Thread: Religion of peace at it again

Originally Posted by astasinim

I think its the Telegraph thats been referred to here Ant (or have I missed something). Also if the article is true, then does it matter which paper broke the story?

Oops, my apologies you're correct. Gone and gotten meself confused!

As to your question I think it does matter to an extent - insofar that if it's [insert left/right-wing paper of choice] then automatically the perception of those of that particular paper is going to colour it somewhat.

Can only speak for myself obviously, but in this case it would make me automatically suspicious of the reported facts. Not instantly disbelieving, just more cautious and circumspect about it all (moreso the Mail than the Torygraph ).

Which paper would you prefer a story from??? One of the Ethnic press perhaps?

It's important to remember that there are sharia courts and there are sharia courts. This isn't rural Sudan being discussed so there's not going to be stoning for adultery in the streets of Tipton. I think it's probably a good thing for communities to be able to settle disputes within the community; it's good to have power moving from a centralised state to local centres. On the other hand, at least some of the rulings are pretty repugnant (even within the limitations of sharia courts in England). The Times reported that, "in a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton, the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons. The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts." I don't know what to think about it. Moral relativism is a deeply difficult problem. However, the Times also points out that "Jewish Beth Din courts operate under the same provision in the Arbitration Act and resolve civil cases, ranging from divorce to business disputes. They have existed in Britain for more than 100 years, and previously operated under a precursor to the act."

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

As to your question I think it does matter to an extent - insofar that if it's [insert left/right-wing paper of choice] then automatically the perception of those of that particular paper is going to colour it somewhat.

Can only speak for myself obviously, but in this case it would make me automatically suspicious of the reported facts. Not instantly disbelieving, just more cautious and circumspect about it all (moreso the Mail than the Torygraph ).

Sure, you have to take what any paper prints with a pinch of salt, regardless of its political leaning. What I can never understand is, people who automatically dismiss an article because of which paper it comes from.

Yes, I do it and it's pretty dumb. If I see something from The Mail, it will automatically be shunted into the 'Fucking idiots' pile but it's dishonest and lazy.

Originally Posted by crippen

Which paper would you prefer a story from??? One of the Ethnic press perhaps?

It's got nothing to do with preference and everything to do with being presented the facts without some slant put to it. Which is pretty much what the news has become these days. The Daily Mail has this down to an artform, sensationalist headlines and misleading spin.

Originally Posted by astasinim

Sure, you have to take what any paper prints with a pinch of salt, regardless of its political leaning. What I can never understand is, people who automatically dismiss an article because of which paper it comes from.

Yep I see what you're saying and I agree with you.

I find it odd that people also automatically dismiss a source like Wikipedia as a valid alternative. Sure it's freely editable and open to abuse but often as not articles cite several sources in support - it's silly to dismiss the lot on the basis of one or two dubious ones.

Originally Posted by mordred

I don't know how it works in England, but in the states a population census is supposed to give state and federal government information to aid in funding the government for different areas of the country and planning.

Yes, that is one purpose of the census here. The Govt. still use the figures from 2001 for funding, hence in the last couple of years we have seem local authorities from many parts of the UK saying they don't have sufficient funds to cope with the increased influx - Slough in particular went very vocal on this. Even relatively properous areas, like the one I lived in until recently (in SW London) had to build temporary classrooms to deal with an extra/new 200 primary school places required. That costs money and its not accounted for in the budgets allocated by central government, so it means another local service is reduced or cut as a consequence.

Madness.

Originally Posted by Dan

I think it's probably a good thing for communities to be able to settle disputes within the community; it's good to have power moving from a centralised state to local centres

No it's not a good thing as communities should be, and most are, integrating into the host community rather than sectioning themselves off in every possible way. Also the pressure is always on women not to go to the police to report domestic violence, but rather let the Sharia court settle things behind closed doors. Don't forget the press are not allowed into these self appointed, and as far as I know, all male courts. Seems it's only the Muslims who don't want to integrate, but you have to remember the Koran instructs them not to anyway.

We're all fucked.

^ Quite prophetic, an honor to your namesake...

Stumbled across this little tidbit on utube... Speaks for itself...

Originally Posted by Lily

Are you all suggesting that that kind of thing does not happen between English men?

Are there no gratuitous bashings by young English men?

Are there no heinous crimes committed by English men?

Have to agree with this comment.
Racist crap here mostly about immigrants.
Plenty of scumbag poms too,where do we send them?
I spent many years in england well before mass immigration and the worst cunts were the local thugs.
Before some people here were born,grow up you pommy cunts.
Britain was only great because you raped the colonies-now you have nothing.

Originally Posted by cambtek

the worst cunts were the local thugs

We'll be glad of them when it all kicks off with the muslims & Romanians.

We're not fucked anymore, some are fighting back.