I see. It is important to give that sort of context--it doesn't appear to have been part of your claim about common parlance earlier, but this clarifies.
I think this thread has become hideously distended, it's like a small mad woman.
I certainly wouldn't understand it in this way, but I'm not an expert on that area of legislation.
It's not a legislative thing, like I say in common parlance most people understand 'belief system' as pointing towards religion.
If you are 'down the pub'™ and said to your 'mate'™:
"you know the Asians, what kind of belief system are they then ?"
The answer would likely be 'I don't know, Hindu ?'
Rather than - "I think they are conservatives over there, or maybe Labour, not sure ?"
disclaimer:*(I made these two 'pub' characters up and in no way are they meant to represent actual real life characters, even the agnostics should cast them aside on to the pile of 'things that don't exist' after reading this post.)*
I think this thread has become hideously distended, it's like a small mad woman.
It's not a legislative thing, like I say in common parlance most people understand 'belief system' as pointing towards religion.
If you are 'down the pub'™ and said to your 'mate'™:
"you know the Asians, what kind of belief system are they then ?"
The answer would likely be 'I don't know, Hindu ?'
Rather than - "I think they are conservatives over there, or maybe Labour, not sure ?"
disclaimer:*(I made these two 'pub' characters up and in no way are they meant to represent actual real life characters, even the agnostics should cast them aside on to the pile of 'things that don't exist' after reading this post.)*