Timelessness

God’s temporality is still debated today by theologians and philosophers with whether God is temporal, atemporal, or some other form of temporality. The context of this paper is the topic of God’s timelessness with the idea of William Lane Craig’s idea of “omnitemporality.” The paper discusses a few of the major arguments for God’s temporality and also God’s timelessness. The paper then analyzes Craig’s article defending the omnitemporality of God declaring that God is non-temporal without creation and then becomes temporal with creation. Though this idea may seem as a possible solution to the question of God’s temporality, it fails to follow with the Kalam argument and the relationship of time and change, for any possibility of change requires some duration of time

"What matters is what works": Labour's journey from "national superannuation" to "personal accounts"

A key element of Labour’s response to the Pensions Commission’s recommendations for ‘a new pension settlement for the twenty-first century’ is a system of ‘personal accounts’ that will be administered and invested by the private sector. The contrast with 50 years ago, when Britain faced similar pressures, is striking. Then, Labour presented to the British public proposals for a state-run scheme embodying redistribution between higher and lower-paid workers and the accumulation of a very large fund that would be directly invested in stock markets by the state to promote faster growth. Today’s scheme embodies neither redistribution nor collective control of the scheme’s assets, and investment and risk-taking will be the responsibility of individuals rather than the state. This article explores the differences between Labour’s proposals in 1957 and the scheme it proposes today. It considers what these differences tell us about the party’s changing conception of social democracy, and highlights the irony that, with consumers’ faith in financial markets shattered by the most severe financial crisis since 1929, New Labour’s embrace of a private sector solution on the grounds that ‘what matters is what works’ now seems badly mistaken.A key element of Labour’s response to the Pensions Commission’s recommendations for ‘a new pension settlement for the twenty-first century’ is a system of ‘personal accounts’ that will be administered and invested by the private sector. The contrast with 50 years ago, when Britain faced similar pressures, is striking. Then, Labour presented to the British public proposals for a state-run scheme embodying redistribution between higher and lower-paid workers and the accumulation of a very large fund that would be directly invested in stock markets by the state to promote faster growth. Today’s scheme embodies neither redistribution nor collective control of the scheme’s assets, and investment and risk-taking will be the responsibility of individuals rather than the state. This article explores the differences between Labour’s proposals in 1957 and the scheme it proposes today. It considers what these differences tell us about the party’s changing conception of social democracy, and highlights the irony that, with consumers’ faith in financial markets shattered by the most severe financial crisis since 1929, New Labour’s embrace of a private sector solution on the grounds that ‘what matters is what works’ now seems badly mistaken

Policing the Admissibility of Body Camera Evidence

Body cameras are sweeping the nation and becoming, along with the badge and gun, standard issue for police officers. These cameras are intended to ensure accountability for abusive police officers. But, if history is any guide, the videos they produce will more commonly be used to prosecute civilians than to document abuse. Further, knowing that the footage will be available as evidence, police officers have an incentive to narrate body camera videos with descriptive oral statements that support a later prosecution. Captured on an official record that exclusively documents the police officer’s perspective, these statements—for example, “he just threw something into the bushes” or “your breath smells of alcohol”—have the potential to be convincing evidence. Their admissibility is complicated, however, by conflicting currents in evidence law. Oral statements made by police officers during an arrest, chase, or other police-civilian interaction will typically constitute hearsay if offered as substantive evidence at a later proceeding. Yet the statements will readily qualify for admission under a variety of hearsay exceptions, including, most intriguingly, the little-used present sense impression exception. At the same time, a number of evidence doctrines generally prohibit the use of official out-of-court statements against criminal defendants. This Article unpacks the conflicting doctrines to highlight a complex, but elegant, pathway for courts to analyze the admissibility of police statements captured on body cameras. The result is that the most normatively problematic statements should be excluded under current doctrine, while many other statements will be admissible to aid fact finders in assessing disputed events