There are no Muslim areas. There are no Christian areas. They are just areas. Someone throwing rocks or stones at passersby are just criminals. If someone thinks someone else is exposing themselves then the normal response is to call the police and let them deal with it - not to throw a stone!
As it happens the men in mankinis were doing this for charity and should be congratulated for raising money for a good cause, not censured!!!
There are no Muslim areas. There are no Christian areas. They are just areas. Someone throwing rocks or stones at passersby are just criminals. If someone thinks someone else is exposing themselves you should call the police and let them deal with it.
If you believe that then your mistaken.. Have you not heard of the various stories in various papers about people being accosted on the street for inappropriate clothing or having alcohol taken off them by the Muslim patrol? Don't worry just keep on ignoring it if you want.. Hopefully the problem will just go away.. :rolleyes:
If you believe that then your mistaken.. Have you not heard of the various stories in various papers about people being accosted on the street for inappropriate clothing or having alcohol taken off them by the Muslim patrol? Don't worry just keep on ignoring it if you want.. Hopefully the problem will just go away.. :rolleyes:
There are no Muslim areas. I don't see what is so hard to understand about that. If I move into a street does it automatically become a Bhuddist area or just the path outside my house? If Mr and Mrs X move in next door to me does it automatically become a Jewish area? Of course not. They are just areas.
It's unbelievable how one side is bent right over in the name of tolerance and the other side is taking full advantage.
Also funny that I bet most of the stone throwers probably insist Islam is a religion of peace.
There are no Muslim areas. I don't see what is so hard to understand about that. If I move into a street does it automatically become a Bhuddist area or just the path outside my house? If Mr and Mrs X move in next door to me does it automatically become a Jewish area? Of course not. They are just areas.
Then you need to grow up or open your eyes.. One person an area does not make,what an incredibly naive thing to say, if you think there isn't more than one Muslim per road in that area.:yawn:
Then you need to grow up or open your eyes.. One person an area does not make,what an incredibly naive thing to say, if you think there isn't more than one Muslim per road in that area.:yawn:
If you wish to make a point then so be it, but don't resort to being rude to other posters by telling them to grow up. I am sure you can express yourself better than that.
The point is that streets have no religions in the same way they have no gender and no sexuality. They are just streets. Accordingly there are no Muslim areas. There are no female streets.
It's unbelievable how one side is bent right over in the name of tolerance and the other side is taking full advantage.
Also funny that I bet most of the stone throwers probably insist Islam is a religion of peace.
100% agreed. As I said, tolerance appears to be a one way street in this instance.
Then you need to grow up or open your eyes.. One person an area does not make,what an incredibly naive thing to say, if you think there isn't more than one Muslim per road in that area.:yawn:
I know what he means though. Yes, the streets concerned are indeed occupled by Muslims, but they are not Muslim streets in the sense that it gives them any right to dictate how passers by are dressed when walking through them. This is the UK, and the streets form part of the Queen's highway. They no more belong to the Muslims occupying the residences on them, than anybody else.
If they start getting too insistent about it, I can foresee a time when groups of youths will deliberately start baiting them, and that might lead to religious strife on a wider scale.
100% agreed. As I said, tolerance appears to be a one way street in this instance.
I know what he means though. Yes, the streets concerned are indeed occupled by Muslims, but they are not Muslim streets in the sense that it gves them any right to dictate how passers by are dressed when walking through them. This is the UK, and the streets form part of the Queen's highway. They no more belong to the Muslims occupying the residences on them, than anybody else.
If they start getting too insistent about it, I can foresee a time when groups of youths will deliberately start baiting them, and that might lead to religious strife.
And that was the point I was making. The same rules and the same laws should apply irrespective of who lives in an area. Even if 75% of a street is occupied by Muslim families or businesses it does not make it a Muslim area. It is just an area with a large Muslim population, however the same rules and laws and freedoms still apply whether it is a high Muslim population or a different religion in each house.
100% agreed. As I said, tolerance appears to be a one way street in this instance.
I know what he means though. Yes, the streets concerned are indeed occupled by Muslims, but they are not Muslim streets in the sense that it gives them any right to dictate how passers by are dressed when walking through them. This is the UK, and the streets form part of the Queen's highway. They no more belong to the Muslims occupying the residences on them, than anybody else.
If they start getting too insistent about it, I can foresee a time when groups of youths will deliberately start baiting them, and that might lead to religious strife on a wider scale.
If you wish to make a point then so be it, but don't resort to being rude to other posters by telling them to grow up. I am sure you can express yourself better than that.
The point is that streets have no religions in the same way they have no gender and no sexuality. They are just streets. Accordingly there are no Muslim areas. There are no female streets.
My apologies I misread the post and havent wiped the sleep from my eyes..
I thought you were being facetious but you are indeed correct that just because they believe they own it doesn't make it so..
There are no Muslim areas. There are no Christian areas. They are just areas. Someone throwing rocks or stones at passersby are just criminals. If someone thinks someone else is exposing themselves then the normal response is to call the police and let them deal with it - not to throw a stone!
As it happens the men in mankinis were doing this for charity and should be congratulated for raising money for a good cause, not censured!!!
First two lines of your post reminds me of the fundamental teaching of Sikhism.. There is no Muslim, there is no Hindu, (the two main religions in India) we are all one.
First two lines of your post reminds me of the fundamental teaching of Sikhism.. There is no Muslim, there is no Hindu, (the two main religions in India) we are all one.
Thank you. The point I was trying to make, perhaps not very well, was that very same point at the end of your post and further that people should take responsibility for their individual actions and not seek to justify it by reference to religion, whatever religion that may be or even the lack of religion either.
For those people declaring streets as Muslim areas, they do not speak for anyone but themselves individually. I also oppose the concept of a community leader - they don't speak for me if I haven't asked them to do so. I am quite capable of defending myself and speaking for myself - I don't need to declare a street or an area as one religion or another to make me feel safer.
Yeah, those women in their hotpants and crop tops. Disgusting.
Not forgetting this was a charity event.
I thought crop tops were worn by young girls before their big enough to wear bras? I wore crop tops but underneath tops, never on its own - at 10/11 years old, that'd be kinda wrong.
With a mankini, its one piece of clothing that seems to make the body only accentuate one part and it seems its the only thing worn when people wear them. I feel there's something a bit sinister about them but thats just my opinion - I know I have no right to tell people what to wear or anything like that, as long as their not committing an act of public indecency I suppose.
I really don't understand why anyone would wear something like that and have it somehow be linked to an animal charity? that seems utterly bizarre. Maybe if they wore a onesie, like people did for Children in Need I think, that seems comical and fun.
I have to ask, why do so many Muslims come to this country to live?
I understand those who might not agree with the culture of there own country, so come to live in a land of freedom, but what about those who have no intention of changing anything about there culture or views ?
I have to ask, why do so many Muslims come to this country to live?
I understand those who might not agree with the culture of there own country, so come to live in a land of freedom, but what about those who have no intention of changing anything about there culture or views ?
Because Islam is a proactive religion and by going out and spreading the word they will attain heaven.. A bit like the Christian missionaries of the Victorian ages
There are no Muslim areas. I don't see what is so hard to understand about that. If I move into a street does it automatically become a Bhuddist area or just the path outside my house? If Mr and Mrs X move in next door to me does it automatically become a Jewish area? Of course not. They are just areas.
That's the way it should be, of course - but the Muslims quoted in that article said themselves that this was a Muslim area . Certainly they behaved accordingly - stoning (so beloved of the the more backward Muslim countries) ; sexual slurs against a women in front of her husband and children solely because she is white; sexual slurs against a couple of men on a fun run.
All this is no more than to be expected from the lowest members of the Muslim community - far worse is that the authorities made no arrests. I suppose they were afraid (as usual) of offending muslims and so will tolerate the conjunction of the words 'dirty' 'white' and '****'. But imagine their reaction if the colour 'white' was changed to another. They would arrest so fast that somebody's feet wouldn't touch the ground. That's what's wrong here.
Could be down to decency and respect for religion, from what I know, in Italy it is indecent for a holiday maker to enter a place of worship, wearing swimming trunks, or inappropriate clothing, and I have seen parish elders take offence to some holiday makers, telling them to cover up
Exactly . If these guys had done this , near the Vatican or a church . The mail would be on the churches side . A total non - story
I've been spat on for being white while walking through that area. The police just aren't interested. If it was the other way round though, I'd no doubt be charged with a hate crime.
Comments
As it happens the men in mankinis were doing this for charity and should be congratulated for raising money for a good cause, not censured!!!
If you believe that then your mistaken.. Have you not heard of the various stories in various papers about people being accosted on the street for inappropriate clothing or having alcohol taken off them by the Muslim patrol? Don't worry just keep on ignoring it if you want.. Hopefully the problem will just go away.. :rolleyes:
There are no Muslim areas. I don't see what is so hard to understand about that. If I move into a street does it automatically become a Bhuddist area or just the path outside my house? If Mr and Mrs X move in next door to me does it automatically become a Jewish area? Of course not. They are just areas.
It's unbelievable how one side is bent right over in the name of tolerance and the other side is taking full advantage.
Also funny that I bet most of the stone throwers probably insist Islam is a religion of peace.
Then you need to grow up or open your eyes.. One person an area does not make,what an incredibly naive thing to say, if you think there isn't more than one Muslim per road in that area.:yawn:
If you wish to make a point then so be it, but don't resort to being rude to other posters by telling them to grow up. I am sure you can express yourself better than that.
The point is that streets have no religions in the same way they have no gender and no sexuality. They are just streets. Accordingly there are no Muslim areas. There are no female streets.
100% agreed. As I said, tolerance appears to be a one way street in this instance.
I know what he means though. Yes, the streets concerned are indeed occupled by Muslims, but they are not Muslim streets in the sense that it gives them any right to dictate how passers by are dressed when walking through them. This is the UK, and the streets form part of the Queen's highway. They no more belong to the Muslims occupying the residences on them, than anybody else.
If they start getting too insistent about it, I can foresee a time when groups of youths will deliberately start baiting them, and that might lead to religious strife on a wider scale.
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Catholic.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.
I thank Ms Anthrope for the above poem I'm sorry I don't know the original author
And that was the point I was making. The same rules and the same laws should apply irrespective of who lives in an area. Even if 75% of a street is occupied by Muslim families or businesses it does not make it a Muslim area. It is just an area with a large Muslim population, however the same rules and laws and freedoms still apply whether it is a high Muslim population or a different religion in each house.
Who are you trying to compare to the Nazis?
My apologies I misread the post and havent wiped the sleep from my eyes..
I thought you were being facetious but you are indeed correct that just because they believe they own it doesn't make it so..
Once again sorry
No problem, I did think we were in agreement!
Lol.. No one the quote can apply without the connotations to the Nazi's
Ok well I agree that it is important to speak out!
First two lines of your post reminds me of the fundamental teaching of Sikhism.. There is no Muslim, there is no Hindu, (the two main religions in India) we are all one.
Thank you. The point I was trying to make, perhaps not very well, was that very same point at the end of your post and further that people should take responsibility for their individual actions and not seek to justify it by reference to religion, whatever religion that may be or even the lack of religion either.
For those people declaring streets as Muslim areas, they do not speak for anyone but themselves individually. I also oppose the concept of a community leader - they don't speak for me if I haven't asked them to do so. I am quite capable of defending myself and speaking for myself - I don't need to declare a street or an area as one religion or another to make me feel safer.
Haha that mental image really brightened up my day..:D
Fortunately they didn't then!
I thought crop tops were worn by young girls before their big enough to wear bras? I wore crop tops but underneath tops, never on its own - at 10/11 years old, that'd be kinda wrong.
With a mankini, its one piece of clothing that seems to make the body only accentuate one part and it seems its the only thing worn when people wear them. I feel there's something a bit sinister about them but thats just my opinion - I know I have no right to tell people what to wear or anything like that, as long as their not committing an act of public indecency I suppose.
I really don't understand why anyone would wear something like that and have it somehow be linked to an animal charity? that seems utterly bizarre. Maybe if they wore a onesie, like people did for Children in Need I think, that seems comical and fun.
I understand those who might not agree with the culture of there own country, so come to live in a land of freedom, but what about those who have no intention of changing anything about there culture or views ?
Because Islam is a proactive religion and by going out and spreading the word they will attain heaven.. A bit like the Christian missionaries of the Victorian ages
That's the way it should be, of course - but the Muslims quoted in that article said themselves that this was a Muslim area . Certainly they behaved accordingly - stoning (so beloved of the the more backward Muslim countries) ; sexual slurs against a women in front of her husband and children solely because she is white; sexual slurs against a couple of men on a fun run.
All this is no more than to be expected from the lowest members of the Muslim community - far worse is that the authorities made no arrests. I suppose they were afraid (as usual) of offending muslims and so will tolerate the conjunction of the words 'dirty' 'white' and '****'. But imagine their reaction if the colour 'white' was changed to another. They would arrest so fast that somebody's feet wouldn't touch the ground. That's what's wrong here.