Nigel Gordon

I've got to it but I'm not certain what you are supposed to do with it.

From my point of view everybody is free to join it though I suspect a lot of which will be raised will be about the technicalities of the course. However I support Camy, take the course you can still sign up.

And I have set up a discussion group topic in this forum, you'll find it at: http://forums.awesomedude.com/index.php?showtopic=8375

Well was glad to find that one issue that had been mentioned has been tackled at the very start of the course. Yes you can post explicit material in you exercises the only proviso is that you have to put a marker in your title line saying that the material has explicit content.

This topic has been set up for those of use taking part in the Open University MOOC on Creative Writing can have somewhere off course to discuss issues that have come up in the course. Hope it works for us.

I almost missed this as it has been listed directly in Newest Completed Novels and not appeared in the serialization section. I know there must be some good reason for this but WHY? I had a lot planned for the day, cutting the lawn, cleaning the car, potting on the Hollyhocks, now only the Hollyhocks have been potted on, the rest will have to wait, there is a new Mihangel to read. What more has to be said. This story continues on from Xenophilia Part 1 and it is in keeping with the great writing that Mihangel has produced time and time again. You can find it here, http://awesomedude.com/mihangel/xenophilia_part_2/index.htm If you have not read Xenophillia Part 1, do so it is a great piece of writing. Nigel

Actually we might well find that we can use the online discussions that take place in the MOOC to draw some other writers into AD. If they are getting a similar level of enrollment to the other MOOCs that FutureLearn have done we are looking about about 100K people starting the course, we can't be the only gay writers in there.

One problem I have had with other MOOCs, is finding a discussion group where I could discuss course issues that I felt comfortable in. It seems we have enough taking part in it to have our own discussion group here!

Fundamentalist Islam and Fundamental Christianity are really two sides of the same coin, they are both Abrahamic traditions that take an absolutist position. Your average jihadist has far more in common with a fundamentalist Southern Baptist than either would like to admit.

I posted about this some time ago in the News and Views forum but it occurred to me that some of you might not have looked in there so I am re-posting the information here. The Open University are running an eight week MOOC on Creative Writing at FutureLearn. The course is about characterization and it is FREE to take part. Requires about 2 to 3 hours a week. This course starts on Monday the 28th but you can still enroll for it and you can actually join the course anytime up to the third or fourth week. As I said the course is free and the OU has a good reputation in this area. If you are interested you can find details at: www.futurelearn.com I've completed two courses with FutureLearn and they have both been good. Now on my third and start two more next week, this course being one of them. Nigel

I know exactly what you mean Colin, I think I have read it three times now and I'm looking forward to reading it again. This is one story I have no doubt that I will keep going back to. Nigel

Steven made a very good point when he wrote: Assimilation is a two way street and while I know people like Rick will complain that the immigrants he sees aren't doing it, on a world wide scale it;s happening. As a generational shift, it's happining. Studies have shown that almost any migrant society (German/Irish/Polish/Puerto Rican) takes three generations to assimilate. People are just too resistant to change for it to happen fast. I live in a city where we have a non-ethnic majority, a large proportion are Muslim. What is noticeable is that what extremists there are and they are very much a minority, tend to be second generation born in this country. They turn to radical Islam to give themselves a sense of identity. With the third generation of Muslim immigrants they are turning out to be more English than the English. Yesterday afternoon I was at a Muslim friend's house and watched their children and guest children partaking in an Easter Egg hunt. Afterwards there was High Tea. You can't get much more English than that! If we react against them, we will drive them into a ghetto and there will be no chance of assimilation. Keep an open and friendly society and within three generations they will be as corrupt as any of us.

The thing to remember is we are on journey, it's no use trying to go back to a place or time that has been, we can only go forward to what will be, it is our job to make sure that what will be is a future based on love and compassion. If we give in to hate and fear we will end up with a society filled with hate and fear. I don't know who said it but I recall a saying that the best way to defeat your enemy is to make him your friend.

Cole Parker wrote: My opinion is that England attracts these people because, in part, of its social benefits. Come to England and go on the dole. Birth to grave, the country will pay for your existence. Is this true? Is this a problem? Should something be done about it that doesn't penalize those who for whatever reason aren't employable? All the research shows that a far lower proportion of the immigrant population make claims on the social benefits system than the native population. We are financially dependent on a immigrant workforce coming into the country as the expanding aged population, of which I am one, is pushing up the demands on the social budget that the native population increase cannot support. Studies by a number of financial research bodies including the LSE have shown that to maintain financial stability over the next twenty years we need a level of net migration into the United Kingdom of 100,000 per year. I just did a benefit calculation for a 32 year old single mother with a twelve year old child who has lost her job in the last 3 months, she is entitled to £72.40 per week Job seekers Allowance and £20.50 Child Benefit. Her rent will be covered by Housing Benefit but she will have to pay £3.38 per week Council Tax. Out of that £92.90 she will have to pay for food, power and clothing. Given the cost of living in the UK which is considerably higher than in the States, that is not very much money. A friend of mine who is Romanian and has been working in this country for three years as a freelance electrician was recently injured in an accident. He is going to be off work for at least six months, so he is going back to Romania recover as he will be better off there. The story that thousands of migrants are coming to the UK to live off our benefits is a myth. There are a few who do, and if they are coming to live off our benefits they must be coming from a very bad situation, but the majority come to work and they work damned hard. You get people complaining about immigrants coming and taking all the jobs, well in the main that is because a lot of native population will not take the work. One of my ex-clients runs a pack house for agricultural products, he pays above the minimum wage, last time he advertised for staff he did not get a single native applying. There is another reason why the immigrants are taking the jobs, the locals just do not have the education to do them. In England and I suspect in the US as well there is a large element of poorly educated people who do not have the skills and are no prepared to get them, that are needed to undertake work in a modern society. The final thing to remember is that England is a country of immigrants, we have always had immigration and it has been a major factor in the growth and development of the nation. If most natives in this country traced their family history back more than a few generation they will almost certainly find some immigrants in it.

I fear you are right Mihangel. Unfortunately that sort of attitude is becoming increasingly common these days.

I am always delighted to see a new story by Mihangel, he is a writer who just keeps on entrancing you with his ability to weave enchanting stories and his use of words. With this story he had done it again whilst tackling the issues which can arise in young love. It is a story I can recommend to any reader. It is though a story which I would like to have seen expanded as I feel there is scope here for something far bigger. Then again it has been said that the skill of a good story teller is always to leave their reader wanting more and I really do want to read more from Mihangel. You can find the story here: http://www.awesomedude.com/mihangel/a-younger-orogeny/a-younger-orogeny.htm

Actually at the moment actions for defamation before the English courts are rife and it is a major problem. Recently the rules about status with regard to defamation have changed to make it more difficult for non-UK residents to take action here. London though is still the defamation capital of the world, partially because the grounds for defamation are more strictly drawn here and also because we award the highest level of damages. I heard one legal reporter on the radio saying that 70% of all the major defamation cases in the world were taking place in London but only 5% of those cases involved a party who was resident in the UK. The one thing that stops most people in England taking action is the high level of costs, there is no legal aid for defamation and you can't get legal expenses insurance to cover it either. If you walk into a solicitors asking to start an action they will ask you for a upfront fee of at least £100K, after that the sky's the limit. Recently a couple of Russians managed to build up a legal cost of over two million pounds each. You might like to look at this article http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/mar/29/london-libel-capital-freedom-of-speech and http://thobbs.wordpress.com/2010/10/17/law-blogs-london-is-the-libel-capital-of-the-world/

There are two issues here, the first is the definition of published. In the early 1990s, there were a series of legal cases both in Europe and in the USA which turned on the definition of published with respect to material on the internet. These were mostly concerned with indecent material of under aged parties being made available to download. The outcome of this was a series of judgements that held that material on the internet was deemed to be published on the device on which it is viewed. Therefore if you have a website based in Russia and it is viewed by an American in Ohio, then it is published in Ohio. There have been a couple of extraditions from the Europe to the USA based specifically on this point. There have also been a number of successful liable actions, mostly in the UK, which have made use of this point. There was one in 2005 or 2006 where a Russian sued an American publisher over an article that was published on the web. The publisher argued that the case could not be heard in the High Court in London as it had been published in America and the magazine was not available outside of the USA and Canada. The High Court held that as it was available online and it had been shown by the plaintiff that it had been read online in the UK it had been published in the UK so they could hear the case. At that point the publishers settled out of court for an undisclosed sum but the rumor is that it was over £500K plus costs. There is no right in English or most European law to Freedom of Speech, that is a specific USA legal concept, therefore it cannot be used as a defense. What we do have in Europe, via the European Convention of Fundamental and Human Rights is the freedom to impart information. In some ways that is more restrictive than the right in the USA in other ways it is far more powerful. As a result you cannot use the First Amendment as a defense against an action in defamation in the English courts.In actual fact the one time I am aware of when a US publisher tried to use the First Amendment as part of their defense in a case in the UK the court took their submission as an admission that they had no other grounds of defense and awarded the case against them. Here there is a major difference between US law and UK law. In the US, as I understand it, you have to show that a piece is defamatory and that defamation has occurred. In the UK all the plaintiff has to show is that the piece has the potential to be defamatory it is then up to the defense to prove that it is not or that either no defamation has taken place or that they have grounds for the defamation. This has the effect that in the UK even if something is true it can still be deemed to be defamatory.

Here is a link to an article that people might find useful: http://www.copylaw.org/p/libel-in-fiction.html However, remember that if the item is published in the UK then the First Amendment defense is not available to you. Also, under international treaties, civil awards of damages in most countries are enforceable in most other countries. So if a court in England awards damages the plaintiff can seek recovery of those damages outside the UK.

This is almost a certainty as he is formally addressed as Rabbi and under Jewish tradition at that time the term Rabbi could only be applied to a man who was married.

Thanks Chris for pointing me at Zealot by Reza Aslan, a well written and well researched book. It repeats a lot of idea that are found in Herodian Messiah: Case For Jesus As Grandson of Herod. This idea has been around for a long time and is the core of the retelling of the story of Jesus found in 'King Jesus' by Robert Graves.

And from a strictly legalistic basis there is probably enough grounds in it for an action for defamation in the UK courts, the fact that I have been able to view it on my computer means it has been published in the UK so action could be taken in the UK, which has the harshest defamation laws in the Western World and awards the highest damages, which is why London is now the Libel Capital of the world, even the Russians come here to sue each other. In practice any of the three celebrates named would be stupid to take an action over this as it would probably cost them more than it would be worth and would almost certainly give them a lot of bad publicity. By all means put real people into your fiction but understand the risks you are taking and try to keep them to a minimum.

I have had a similar question as I am currently writing a piece set against real events, so real people had to be mentioned. So I sort advice, this is a synopsis of what I got: 1. If at all possible avoid using real people in a novel unless they are dead. The dead can't sue for defamation. 2. If there is no alternative but to put them in then be very careful to make sure that everything you have them doing or saying is totally in character for them, best to use reportage of actual events and place your characters at the event. Remember the fact that something is true is not a defense against defamation actions. 3. Don't try to use pseudonyms for real people when the people can be identified, the fact that you have used a pseudonym is no defense against an action for defamation. If it is possible to identify the character, even where is disclaimer is used, there can still be grounds for defamation. 4. Be careful of invasion of privacy, not too big a problem in the UK or USA but can be a problem in a number of Australasian and European countries, for instance you may state something about a person that you know to be true but if that information is not in the public domain it is a breach of their privacy. 5. Remember that something may be permissible where you are writing but the law that will apply is the law where the work is published. With internet material that is deemed to be the country in which the item is viewed, so keep that in mind at all times. That is a cut down version of what I got from a Law Professor who specializes in international publication law.

Incitement was an offence under the common law of England and Wales. It was an inchoate offence. It consisted of persuading, encouraging, instigating, pressuring, or threatening so as to cause another to commit a crime. It was abolished in England and Wales on 1 October 2008 when Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 came into force, replacing it with three new statutory offences of encouraging or assisting crime. The common law is now only relevant to offences committed before that date. Incitement remains an offence in New Zealand. The above is from Wikipedia, as you can see Incitement was part of Common Law, as the United States is a Common Law Jurisdiction it makes use of the Common Law of England and Wales prior to the declaration of Independence. So unless it has been specifically replaced by legislation (as it has by the Serious Crime Act 2007 in England & Wales) it would still be part of the Common Law of the United States.. WiseGEEK states: Incitement is a crime that occurs when one person tries to motivate another to commit an offense. There are several ways that this may be done, including through inflammatory speeches and by using threats. The list of offenses that a person can be incited to commit is even longer, including acts such as terrorist attacks, rape, and theft. It should be understood that a person can be convicted of inciting others even if those individuals do not actually commit crimes So it might be possible to go after the religious right even if no crime is committed.

There is an offense in Common Law, of incitement to commit a felony. As it is in Common Law, unless the USA has legislated it out of existence, it should still apply in the USA. Could it be argued that a Fundamentalist Church are inciting its members to commit a felony when they mistreat a child because of that child's sexuality?