Humanities desk
< September 24	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 26 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 25

Church House, Westminster

Why are the Church's main offices of England (to use an archaic possessive) located in London, not Canterbury? I would have assumed that they'd be geographically connected with the offices of the Primate of All England, not located at the political capital. The article doesn't mention why a London location was picked. Nyttend (talk) 01:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Archbishop of Canterbury's official residence is Lambeth Palace a few minutes' walk away. The 26 Lords Spiritual sit in the House of Lords, and BOTH Parliament and the Prime Minister have roles in the governance of the Church. The offices of the Church Commissioners were formerly at No 1 Millbank (but they now share Church House). Also, if you are the Bishop of Carlisle or Durham, it's easier to get a train to London than having to change termini for another journey to Canterbury. I don't have references for any of this, but they seem to be compelling reasons. Note that meetings of the General Synod of the Church of England alternates between Church House and York (actually the University of York). Alansplodge (talk) 11:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page lists the Archbishop's staff, some of whom are based at Lambeth, some at Church House and others at Coventry Cathedral, but none at Canterbury. Note that some of these are connected with the Archbishops' role in the wider Anglican Communion rather than just the Church of England. Alansplodge (talk) 11:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

European Organisations

With Brexit waiting in the wings, some people make the hyperbolic assertion that the UK is "leaving" or "turning its back" on "Europe". Of course, as well as the EU and its subsidiary organisations, the UK is a member of many other European organisations and bodies whether socio-political (e.g. the Council of Europe), legal (e.g. the European Court of Human Rights), scientific (e.g. CERN), economic (e.g. the European Travel Commission), etc., on which membership of the EU has little or no bearing.

I would like to see (or easily compile) a reasonably comprehensive list of all such "European" bodies, a list of the subset of these of which the UK will remain a member despite Brexit, and perhaps a list of bodies that the UK could join or re-join (e.g. the European Free Trade Association). I can't find a Wikipedia article or think of any other references or search terms which would help in this. Possibly someone somewhere has already compiled such lists or discussed the topic. Any suggestions?

[FWIW: I voted for the UK to remain a member of the EEC in 1975, after 20 years came to believe that continued membership was detrimental to the economies of both the EU and the UK and began to vote where possible to encourage a referendum, and voted "Leave" this year. To head off any kneejerk accusations of xenophobia, I believe the UK needs continued substantial immigration for demographic and economic reasons.] {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.202.211.191 (talk) 12:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No decisions have yet been made on this issue - see Brexit#Consequences of withdrawal. For the list of (the more important) institutions involved, see International organisations in Europe - this article has a handy clickable Euler diagram (which includes Kazakhstan, for reasons which are not obvious).

The important question from my POV - Are we going to re-legalize incandescent lightbulbs and creosote? Probably not <sadfase>. Tevildo (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that second link, Tevildo – it's pertinent and useful, but of course it only shows selected organisations, and quite a small number at that. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.202.211.191 (talk) 06:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Part of Kazakhstan is in Europe. I thought a Brit would know that. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Part of it is indeed west of the Ural River, which counts as being "in Europe" by one (important) definition. And I freely admit to not knowing that until now. It's tempting to begin a long personal reminiscence about Geography Lessons in the late 1960's, but I'll restrain myself to stating that it was the Soviet Union back then, and the boundaries of that nation's constituent states was not on our curriculum. Tevildo (talk) 15:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, sometimes I forget Kazakhstan, Ukraine and stuff weren't countries recently. For me they've always existed. [1] Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth the only time I saw a globe with the Soviet Union (I was 6) it didn't show the constituent states. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Australia (not a typo for Austria) is now in the Eurovision Song Contest. Israel has been in it since 1973. Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia and, wait for it, Morocco, have all participated. Pretty soon, the entire world will be in Europe. Except the UK, of course. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While the Eurovision Song Contest is something I would quite like the UK to withdraw from, the European Broadcasting Union is indeed a good example of a non-EU European organisation. Thanks, Jack of Oz. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.202.211.191 (talk)

The first European Games were in Azerbaijan. In the south of Caucasus watershed part of the country, not the small bit north of the watershed. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While NATO isn't exclusively European (although members outside of Europe are largely of European descent), it's a critical military alliance for Europe. StuRat (talk) 16:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, StuRat. My initial wording implies exclusively European bodies, because I wanted to exclude purely world-wide ones, but significantly part-European ones like NATO are certainly relevant. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.202.211.191 (talk) 06:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa May, back when she was Home Secretary, announced that the Human Rights Act (which integrates the European Court of Human Rights into British law) would be scrapped in favour of a "British Bill of Rights" which would remove this link. It's not clear what this would mean if passed, but it's been suggested that it would mean Britain would have to withdraw from or lose standing within the Council of Europe. Not directly Brexit linked, but it's not clear that the UK will automatically remain in the non-EU related European institutions. Smurrayinchester 09:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quite true, Smurrayinchester, and we can't predict future political developments beyond saying that Brexit will very likely happen. However, I only want to address the issue of what European bodies Brexit will not require the UK to leave/give up/not join. [FWIW, I suspect UK withdrawal from the European Court of Human Rights and its parent Council of Europe (co-founded by the UK and not, of course, EU bodies) will prove too unpopular to be politically feasible.] {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.202.211.191 (talk) 06:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question About Judges and Insurance

If an insurance contract ends up in court and the judge who is overseeing this case believes that the (total) payout specified in this insurance contract is excessive (for instance, a total payout of $1,000,000 for a broken vase which was only worth $1,000), could this judge impose a cap/limit on the (total) payout in this insurance contract?

Any thoughts on this?

Indeed, isn't the purpose of insurance to return a person to his/her previous financial state (as opposed to allowing a person to enrich himself/herself) in the event that he/she experiences a loss? Futurist110 (talk) 20:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Equity (law) for the basic concept. Unjust enrichment may also be useful. Of course, the powers of a judge will depend on jurisdiction. Tevildo (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt any insurance company would write a policy that required them to pay 1,000,000 for a vase that is only worth 1,000. At least not intentionally (and they would be quick to claim fraud if they were mislead as to the actual value) Blueboar (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What if you were willing to pay them *very* high insurance premiums, though? Futurist110 (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's usually the other way round, court cases tend to be about insurers paying too little. As an insurer's livelihood depends on them receiving more money than they pay out, they go to great lengths to make sure that no claim is overpaid. The limits of a claim are specified in the policy document that both parties have agreed to, and if it went to court, the policy clauses would be the basis for the judge's decision provided they were within the law. I have a dim recollection that if an insured party deliberately overstates the value of an item by say 50%, then the insurer is entitled to pay out the actual value less 50%. There's a name for that which is eluding me at present, my Chartered Insurance Institute exams were a very long time ago, and I didn't do very well then. Alansplodge (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about if having a judge fully enforce an insurance contract (such as in regards to insurance for vas deferens regeneration) might result in psychological harm to the child involved, though? Futurist110 (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My Chartered Insurance Institute examinations were also a very long time ago (sorry to brag, but the local Institute invited me to a meeting to collect an award for the best paper submitted although I didn't bother) and the word Alansplodge is looking for is "fraud". Insurance is a contract of indemnity. The sum insured is only the maximum the insurer will pay out. 79.73.128.100 (talk) 08:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not strictly fraud, as (currently) a policy can be avoided for a material misrepresentation even if the representation was not dishonest. The Insurance Act 2015 will change this, so only actual fraud will be sufficient (of itself) to be grounds for avoidance. This article may prove informative (if not exactly interesting). Of course, for reliable advice about insurance or any other legal issue, one should contact an appropriate professional. Tevildo (talk) 18:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]