything from agricultural rules to the Erasmus student exchange programme. In the period after the UK left the EU, there were considerable difficulties for many businesses in working out how to trade with the EU, despite a deal that largely dispensed with tariffs on goods. Many difficulties remain – particularly with Northern Ireland's status, having a foot in both the EU and the UK markets. Many commentators believe leaving the single market was a mistake that is hitting the UK's economic growth. But others believe that Brexit has had little impact on the economy. The UK's economic problems are longstanding, they argue, and have much more to do with a lack of investment and slow productivity growth than with our trading relations with the EU. The pandemic lockdowns and the energy-price crisis were much more important ‘headwinds' than Brexit. Others believe recent UK administrations have failed to take full advantage of the post-Brexit freedoms to deregulate and pursue other national economic policy opportunities. Moreover, recent UK GDP figures compare favourably with similar countries – Germany, France and Italy – in the EU. Indeed, former European Central Bank boss Mario Draghi has admitted to having ‘nightmares' over Europe's lack of competitiveness and future economic prospects. And there are persistent concerns about being in the single market without being in the EU – that the UK would end up being a ‘rule taker' rather than a ‘rule maker' – while being obliged to accept free movement. How far can Starmer go in forging closer ties with the EU when there is little appetite for reviving the debate about Brexit? Has leaving the single market been an economic disaster as some claim? Or is this yesterday's news, distracting us from the policies we need at home to revive the economy? SPEAKERS Catherine McBride economist; fellow, Centre for Brexit Policy Ali Miraj broadcaster; founder, the Contrarian Prize; infrastructure financier; DJ Dr Thomas Sampson associate professor, LSE; associate in Trade programme, Centre for Economic Performance Gawain Towler former head of press, Reform UK CHAIR Phil Mullan writer, lecturer and business manager; author, Beyond Confrontation: globalists, nationalists and their discontents

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION Smartphones have become almost ubiquitous in modern society. The rise of social-media services, which have billions of users worldwide, has gone hand in hand with the use of smartphones. Few technologies have seen such rapid adoption. With concerns about several social problems coming to the fore in recent years, a variety of commentators have pointed to this new technology as an important cause. But in this case, does correlation really equal causation? One problem is how we discuss social and political issues. Social media has democratised political debate. But that debate seems increasingly polarised and toxic, with social media being blamed by many for the summer riots in the UK and Elon Musk being the target of hatred from some for his relatively liberal approach to posts on X/Twitter. The rise of AI, particularly the ease of making ‘deep fakes', has complicated matters further, making it harder for voters to figure out what candidates really believe or potentially stirring up conflict – as illustrated by fake audio of London's mayor, Sadiq Khan, earlier this year. There are also worries – most prominently expressed by Professor Jonathan Haidt – that spending so much time looking at devices has damaged children's mental health, sense of independence and concentration spans. High-profile head teacher Katherine Birbalsingh has caused controversy by banning smartphones from the classrooms at Michaela School in London, a trend now mirrored in state-wide bans on smartphones in schools in some parts of America. But do such concerns over-inflate the importance of technology? For example, one worry is the decline of children's independent play and travel – but this has been a trend for decades in much of the West, leading to debates about ‘cotton wool' kids. Haidt himself has pointed to this as part of the problem. Declining mental health, for children and adults, has also been a concern for many years, but how much of it is new and how much is a result of expanding definitions of mental illness is unclear. Is new technology really responsible for these social trends – or is it mere coincidence? What else might explain these changes – and what should we do about to tackle such problems? SPEAKERS Lord James Bethell former health minister; member, House of Lords Andrew Doyle presenter, Free Speech Nation, GB News; writer and comedian; author, The New Puritans and Free Speech and Why It Matters Timandra Harkness journalist, writer and broadcaster; author, Technology is Not the Problem and Big Data: does size matter?; presenter, Radio 4's FutureProofing and How to Disagree Sandy Starr deputy director, Progress Educational Trust; author, AI: Separating Man from Machine CHAIR Rob Lyons science and technology director, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Economy Forum; author, Panic on a Plate

Join us as we continue looking at the 5 circles of a healthy church and talk about what it looks like to be in one another's homes and lives.

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION With concerns growing about potential blackouts on cold winter evenings with little wind, listen to this debate on what is happening to UK energy, particularly with the arrival of the new Labour government. The Labour government has set out an ambitious goal to decarbonise the UK's electricity supply by 2030. Labour's plan includes prioritising renewable energy sources like wind and solar power while reducing the nation's dependence on fossil fuels. In line with this, the government has indicated it may halt new licences for oil and gas exploration in the North Sea. The government also announced the creation of Great British Energy, a publicly funded body to invest in renewable energy. The energy secretary, Ed Miliband, claims these measures will make the UK's electricity supply greener, more secure and cheaper. However, there are plenty of commentators warning about the feasibility and impact of this strategy. Renewable energy, while crucial to achieving decarbonisation, is notoriously unpredictable. The sun doesn't always shine, and the wind doesn't always blow, leading to concerns about the reliability of the energy supply – unless renewables are backed up in some way, whether by gas-powered plants, rising imports or expensive storage. Far from being cheaper than fossil fuels, critics note, renewable energy continues to need substantial subsidies, which are even more glaring as the price of gas has returned to more normal levels following the energy-price crisis of recent years. Moreover, most of the UK's nuclear power stations, which have long provided a steady and reliable source of low-carbon electricity, are set to close between 2026 and 2030. Replacements for them are still a long way off, with Hinkley Point C years behind target and Sizewell C still tied up in paperwork and court cases. The previous government's plan to produce 24 gigawatts (GW) of power from nuclear sources by 2050 – up from 6 GW now – seems increasingly over-optimistic. Indeed, Labour already seems to be getting cold feet on a proposed nuclear-power plant in north Wales. Will Labour's energy strategy lead to a cheaper, more secure electricity supply, as it claims? Or are we on the brink of an energy crisis, with higher costs and increased vulnerability to blackouts? Are higher bills a price worth paying to tackle climate change or, when global emissions are still climbing, a pointless sacrifice of British jobs and living standards? SPEAKERS Dr Shahrar Ali former deputy leader, Green Party Lord David Frost member of the House of Lords Prof Dr Michaela Kendall CEO, Adelan; UK Hydrogen Champion for Mission Innovation, UK Government James Woudhuysen visiting professor, forecasting and innovation, London South Bank University CHAIR Rob Lyons science and technology director, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Economy Forum; author, Panic on a Plate  

This week, we take a look at Acts 2:42-47 and the importance of the church gathering house to house.

Rodney Lloyd preaches about the pitfall that Christians can fall into where we claim we believe in Jesus and follow Him, but it is not actually demonstrated through our lives. He explains that in order to make sure what we have is authentic, we need to deny our own fleshly desires, take up our cross on a daily basis, and follow Jesus.

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, London. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION In 2018, the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) was introduced at the World Cup in Russia – and the arguments about it haven't stopped since, with complaints that decisions are still often wrong while lengthy reviews cause confusion and frustration. Using technology to help referees get important decisions right seemed like such a good idea. For example, in 2010, England midfielder Frank Lampard famously had a goal against Germany in the World Cup disallowed, despite the ball clearly crossing the goal line. One result was the introduction of technology that can tell the referee instantly if the ball has crossed the goal-line. However, goal-line technology can only assist with one source of refereeing error. VAR enables a wider range of decisions to be reviewed. One criticism is that VAR is still subject to human subjectivity and fallibility, as it depends on how referees view and apply the rules, with incorrect decisions still being made and with inconsistency between matches. The most high-profile VAR error occurred last autumn, when confused communication between the on-pitch referee and the VAR meant a goal by Liverpool against Tottenham Hotspur was erroneously disallowed – despite the VAR making the correct decision. Representatives of one Premier League club, Wolves, were so incensed by a string of bad decisions that they put forward a motion to scrap VAR altogether. Secondly, VAR slows down the game as goals or penalty decisions are subject to laborious reviews, playing havoc with the emotions of players and spectators. One former England player, Paul Scholes, has complained that the ‘VAR experience is poor, the in-stadium experience for the supporter. It's nowhere near good enough.' However, the football authorities believe that VAR has made the game fairer by improving both decision accuracy and transparency as fans can see the video replays. Responding to the Wolves motion, the Premier League pointed out that VAR has substantially improved decision making overall, while acknowledging that decisions currently take too long. Has VAR ruined football? Why has video technology been so controversial in football when it has been much more successful in other sports, like cricket and tennis? How can we remove human error, or is human error an inevitable part of the game? Can VAR be fixed, or should it be given the red card? SPEAKERS Duleep Allirajah football writer; longterm spiked contributor; co-founder, Libero! network; season-ticket holder, Crystal Palace Jonny Gould TV and radio presenter; journalist; host, Jonny Gould's Jewish State Omar Mohamed student, Royal Holloway University Sally Taplin business consultant, Businessfourzero; visiting MBA lecturer, Bayes Business School; former board member, Lewes FC CHAIR Geoff Kidder director, membership and events, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Book Club

Join us for a live recording of the spiked podcast this weekend at the Battle of Ideas in Westminster. Alongside Tom Slater and Fraser Myers, this special edition of the pod will feature Kathleen Stock, Graham Linehan and Rakib Ehsan. Plus, you can put your questions to the panel. If you're already coming to the Battle of Ideas, then be sure to join us on Sunday 20 October at 1.45pm in the Robert Runcie Room in Church House. If you've not got a ticket for the Battle of Ideas yet, then why not get one now? Regular spiked podcast viewers and listeners can get 20 per cent off their tickets at the checkout by using the code SPIKED24 or by clicking this link: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/battle-of-ideas-festival-2024-tickets-807629249827?discount=SPIKED24  

This is your last chance to get tickets to see us at the Battle of Ideas festival this weekend. On Saturday, at Church House in Westminster, we'll be doing a very special live show, featuring Julia Hartley-Brewer, Simon Evans, Kate Andrews and loads of audience participation. If you're already coming to the Battle of Ideas, get yourself down to the Robert Runcie Room at 12.15pm on Saturday. If you're not coming to the festival, why not? It's brilliant, plus fans of this podcast can get 20 per cent off their tickets by using the code SPIKED24 at checkout or by clicking on this link: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/battle-of-ideas-festival-2024-tickets-807629249827?discount=SPIKED24  

Pastor Ronnie Harrison continues our series on the true portrait and power of Christ, with the message "Empty Hands."

Pastor Ronnie Harrison continues our series on the true portrait and power of Christ, with the message "Empty Hands."

Pastor Ronnie Harrison continues to challenge us to broaden our understanding of the purpose and impact of Christ's sacrifice in this series with the message "The Americanized Gospel."

Pastor Ronnie Harrison continues to challenge us to broaden our understanding of the purpose and impact of Christ's sacrifice in this series with the message "The Americanized Gospel."

I'm out of town so I'm gonna make this one quick, alright? Girl Scout Cookies are cookies sold by Girl Scouts in the United States to raise funds to support Girl Scout councils and individual troops. The cookies are widely popular and are commonly sold by going door-to-door, online, through school or town fundraisers, or at "cookie booths" set up at storefronts.[1] The program is intended to both raise money and improve the financial literacy of girls. During an average selling season (usually January through April), more than one million girls sell over 200 million packages of cookies and raise over $800 million.[2][3] The first known sale of cookies by Girl Scouts was in 1917.[4][5][6] Cookie sales are organized by 112 regional Girl Scout councils[7] who select one of two national bakeries to buy cookies from.[3][8]Plus we learn about Disease X.Video of this episode is available at Patreon.com/yourkickstartersucksMusic for YKS is courtesy of Howell Dawdy, Craig Dickman, Mr. Baloney, and Mark Brendle. Additional research by Zeke Golvin. YKS is edited by Producer Dan. Follow us on Instagram: @YKSPod and TikTok: YourKickstarterSucksSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Pastor Ronnie Harrison challenges us to go beyond worshipping a Jesus we enjoy at Church but are largely un-affected by His teachings when we go home.

Pastor Ronnie Harrison challenges us to go beyond worshipping a Jesus we enjoy at Church but are largely un-affected by His teachings when we go home.

Hello friends! Austin based, singer-songwriter Kelley Mickwee returns to the show for episode 1425! Her new album, the gorgeous and soulful Everything Beautiful drops on Friday, September 27th on all streaming platforms. Kelley is celebrating the release of Everything Beautiful on Saturday, Sept. 28th at The State Theater with a dual release show with Suzanna Choffel. Go to kelleymickwee.com for tickets, music and more. We have a great conversation about recording Everything Beautiful with producer, David Boyle at The Church House, what she's done with the ten years in between albums, singing with  Shinyribs, Ray Wylie Hubbard and others, the Red River Songwriter Festival, Birds of a Feather, touring, writing, and much more! I had a great time catching up with Kelley. I'm sure you will too. Let's get down!   Follow us on Instagram, Facebook, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or anywhere you pod.   If you feel so inclined. Venmo: www.venmo.com/John-Goudie-1  Paypal: paypal.me/johnnygoudie 

Pastor Ronnie Harrison continues to smash the idol of Christ trapped in the walls of the church.

Pastor Ronnie Harrison continues to smash the idol of Christ trapped in the walls of the church.

Pastor Ronnie Harrison returns to the pulpit to destroy the myth of a Christianity built for the church pew in a new series entitled "Church House Jesus."

Pastor Ronnie Harrison returns to the pulpit to destroy the myth of a Christianity built for the church pew in a new series entitled "Church House Jesus."

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Saturday 15 October at Church House, London. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION The Online Safety Bill is causing huge concern for those who believe in free speech. But how can we protect free expression and still deal with the many problems that arise online? The Bill has passed through the House of Commons and will now be debated in the House of Lords. There are hopes that Liz Truss's government may amend the Bill to remove the most egregious problem with it: the attempt to force tech platforms and service providers – such as Twitter, Facebook, Google and many more – to remove content and ban users from expressing ideas or views that the government deems to be ‘legal but harmful'. However, the very idea that legislation was drafted to ban legal speech as it appears in the virtual public square – including references to sex and gender, race, eating disorders or the diverse category of ‘mental health challenges' – says much about the current attitude among politicians and regulators. Concerns remain at the wide scope of proposals in the legislation. It recommends new rules to control online services, including search engines and user-generated content. It will also affect privacy by constraining end-to-end encryption. The law will compel tech firms, who already regulate and remove content they have decided is ‘problematic', to comply through fines and suspension, and requires they provide user tracking data on individuals who are considered to be breaking these laws. If and when the law is passed, it is now proposed that the lead time for compliance is reduced from 22 months to just two. Companies will have just over eight weeks from the royal assent of the law to make sure that they're in full compliance to avoid penalties. Despite these potentially draconian measures, there are undoubtedly new harms created by the online world. Are free-speech advocates being insensitive to what is novel about the internet as a threat? Trolling can go beyond unpleasant abuse to threats of violence. Children are far more likely to suffer at the hands of malicious bullying online than in the playground. Worse, such abuse can go viral. What do we do about child-safety concerns, viral sexting, online anonymous grooming, bad faith con-merchants and conspiracy-mongers passing off misinformation as fact? What of the potential psychological damage, particularly for those considered more socially and psychologically ‘at-risk'? Is it good enough to argue that these ‘crimes' are already protected by existing laws? In any event, safety issues and legislation may not even be the biggest free-speech issues online. In fact, perhaps it is Big Tech companies that have the real power. For example, Spotify has removed podcasts it deems politically unacceptable while PayPal has removed support for organisations critical of Covid policies and gender ideology. Does the online world, warts and all, present free-speech supporters with insurmountable problems? Or is free speech a fundamental societal value that must be fought for, whatever the consequences or regardless of the challenges of any new technology? SPEAKERS Lord Charles Colville Crossbench peer, House of Lords; former member, Communications and Digital Select Committee; freelance TV producer Paddy Hannam researcher, House of Commons; writer and commentator Molly Kingsley co-founder, UsForThem; co-author, The Children's Inquiry Graham Smith tech and internet lawyer; of counsel, Bird & Bird LLP; author, Internet Law and Regulation; blogger, Cyberleagle Toby Young general secretary, Free Speech Union; author, How to Lose Friends & Alienate People; associate editor, Spectator CHAIR Dr Jan Macvarish education and events director, Free Speech Union; author, Neuroparenting: the expert invasion of family life

We’re living in the last days. The Church of Jesus Christ must begin to stand strong in the mist of darkness. But we must stand with the combination of Word and Power. The Glory of God must once again be seen and experienced within the halls of the Church House. To accomplish this, God’s people must repent and Bring Back the Glory. Kingdomrock.org

We’re living in the last days. The Church of Jesus Christ must begin to stand strong in the mist of darkness. But we must stand with the combination of Word and Power. The Glory of God must once again be seen and experienced within the halls of the Church House. To accomplish this, God’s people must repent and Bring Back the Glory. Kingdomrock.org

A new MP3 sermon from Foundation Baptist Church is now available on SermonAudio with the following details: Title: Honoring the God of Forces in the Church House Subtitle: Understanding the Times Speaker: Dan Botterbrodt Broadcaster: Foundation Baptist Church Event: Current Events Date: 5/26/2024 Bible: Daniel 11:33-36 Length: 34 min.

In today's episode the Living Church house church pastors share their thoughts and take aways from attending the recent Microchurch Conference in Kansas City. Listen in and you'll hear them discuss things like: defining church, collaboration, leadership in house church/micro church, navigating being a "church weirdo", kids in house church, and more! Resources shared during this episode: KC Underground Tampa Underground Tool for Helping Discover We are a Church The Living Room Network Alan Hirsch The Power of a Quiet Life (message by Francis Chan) --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/the-living-room3/message

Battle of Ideas festival 2023, Sunday 29 October, Church House, London ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION In August, India made world news by being the first nation to land near the Moon's South Pole. Prime Minister Narendra Modi described it as a historic moment for humanity and ‘the dawn of the new India'. Meanwhile, India's digital transformation of its financial system is reported by payments systems company ACI Worldwide to be operating on a larger scale than even in the US and China. Earlier this year, UN population estimates suggested India has overtaken China as the world's most populous country, with over 1.4 billion people. As America's rivalry with China heats up, the western world has warmed to India. A month before the Moon landing, President Joe Biden had rolled out the red carpet for Modi's state visit to America. The US wants a more meaningful, closer and stronger relationship with India. The German government is discussing a possible submarine deal. French President Emmanuel Macron invited Modi to celebrate Bastille Day, calling India a strategic partner and friend. But there have also been tensions over India's neutral stance over the war in Ukraine. Are these signs of India's arrival on the international top table? Can India rise to this challenge? India has a huge population, but the vast majority are still poor – the country is ranked 139th in the world for nominal GDP per capita – and faces massive inequalities. While India receives much adulation from the Western elites, its undermining of the freedom of the press and its clampdown on the judiciary have been heavily criticised. The Economist Intelligence Unit‘s Democracy Index showed India falling from 27th position in 2014 to 46th in 2022. But the White House is calling India a ‘vibrant democracy'. Which is it: a faltering democracy or a vibrant one? India is also facing much internal disquiet within its population. Most recently, ethnic tensions have flared up between the majority Hindus and the Muslim minority just 20 miles outside of New Delhi. Ethnic strife between Hindus and Christians also continues especially in the North-east state of Manipur. With this backdrop of domestic instability, can Modi and his BJP party retain control in the 2024 elections? What will India's future role be on the world stage – both politically and economically? SPEAKERS Lord Meghnad Desai crossbench peer; chair, Gandhi Statue Memorial Trust; emeritus professor of Economics, LSE Dr Zareer Masani historian, author, journalist, broadcaster Dr Alka Sehgal Cuthbert director, Don't Divide Us; author, What Should Schools Teach? Disciplines, subjects and the pursuit of truth CHAIR Para Mullan former operations director, EY-Seren; fellow, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development

In this episode, we ask WHAT IS GOING ON?!! in the world! GET IN THE ARENA!!  Get your copy of SMITH'S Heart Of Man Repair Manual: https://www.amazon.com/Smiths-Heart-Man-Repair-Manual-ebook/dp/B0949HKJ2Y/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=smith%27s+heart+of+man+repair+manual&qid=1662493566&sprefix=Smith%27s+heart+of+man+repair+man%2Caps%2C108&sr=8-1  Email us at: FlawedInkCLE@Gmail.com

Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas Substack for more information on the next Battle and future events: https://clairefox.substack.com/subscribe SQUARE-EYED SCREENAGERS: ARE PHONES CORRUPTING OUR KIDS? Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London. Digital devices are so omnipresent that sociologists call today's children ‘Generation Glass'. Our pre-teens have never known a world without tablets and apps. The ubiquity of technology during their formative years risks turning them into ‘screenagers' with high digital literacy but low socialisation and focus. In education, devices are routinely distributed to pupils and the gamification of learning is well-established. Yet pushback is mounting. The controversial Online Safety Bill proposes reams of radical measures drafted specifically to quell fears over children's internet safety. Meanwhile increasing numbers of schools are adopting mobile-phone bans, claiming they improve concentration and mental health while reducing cheating and cyberbullying. Parents' lobby group UsForThem is even pressing for a total ban on phones for all under-16s and grim tobacco-style health warnings on devices. The campaign is endorsed by Katharine Birbalsingh, headteacher and former social mobility tsar, who has equated the threat to youth of mobile phones to that of heroin addiction. But is this all merely a re-heat of the ‘square eyes' moral panic which once beset television? The BBC thinks so: its high-profile Square-Eyed Boy campaign seeks to reassure parents that screens can be a force for good for children. After all, isn't greater literacy, be it via screens or paper pages, something to be encouraged? Some teachers argue that phones can enhance schoolwork while others insist banning them is draconian, impractical and futile. Should we take phones away from kids for their own good, or should the very idea be dismissed as screen-shaming? SPEAKERS Elliot Bewick producer, TRIGGERnometry Josephine Hussey school teacher, AoI Education Forum Molly Kingsley co-founder, UsForThem; co-author, The Children's Inquiry Joe Nutt international educational consultant; author, The Point of Poetry, An Introduction to Shakespeare's Late Plays and A Guidebook to Paradise Lost Professor Sir Simon Wessely interim dean, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neurosciences; regius professor of psychiatry, King's College London CHAIR Gareth Sturdy physics adviser, Up Learn; education and science writer

Brett Sanner Philippians 1:3-26

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2021 on Sunday 10 October at Church House, London. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION According to many political commentators, the break-up of the UK is becoming inevitable. When devolution was implemented in the 1990s, one of the aims of its supporters was to head off rising support for separation. But the opposite has happened, with support for Scottish independence and greater Welsh autonomy growing even stronger. In Scotland, for example, the pro-independence SNP has now won four elections on the trot and has renewed calls for another referendum. Some commentators now believe that a politicised sense of Englishness is on the rise, too. One factor is the differential impact of the Brexit referendum. People in England and Wales voted to leave the EU while Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain. The situation is full of contradictions and complications. For example, people emphasising a British national identity were more likely to vote Leave in Scotland and Wales but Remain in England. Those supporting the cause of ‘independence' in Scotland and Wales want to remain within the EU, proclaiming the importance of free movement, yet their borders were imposed during the Covid crisis. The devolved government in Scotland favours rejoining the EU, yet others wonder how that fits with the desire for self-government. On all sides, there has been a problem of legitimacy. Those who favour keeping the Union have struggled to espouse a convincing sense of what it means to be British. The result has often been a crude attempt to manufacture a sense of Britishness. For example, the Westminster government recently announced plans are being drawn up to protect ‘distinctively British' television programming and asked Ofcom to provide a definition of Britishness for public-service broadcasters. Meanwhile, contrary to the tradition that the push for statehood means demanding more democracy and freedom, the devolved assemblies appear to have amplified the illiberal impulses of twenty-first-century politics. In Scotland, for example, the government has devoted much of its energy to devising new ways to monitor, control and restrict people's day-to-day lives: criminalising football supporters, attempting to impose a ‘named person' to monitor children's upbringing and passing a Hate Crime Bill that opponents regard as an attack on free speech. Forty years ago, writer Tom Nairn said that the break-up of Britain would come, not because of the strength of the independence cause in any particular part of Britain, but because of a more general fading of support for the Union. Has Nairn been proved correct? Is the real issue not a democratic surge to independence but gradual separation by attrition? That said, there are signs that perhaps the break-up of the Union is not a foregone conclusion. In recent months, for example, opinion polls have suggested that support for Scottish independence has weakened. Perhaps the real nail in the coffin is if the English lose interest in the Union. In his book How Britain Ends, journalist Gavin Esler argues that the UK could survive Scottish and Welsh nationalism, but English nationalism is the force that will break up the Union. Is he right? With Brexit divisions and the impact of Covid, are we witnessing the fragmentation of the Union and a new sovereignty by stealth? How substantial are the differences between the UK and devolved governments' approaches? Do those arguing for independence or more devolution offer the genuine possibility of a democratic future? Or does this trajectory risk creating a Union based on anomalies and a patchwork of competencies, in the process undermining the viability of UK democracy? SPEAKERS Dr Richard Johnson writer; lecturer in US politics, Queen Mary, University of London; author, The End of the Second Reconstruction: Obama, Trump, and the crisis of civil rights Penny Lewis lecturer, University of Dundee; author, Architecture and Collective Life Alex Salmond leader, ALBA Party; former leader, Scottish National Party; author, The Dream Shall Never Die Christopher Snowdon head of lifestyle economics, Institute of Economic Affairs; editor, Nanny State Index; author, Selfishness, Greed and Capitalism Max Wind-Cowie co-author, A Place for Pride; former head, Progressive Conservatism Project, Demos; commentator CHAIR Alastair Donald co-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; convenor, Living Freedom; author, Letter on Liberty: The Scottish Question

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION The worlds of art and entertainment are wrestling with, and reeling from, the opportunities and challenges posed by ‘generative' AI – tools that can generate seemingly unique, bespoke creations in response to ‘prompts' submitted in plain language. Such technology is now having a dramatic impact on almost every profession or art form that involves static or moving images, written or spoken words, sound, music or programming code. Everything from the fantastical to the photorealistic is affected. AI can generate convincing ‘photos' of people who have never actually existed, and can create ‘deepfakes' so good that public figures – whether living or long deceased – can now be ‘filmed' saying and doing completely invented things. Indeed, a key concern behind this year's high-profile Hollywood strikes is actors fearing that they will be imitated and replaced by AI creations – losing control of their likenesses not just during their lifetimes, but also after their deaths. Otherworldly images are no less affected by AI. Polish illustrator Greg Rutkowski – who has made a career out of depicting dragons and fantastical battles – recently found himself demoted (or promoted, depending on one's perspective) from popular artist to one of the world's most popular AI prompts, beating Michelangelo and Picasso. The internet is now swamped with AI recreations of Rutkowski's once distinctive style, while the artist's own livelihood – and recognition for work that is genuinely his – are in jeopardy. There are many such examples, spanning different forms of creativity. Some are trying to take a stand against these trends, but solidarity between professions is wanting. Major publishers, including Bloomsbury Books, have recently issued apologies, when it was discovered that they were using AI-generated art on their book covers. Some soundtrack composers – who were already complaining about being reduced to poorly paid, interchangeable and uncredited ‘ghost composers' in the content-hungry age of streaming – now fear being replaced by machines altogether. Some creators insist that their consent should have been sought before their work was included in the vast datasets on which AI has been trained. Some are seeking the removal of their work from such datasets even now, although the path from machine learning to AI creations is so intricate that this may be the practical equivalent of trying to unbake a cake. Others, by contrast, revel in the new creative possibilities arising from AI, and approach the technology as an enormous and exciting artistic toolkit. Who will prevail? And what will be the consequences? SPEAKERS Dr JJ Charlesworth art critic; editor, ArtReview Vivek Haria composer, London Symphony Orchestra, Birmingham Contemporary Music Group and Piatti Quartet; writer on art, technology and culture Rosie Kay dancer; choreographer; CEO and artistic director, K2CO LTD; founder, Freedom in the Arts Dr Hamish Todd mathematician; videogame programmer; creator, Virus, the Beauty of the Beast CHAIR Sandy Starr deputy director, Progress Educational Trust; author, AI: Separating Man from Machine

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION The self-image of Western societies as cosmopolitan, liberal and tolerant has collapsed of late, with a darker view taking hold of people as extreme, hate-filled and hurtful. For example, in the wake of the Hamas attacks on Israel, anti-Semitism – ‘the oldest hatred' – has come forcefully into public view. Accordingly, controlling ‘hate speech' has become a major focus for critics and campaigners, as well as legislators and regulators. They proceed in the belief that, as one Guardian commentator put it: ‘Words of hate create an ethos of hate, an atmosphere of hate, a political, social Petri dish of hate. Eventually, spoken words become deeds.' Campaigners say escalating incidences of hate justify interventions. The most recent published date show 155,841 offences recorded in the year to March – up 26 per cent from the previous year – with hate crimes against transgender people seeing the biggest increase, jumping by 56 per cent since last year. Meanwhile, in the past five years, the number of recorded non-crime hate incidents (NCHI) has grown to 120,000. Critics say the nebulous definition and subjective interpretation of hate, which is largely in the eye of the victim or reporter, is trivialising such ‘crimes'. But is there more to this issue than definitional disarray? Some say the problem is being inflated by ‘fishing' exercises. The Citizen's Advice Bureau, for example, says ‘it is always best' to ‘act early' and report incidents even if ‘unsure whether the incident is a criminal offence… or serious enough to be reported'. Meanwhile, Police Scotland has promised to set up a new unit to tackle ‘hate crimes' such as misgendering and denying men access to ladies' toilets. Some say that what is labelled ‘hate speech' is increasingly being weaponised to silence opponents and narrow viewpoint diversity. Groups such as Stop Funding Hate aim to persuade advertisers to pull support from broadcasters and publications on the grounds that views aired spread hate and division. More broadly, fuelled by identity politics, competing groups too often accuse other identities of hate and bigotry – demonising those we disagree with is a tactic used across the political spectrum. On one side, people are labeled hateful TERFs, gammon, alt-right or xenophobic, while the other side are hate-driven snowflakes, misogynists, Remoaners, pinko commies and cry-bullies. What are the prospects of making political exchange less toxic and productive, if labelling those we disagree with as hate-mongers continues to escalate? How should defenders of freedom best make the case for free speech over hate speech? How should we understand what counts as hate speech, and how do we account for its rise to become central to how Western societies are organising their legal systems and public life? SPEAKERS Kate Harris co-founder and trustee, LGB Alliance; formerly Brighton Women's Centre and Brighton Women's Aid Eve Kay executive producer unscripted; International Emmy winner; Realscreen and Critics Choice Award winner; Creative Arts Emmy winner Winston Marshall musician; writer; podcast host, Marshall Matters; founding member, Mumford & Sons Faisal Saeed Al Mutar founder and president, Ideas Beyond Borders Martin Wright director, Positive News; formerly editor-in-chief, Green Futures; former director, Forum for the Future CHAIR Alastair Donald co-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; convenor, Living Freedom; author, Letter on Liberty: The Scottish Question

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October at Church House, London. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION Most people acknowledge that there is an issue with Britain's borders. The question is: who or what is to blame? For many, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and its courts in Strasbourg, has become the focus – either as the bulwark against anti-refugee sentiment, or the block on democratic process. With deportations being halted on the grounds of ‘human rights', one's view on membership of the ECHR has become shorthand for where you stand on the issue of refugees, asylum seekers and illegal migrants. Rows over the ECHR have been brewing for some time. In 2000, the Human Rights Act made the Convention an integral part of domestic law, that individuals could enforce in British courts. Since then, many, particularly on the Right, have questioned the wisdom of what they increasingly refer to as Labour's Human Rights Act. In recent years, the Conservative Party has been committed to reforming human rights by replacing the HRA with a British Bill of Rights. But no such legislation is forthcoming – and many have pointed out that, as long as Britain remains signed-up to the ECHR, a British Bill of Rights would be superfluous. Much like the European Union, the ECHR seems to have split the Tories. Some MPs hope to cut ties completely – nearly 70 Tory MPs, many from Red Wall seats, backed quitting the ECHR in a vote on a Private Member's Bill last year. Others – like Tom Tugendhat's Tory Reform Group – remain concerned about what a Brexit-style exit might do to the UK's international reputation. In the aftermath of the Second World War the European Convention on Human Rights was seen as a protection against the tyranny and oppression that some European nations had recently endured. Nowadays, those who support it stress the importance of human rights as setting a minimum standard which democracies should guarantee. Is the problem therefore simply one of European judicial overreach, or is it essentially about the very notion of ‘human rights' themselves? Are human rights and democratic, collective action doomed to forever be at loggerheads? With courts in Strasbourg and London ruling to impede government plans to stop small boats crossing the Channel, are human rights making popular government impossible? Or is the ECHR being scapegoated for inadequacies in our own backyard? SPEAKERS Steven Barrett barrister, Radcliffe Chambers; writer on law, Spectator Jamie Burton founder and chair, Just Fair; barrister (KC), Doughty Street Chambers; author Three Times Failed: why we need enforceable socio-economic rights Luke Gittos criminal lawyer; author, Human Rights – Illusory Freedom; director, Freedom Law Clinic John Oxley writer, New Statesman, Spectator,and UnHerd; consultant; barrister Angelica Walker-Werth writer, editor and programmes manager, Objective Standard Institute CHAIR Jon Holbrook barrister; writer, spiked, Critic, Conservative Woman

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION ‘Take back control', the central demand from the Leave campaign's case for Brexit, posed the question: who should rule? However, today, when frontpage headlines frequently ask why nothing works in ‘Broken Britain' and politicians blame myriad forces for thwarting democratically decided policies, one increasingly debated issue is: who is really in charge of society? In his recent book, Values, Voice and Virtue, British political scientist Matthew Goodwin argues that the ‘people who really run Britain' are ‘a new dominant class', that imposes its ‘radically progressive cultural values' on the rest of the nation. The Spectator magazine recently devoted its cover to this ‘new elite' and how ‘the woke aristocracy' is on a ‘march through the institutions'. Former government equality tsar Trevor Phillips has written that ‘the political and media elite' have achieved ‘institutional capture' across swathes of the UK's governing apparatus. But is it as simple as a changing of the guard, a new elite grabbing the reins of power? One confusion is a disavowal of responsibility. Goodwin's thesis has caused international controversy, with many labelled as the ‘new elite' denying they have any power. Once upon a time, it would have been easy to see who was in charge: from the Industrial Revolution onwards, barons of the old aristocracy were gradually replaced by ‘business barons' owning big companies, aided and abetted by the clergy, among others. During the years of the postwar consensus, the ‘trade union barons' played a major role, too. And, at its core, was a state apparatus presided over by an elite of politicians. Yet today's governing classes have increasingly dispersed and outsourced their authority to third parties – such as consultants, the judiciary, international bodies, public inquiries, stakeholder bodies, diversity specialists, scientific experts, NGOs, charities, political advisers and the ‘Whitehall Blob'. When things go wrong, the blame game sees fingers pointed in all directions. In this context, some voters are increasingly disillusioned with democracy and conspiratorial thinking thrives. Who is pulling the ideological strings of this new generation of impotent, technocratic politicians? When the Labour leader, Keir Starmer, was asked whether he'd prefer to be in Davos or Westminster, he responded, without missing a beat: ‘Davos'. In other words, the likely next prime minister of the UK prefers the networking opportunities of the World Economy Forum to the mother of parliaments. Is it any wonder so many blame globalist forces for seemingly imposing unpopular policies on nation states with no democratic mandate, whether related to ‘net zero' or gender identity? So, who is directing society in 2023, and what binds them together? Why do our elected politicians lack authority today, or are they simply unwilling to exercise their authority? Are the ‘new elite' as powerful as many would argue or are they simply the public face of the changing interests of the wealthy? Is the intellectual conformity at the helm of society proof of coherence or a lack of ideas and vision? Is it possible to reclaim power for The People? SPEAKERS Pamela Dow chief operating officer, Civic Future Professor Frank Furedi sociologist and social commentator; executive director, MCC Brussels; author, 100 Years of Identity Crisis: culture war over socialisation Matthew Goodwin professor of politics, University of Kent; author, Values Voice and Virtue: The New British Politics , National Populism: the revolt against liberal democracy and Revolt on the Right Harry Lambert staff writer, New Statesman; editor, New Statesman Saturday Read Professor Anand Menon director, UK in a Changing Europe CHAIR Claire Fox director, Academy of Ideas; independent peer, House of Lords; author, I STILL Find That Offensive!

Recording of a debate at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Sunday 29 October, at Church House, London. Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas Substack for more information on the next Battle and future events: https://clairefox.substack.com/subscribe INTRODUCTION At the 2023 Edinburgh Festival Fringe, Comedy Unleashed's show, featuring Graham Linehan, was cancelled because the venue did not ‘support his views' and his presence would ‘violate their space'. The edgy spirit that used to characterise the Edinburgh Festival Fringe specifically, and stand-up comedy more generally, seems to have evaporated. There was no outcry from comedians attending the festival and very few publicly expressed even the mildest of support for free expression in the arts. Earlier that year, Nigel Farage was debanked by Coutts, for expressing views that go against the bank's ‘values'. Despite the bankers themselves having admitted fault, comedian Omid Djalili publicly sided with the elite bank. When comedians see no problem with using the denial of banking services as a form of punishment for holding certain views, how can they claim that they are ‘punching up'? Why do comedians increasingly side with the Establishment? How can comics say that they are ‘punching up' when they support the people being ‘cancelled' by corporations? As society becomes more authoritarian, where is the satirical response and creative backlash? SPEAKERS Miriam Elia satirical conceptual artist; author, We See the Sights, We Go To The Gallery and We Do Lockdown; creator, A Series Of Psychotic Episodes Dominic Frisby writer; comedian; author, Bitcoin: the future of money? Graham Linehan creator and co-creator, Father Ted, Black Books and The IT Crowd; comedy writer, Count Arthur Strong, Brass Eye and The Fast Show; author, Tough Crowd: How I Made and Lost a Career in Comedy Chair: Andy Shaw co-founder, Comedy Unleashed

The situation in the Gaza Strip in Israel has divided people all over the world, including many Christians. Since the surprise attack on Israel on October 7th of this past year, many people have wondered what is this all about? Israel's response has been harsh. Many world leaders have condemned Israel's response, and others chanted “From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be Free,” which is really a code phrase to destroy the nation of Israel. Today, Guest Host Jim Calhoun shares his thoughts. Now, do you believe in this ministry? If you do, you can keep us on the air as a radio program and as a podcast by visiting our website, https://truth2ponder.com/support. You can also mail a check payable to Ancient Word Radio, P.O. Box 510, Chilhowie, VA 24319. Thank you in advance for your faithfulness to this ministry. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/truth-to-ponder/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/truth-to-ponder/support

The final discussion on this topic covers reasons 6 & 7 from the video "10 Reasons People Are Leaving for House Church" Video referenced in this episode: ⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4ro3RGWZX4&t=132s --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/thispoorpastor/support

With the UK officially in recession, what should governments be doing? This debate was recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION With the Conservatives doing badly in the polls and Labour riding high, the UK could have a new party in government in the next year or so. How will this change the relationship between the state and the private sector – and will it boost economic performance and living standards? During the Corbyn years and even beyond, Labour has talked up the possibility of nationalising important parts of the UK economy – such as water and energy supplies and the railways. But more recently, Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves appear to have rowed back on such pledges, with Starmer saying he would not be ‘ideological' about state control. Many commentators have pointed out that houses are not being built fast enough. While unemployment is relatively low, the quality of jobs is too often poor. Many argue that what it is needed is more state intervention, greater funding for healthcare, a return to state-provided housing and a proper industrial strategy to boost sectors that can be world-leading, especially in supporting the drive to Net Zero. Others argue that for all the talk of free markets, we actually have too much state intervention and control. Businesses are bound up in regulation. Government expenditure is getting close to the equivalent of 50% of GDP. Planning rules make building anything almost impossible. Far from a free market, we have everyone from civil servants to central bankers determining how the economy develops, with little room for private initiative or democratic control. But is the state vs market debate moot – because the ability of the state to change things is becoming exhausted? Increasing state spending even further would have relatively little impact, but government debt is already enormous in any event. ‘Cheap money' policies of low interest rates and quantitative easing have had to be reversed to tackle inflation. Whoever wins the next election, what is the best way forward for the UK economy? SPEAKERS Paul Embery firefighter; trade unionist; columnist; author, Despised: why the modern Left loathes the working class; broadcaster Matthew Lesh director of public policy and communications, Institute of Economic Affairs Ali Miraj broadcaster; founder, the Contrarian Prize; infrastructure financier; DJ Hilary Salt FIA, FPMI, FRSA actuary; founder, First Actuarial CHAIR Phil Mullan writer, lecturer and business manager; author, Beyond Confrontation: globalists, nationalists and their discontents

In this episode, we look at the fifth reason given in the video titled "10 Reasons People Leave for House Church." By Matthew Dabbs. That reason is "It's Persecution Proof." We'll examine that claim. Video referenced in this episode: ⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4ro3RGWZX4&t=132s --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/thispoorpastor/support

In this episode, we are going to continue our response to a video entitled 10 Reasons People are Leaving for House Churches. I have linked to the original video in case you would like to see the entire thing for yourself. Video referenced in this episode: ⁠https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4ro3RGWZX4&t=132s --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/thispoorpastor/support

Over the next few episodes, I will be going through a video sent to me by a friend called "Ten Reasons People Leave a Legacy Church for a House Church." I hope you will enjoy my thoughts, and learn some things along the way! If you want to watch the entire video, you can do so at the link below. Video referenced in this episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4ro3RGWZX4&t=132s --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/thispoorpastor/support

Recording of the debate at Battle of Ideas festival 2023 on Saturday 28 October at Church House, London. ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION Being ‘diverse' is no longer simply about shaking things up. Today, diversity is considered a core value of any civilised society and its institutions. Diversity strategies are a must for businesses, small or big – diversity is good for the planet, good for politics, good for social mobility and good for our sense of self. Diversity is no longer a means to a better future, but an end in and of itself. For many, this is a no brainer – having different people from different backgrounds in your work or social environment can only be a good thing. They argue that cultural melting pots provide border horizons on everything from what food we enjoy to our appreciation of different beliefs and world views. In contrast, homogeneity is a sign of a moribund system. The idea that similar groups of people might apply for the same job – from nursing to plumbing – is a sign of discrimination or closed mindedness, and must be challenged. But not everyone is so keen on the prioritisation of diversity over all else. The home secretary, Suella Braverman, caused uproar with a speech in Washington in which she described multiculturalism as a failed ‘misguided dogma', adding that ‘the consequences of that failure are evident on the streets of cities all over Europe'. Some say the scenes of celebrations in Western cities at Hamas's actions in Israel seem to prove her point. Critics point to the way in which it has been institutionalised via policies in the workplace or education, with contentious political topics on everything from the climate to transgender ideology being repackaged as mandatory ‘diversity training'. They argue that a ‘fetishisation' of diversity has led to its opposite – atomisation and tribalism. Many argue that the push for multiculturalism as a political policy objective has led to a confusion of social norms. Instead of a utopia of rich cultural fusion, neighbourhoods are often defined by national identities, with hostility between groups commonplace. If we don't ask for shared values in some key areas of life, critics ask, how will we ever hope to get along? For some, diversity is a necessary strategy to help break open closed areas of public life for groups previously discriminated against. For others, it is too focused on the things we can't control – like race or sex – and too disregarding of diversity of thought and feeling. Has the d-word taken over as our new deity? Variety is certainly the spice of life, but is our love of diversity at risk of creating its opposite? And how do we talk about shared social values in a world where difference is king? SPEAKERS Simon Fanshawe OBE consultant and writer; author The Power of Difference ; co-founder, Diversity by Design Maya Forstater executive director, Sex Matters Mercy Muroki policy fellow to minister for women and equalities and business and trade secretary Tomiwa Owolade writer and critic; contributing writer, New Statesman; author, This is Not America: Why Black Lives in Britain Matter Dr Joanna Williams founder and director, Cieo; author, How Woke Won and Women vs Feminism CHAIR Alastair Donald co-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; convenor, Living Freedom; author, Letter on Liberty: The Scottish Question

This Day in Legal History: The United Nations Security Council Convenes its First MeetingOn January 17, 1946, the United Nations Security Council convened for its inaugural meeting, marking a crucial moment in international law and governance. This event symbolized the global commitment to peace and security following the devastations of World War II. The meeting, held at Church House, Westminster, London, brought together representatives from 11 nations, reflecting the diverse political landscapes of that era.The council's establishment under the United Nations Charter represented a new approach to international conflict resolution and legal diplomacy. Unlike its predecessor, the League of Nations, the Security Council was endowed with the authority to make binding decisions. This feature underscored a collective endeavor towards maintaining international peace and stability.Discussions at this first meeting set the tone for future operations, emphasizing cooperation and legal frameworks to address global challenges. The Security Council's ability to impose sanctions, authorize military interventions, and make legally binding decisions was a novel development in international law. It signaled a shift from purely diplomatic negotiations to actionable, enforceable resolutions.Importantly, the Security Council's first session underscored the principles of sovereign equality and non-intervention, foundational elements in modern international law. It highlighted the role of international cooperation in addressing conflicts, a principle that continues to influence global legal practices and policies.This historic meeting laid the groundwork for numerous legal precedents and interventions in the years to follow. It showcased the potential of international law as a tool for peace and justice, shaping the landscape of global governance in the 20th century and beyond.California's leading role in the artificial intelligence (AI) industry is being challenged by new initiatives in New York and New Jersey. These states, under their respective governors, are positioning themselves as emerging centers for AI. New York Governor Kathy Hochul announced a partnership with state universities and a $250 million investment over ten years to create a super-computer facility in upstate New York. New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy has aligned with Princeton University and the New Jersey Economic Development Authority for a similar AI endeavor.Both governors are focused on enhancing research capabilities to attract more AI firms and jobs. New York is already home to companies like IBM and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, while New Jersey hosts Panasonic Corp.'s North American headquarters and a major IBM facility. In contrast, California hosts many of the largest AI companies, including OpenAI, Alphabet, and Meta, as well as major research centers like UC Berkeley and Stanford University.California Governor Gavin Newsom is determined to maintain California's AI dominance, promoting a hands-off approach to AI regulation in the private sector, while ensuring state agencies effectively control AI systems. Other governors are adopting similar administrative strategies, avoiding sweeping regulations that could hinder AI development. These approaches echo federal AI rules introduced by President Joe Biden, allowing government use of AI with monitoring of its impacts.New York and New Jersey have avoided imposing broad restrictions on AI, focusing instead on facilitating its growth and mitigating potential risks. Their budget processes and collaborations with academic institutions will shape the scope of these AI initiatives. New York Assemblymember Alex Bores highlighted the importance of computing power as a key factor in attracting tech talent and industry growth, aiming to rival California's AI dominance.Elected officials in other states also express a desire to diversify the AI landscape beyond Silicon Valley. Efforts are underway to ensure wider participation in AI development and to address concerns such as algorithmic discrimination, job losses, surveillance, and misinformation. This national interest in AI underlines its potential to reshape the economy and influence a variety of sectors.California Tech Dominance Challenged By AI Initiatives in NY, NJApple Inc. is adjusting its US App Store policies to include external payment options, following the Supreme Court's decision not to hear its appeal in an antitrust lawsuit. This change will allow third-party apps to use links directing to external websites for processing in-app purchases, thereby bypassing Apple's own payment system which typically charges a 15% to 30% commission. However, Apple intends to collect a revised revenue share of 12% or 27% from developers opting for external payment systems.The Supreme Court's choice left in place a 2023 appeals court ruling, which found Apple's business model compliant with antitrust laws but in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law due to restrictions on developers' communication about alternative, potentially cheaper, payment systems.The decision comes amidst the legal battle between Apple and Epic Games, with both companies having sought the court's review. The ruling impacted Apple's stock, which experienced a temporary decline.Developers will now need to apply for an "entitlement" to access external payment options. Apple had previously allowed reader apps to direct users to external websites for subscriptions. The company will issue a warning to customers about external transactions before proceeding.Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney criticized Apple's plan to charge a fee on external transactions, arguing it would prevent developers from offering lower costs to consumers. Sweeney also disapproved of Apple's warning message to customers, calling it a "scare screen," and plans to challenge Apple's compliance approach in court.The stakes are high, with in-app spending projected to reach $182 billion in 2024 and $207 billion by 2025. Competitors like Microsoft Corp. are already considering entering the mobile app market, with a focus on gaming.The decision aligns with previous court findings largely rejecting claims by Epic that Apple's App Store policies violated federal antitrust law, while acknowledging some issues with its business practices. This ruling also concludes the temporary stay in the case, allowing Apple to proceed with its new policy. The case is one among several global challenges Apple faces, including pending antitrust cases in Europe against its App Store rules.Apple to Allow Outside Payments for Apps After US Decision (4)Coinbase, a major cryptocurrency exchange, is set to argue in federal court that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) should not regulate the tokens traded on its platform as securities. This hearing marks a significant development in the ongoing legal battle between Coinbase and the SEC, which could have major implications for the digital asset sector. The SEC's lawsuit against Coinbase, filed in June, claims the exchange facilitated trading in at least 13 crypto tokens that should have been registered as securities. The agency also targeted Coinbase's "staking" program, asserting it should have been registered. Coinbase has requested the dismissal of the lawsuit, referencing a separate case where a judge ruled in favor of Ripple Labs, while the SEC cites another case to support its stance.Coinbase, SEC set to face off in federal court over regulator's crypto authority | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear a case that could significantly impact the regulatory powers of federal agencies, centered on a dispute over a government program monitoring overfishing of herring off New England's coast. Two fishing companies, Loper Bright Enterprises and Relentless Inc, are challenging the National Marine Fisheries Service's requirement for commercial fishermen to help fund this program. This case presents an opportunity for the Court's conservative majority to reconsider the 1984 "Chevron deference," a legal doctrine that directs judges to defer to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous U.S. laws. If you have any interest in Chevron deference and learning a bit more about what might be at stake, see our Max Min episode on the topic. The Supreme Court case, seen as part of a broader effort to limit federal bureaucratic power, involves the cost of monitoring fishing activities, with implications for other cases concerning agency authority, including those involving the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Decisions in these cases are expected by the end of June.Supreme Court may reel in US agency powers in fishing dispute | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this episode we have a sit down with Pastor Bryan Sandella from The Church House Of Living Stones. He shares his testimony, and what God is doing in his life now!!. GET IN THE ARENA!!  Get your copy of SMITH'S Heart Of Man Repair Manual: https://www.amazon.com/Smiths-Heart-Man-Repair-Manual-ebook/dp/B0949HKJ2Y/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=smith%27s+heart+of+man+repair+manual&qid=1662493566&sprefix=Smith%27s+heart+of+man+repair+man%2Caps%2C108&sr=8-1  Email us at: FlawedInkCLE@Gmail.com Church House Of Living Stones Website: http://Choflivingstones.com Love Wins - Ohio Registration: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/716644762777?aff=oddtdtcreator