Election

[Ms Diddles]

It's clear to me you are so detached from the real world, you are clinging on to whatever the Beeb tell you, or some other censored news outlet.

No Wick,

It appears to me you are swallowing all the hystrionic scare-mongering of the far-right press.

GB News?
Migrant Watch?

And I looked up Rebel News.

I believe they hired notorious thug and dim-wit Tommy Robinson as a correspondent.

Enough said!

[Ms Diddles]

Surely, it should be obvious to you, and all the rest, that "anyone who is 'different' but doing them no harm", is not the problem.
I have to wonder why people try to confuse the issue by talking about those "who do no harm", when the concern is over those "who do harm"?
Is it because they feel their argument is weak that they have to obfuscate the issue?

Not at all, Wick!

It's because "those who do harm" are such a miniscule minority, but their existence and behaviour is blown out of all proportion by the right wing media (as in the excellent examples of this which you have posted).

[Yabs]

No need to explain. I can read, amazingly enough. I was just wondering if this 'chip shop' was the one Wickerman was referring to as I could not find a reference to the one in Skeggy. I was NOT suggesting it was taken down for religious reasons at all. The article clearly says 'inappropriate' and I was wondering what was inappropriate about it.

You see that is the problem here, you see something and YOU JUMP ON IT thinking I or whoever was/is being anti-immigrant or whatever. This is the HUGE problem here, next I'll be racist or xenophobic or worse still Islamophobic.

However if you wish for my opinion on that, I would suggest 'allegedly deemed inappropriate for the area' has absolutely bugger all to do with planning permission and that is just a cop out from the authorities. Read between the lines and we all know what 'allegedly deemed inappropriate for the area' really means but the council just dare not say that and that is the HUGE problem here.

In my job I regularly contact various councils regarding improvement installations in conservation & Article 4 areas.

“Not deemed appropriate for the area” or similar is just a stock term used by councils no matter if it is a mural, a conservatory or even a replacement window made out the wrong material.
Even if you couldn’t visually tell the difference between a white aluminium window or a white timber one it will still be deemed inappropriate that area unless you seek permission to change material.


Conservation areas without Article4 are less strict and you can seek retrospective permission.
An article4 attached to the conservation area means any permitted rights are removed.
Ive just checked and a lot of Greenwich was put on Art4 from 2017-2018 that chip shop is probably in that area as it is down the high street.
Either way, the council by their own ruling should have been contacted first

You really are reading too much into it.

[Geddy2112]

So, this is precisely the type of BS that is simply designed to make you guys angry. Let me explain...

No need to explain. I can read, amazingly enough. I was just wondering if this 'chip shop' was the one Wickerman was referring to as I could not find a reference to the one in Skeggy. I was NOT suggesting it was taken down for religious reasons at all. The article clearly says 'inappropriate' and I was wondering what was inappropriate about it.

You see that is the problem here, you see something and YOU JUMP ON IT thinking I or whoever was/is being anti-immigrant or whatever. This is the HUGE problem here, next I'll be racist or xenophobic or worse still Islamophobic.

However if you wish for my opinion on that, I would suggest 'allegedly deemed inappropriate for the area' has absolutely bugger all to do with planning permission and that is just a cop out from the authorities. Read between the lines and we all know what 'allegedly deemed inappropriate for the area' really means but the council just dare not say that and that is the HUGE problem here.

[Tab]

We have a big problem here and it’s going to get bigger and bigger because of our fear of dealing with it. I’d suggest that it’s possibly the biggest problem that this country has faced since the war. In reality it’s a global problem and what is likeliest to make this problem greater and to exacerbate its effect is apathy and cowardice. This isn’t about hating a people its about having very good reason to fear them, And here’s a worrying (but clearly not for all) thing, we here the phrase ‘moderate Muslims’ used a lot. I know quite a few Muslims who I like as people. But ‘moderate’ ? Is there scope for someone to be a moderate Muslim? It’s difficult to see how. There are some horrible things in the Quran, just as there are horrible things in the Bible. But….and this is a humongous BUT….christians can be non-fundamentalist and say “these were things written by men in a brutal dark age…we no longer believe this,” which is fine. What tools does a ‘moderate’ Muslim have for this same approach to distance his or herself from some of the horrors? The answer is obvious..there are none. A Muslim cannot distant him or herself from what is written in the Quran because to them it’s the unalterable, inarguable word of god. Beyond criticism. Perfect.

So when you get a whole religion that is so dedicated to their religion; for whom religion is the be all and end all of everything, how can they say “no, not in our name.” Or, “We don’t want to hate Jews or gays,” even if they really want to. And I believe that there is a vast amount of Muslims who really, genuinely want to live in peace alongside other religions and cultures and who don’t wish to hate others or to demand their death just because they are different. Unless, like Christianity, Islam goes through some kind of modernisation world peace is nothing more than a pipe dream.

Believe me, this isn’t hatred on my part, it’s a genuine fear. I’m an atheist so I’m not favouring one believe system over another (except that I believe that a secular society is more favourable) A problem has to be named and dealt with. The consequences of not doing so are unthinkable.

I would say that this is a fundamental misunderstanding of Islam, and religion in general if I am honest. Islam, just like Christianity, has a wide range of interpretations and practices. Muslims around the world practice their faith in various ways, the vast majority advocating for peace, justice and coexistence. A small percentage of radicals does not a religion make.

Interpretation of the Quran is a fundamental aspect of the religion, just like the Bible. Islamic jurisprudence, known as fiqh, is a system where scholars interpret the texts to provide guidance that is relevant to the context of the time. It is as dynamic and evolving as any other faith.

There are numerous examples of Muslim majority countries embracing democracy, human rights and secular governments. The worlds largest Muslim majority country, Indonesia, has a secular democratic government with regular elections, and officially recognises several religions.

Letting the radical few inform your view of an entire religion is not a good look.

All the best,
Tab

[Svensson]

One in London, however it just states the Council wanted it down, it's stops short of saying 'WHY' the Council wanted it down and just labelled it 'allegedly deemed inappropriate for the area.'

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/16/award-winning-fish-and-chip-shop-ordered-to-take-down-union/

How in the name of baby Jesus can a Union Jack Flag be deemed inappropriate in the Capital City of England! Answers on a post card.

So, this is precisely the type of BS that is simply designed to make you guys angry. Let me explain:

The owner was odered to remove the sign becasue it does not confirm with local planning laws to preserve the area. it has NOTHING to do with it featuring a Union Jack. I repeat, this time in capital letters so that maybe you guys understand this:

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT FEATURING A UNION JACK. THE SIGN IS IN VIOLATION OF PLANNING LAWS. Let me try this another way:

THE COUNCIL DOES NOT DEEM IT INAPPROPRIATE BECAUSE IT'S A UNION JACK.

That's it. The sign could feature a picture of Mr. Blobby and the council would be within theIr right to ask the owner to take it down. The sign was 18ft. high for Christ's sake. Then the guy posts a photo from 1940 where the was a similarly high billboard and suggests the area has always been like this...

I BET THAT IN 1940, THERE WAS NO PLANNING LAW THAT WOULD REGULATE THE SIZE OF BILLBOARDS, RIGHT?

Guys, we all love you very much but there are som basic facts here in this story that I donlt understand why you donlt see them for what they are. Besides, the guy is making a fuss becasueit gives him massive publicity and so does the sign. THAT'S IT!.

btw, did you notice the guy is an immigrant?

Cheers.

[Yabs]

I can find just one story about a chip shop in dispute with the council about a Union Jack, which was originally a flag then replaced with artwork.

This appears to be due to the area being under conservation so any change to the appearance needs permission first, which wasn’t applied for.
i can’t find anything involving skegness

Greenwich chip shop owner vows to keep union jack fish mural https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68660489

[Svensson]

And in case anyone thinks that I’m picking on Muslims (and I know this will annoy some but I’m sorry but they have taken victimhood to professional heights, so much so that we now get terrorist supporters on the street and the police do nothing) I would also ban (and I mean ban) all forms of religious genital mutilation for anyone who is under 18. This would affect both Muslims and Jews of course but I think that the person being mutilated should be old enough to make that decision for his/her self (not that any woman would volunteer for the absolute horror that is FGM of course)

FGM is already banned in the UK. You get 14 years in prison for carrying it out: https://www.gov.uk/female-genital-mu...on-help-advice

A minority should never dictate to a majority. You can be entirely fair, considerate and respectful without submitting to the will and belief systems of others. This problem will only get worse. It’s a hackneyed phrase but “give them an inch…” It has definitely started. Little by little. A small change here, a concession there. The occasional ‘well, it’s not that bad is it?’ Then we hear, and I’ve heard it, ‘ok so they abuse people for walking in ‘their’ areas but at least we know there’ll be no drunkenness because they don’t drink’…well that’s ok then.

Why are the authorities reluctant to act in these blatant issues? Sadly, I think that we all know the answer to that one.

To be honest, I don't know what "issues" you want the authorities to act on. You want them to act on some supermarkts selling Halal meat or ONLY Halal meat? Again, on what grounds? What law is being broken here? And if no law is being broken, you want to start legislating what types of meat supermarkets can sell?

So the answer to your qustion is: Authorities deal with legal problems, not with perceived issues. And there is no need for a conspiracy to explain this behaviour.

Cheers.

[Tab]

Let me just step in there, I'm gaining the impression on this thread that most of those commenting are not aware what is truly going on out there.

I could give you a long list, but this moment, off the top of my head I'll give you a few examples.

I think it was in Skegness, a fish & chip shop owner had a small Union Jack flying over his door for the past 25-30 years.
A local group of Muslims asked him to remove it, they were offended by that flag.
He refused, they went to the council, the council came and asked him on their behalf. He again refused, I think it is still ongoing, but if you come to another country you are expected to accept and obey the laws & culture of the country that has been so kind to offer you a home.
When in Rome, as they say....
What you do not do is object to their national flag and demand it be removed. If you object I'd be saying "you can go get the f*ck out, if it doesn't suit you!"

A Muslim group bought a large building in a mostly residential area, it was opposite a church, they turned their new purchase into a mosque. Then wrote to the town council to have the cross on the church opposite taken down, as a cross is offensive to them.

A football supporter had lots of St. George flags on his lawn in support of the England football team.
A handful of Muslim neighbors called on him to have him remove those flags as they are offensive.

The caveat is, I can't say if those were mainstream Muslims or radical Muslims.
It is perhaps necessary to make clear, mainstream Muslims are mostly willing to conform to the laws, customs & traditions of their host society.
It is the Islamists, the radical Muslims, and organisations such as The Muslim Brotherhood, that are the problem, not mainstream Muslims.

I have not been able to verify ANY of these stories. I cannot find evidence of any of these things happening. If you are going post stories, especially the emotive kind that seem designed to get people worked up, you should be required to cite your sources. As far as I can tell these three stories are completely made up.

If your response to this is going be something like "It's not my problem you can't search for things properly, these things happened!", and you don't cite your source, then please don't bother.

All the best,
Tab

[Tab]

Tell that to the transgender group.
They seem to think if they change their gender (how they see themselves), it also changes the 'Y' chromosome to an 'X', changing their sex from male to female.
Can you explain to them how it is not possible?
They cannot change their biology, ergo, born males use the male washrooms/toilets, regardless how they see themselves.

At their next group meeting I'll be sure to pass on your concerns.

The number of transgender people that think changing their gender also changes their biological sex is vanishingly small. People being uneducated on a subject is perfectly normal in any cohort. However, your original statement suggested they were somehow teaching this in school, which is clearly not the case. I see no problem with teaching about biological sex and gender. Secondary sex characteristics however do change with hormone therapy and surgery. Breast development, facial and body hair. voice pitch, muscle loss/gain.

So here is a genuine question for you. If a biological female has physically transitioned to identify as male, hormone therapy and surgery has given them all the genuine secondary sex characteristics of a male, adams apple, larger muscle mass, they've grown a beard and have a deeper voice. There is absolutely no outward way to tell they are not male. You would still want that person to use the female toilet, or the female changing room? Same question vice versa.

All the best,
Tab

[Geddy2112]

I think it was in Skegness, a fish & chip shop owner had a small Union Jack flying over his door for the past 25-30 years.

One in London, however it just states the Council wanted it down, it's stops short of saying 'WHY' the Council wanted it down and just labelled it 'allegedly deemed inappropriate for the area.'

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/16/award-winning-fish-and-chip-shop-ordered-to-take-down-union/

How in the name of baby Jesus can a Union Jack Flag be deemed inappropriate in the Capital City of England! Answers on a post card.

[Wickerman]

Little by little...

https://youtu.be/ur1mdnVAnaQ

The first American Muslim controlled city.

[Wickerman]

Come off it, Jon.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/EXrEDXtS3xY?feature=share

Don't repeat the mistake Neville Chamberlain made....

[Wickerman]

Dubai, United Arab Emirates — Iran has executed two gay men who were convicted on charges of sodomy and spent six years on death row, a rights group reported. Homosexuality is illegal in Iran, which is considered one of the most repressive places in the world for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-purportedly-executes-2-gay-men-over-sodomy-charges/

The majority of Muslims in UK are tolerant, they left their homeland because it was oppressive. Many of them do not want the radicals coming here with their Sharia.

We (the West) are expected to tolerate an intolerant theology, and repressive culture.
On what grounds?

[Herlock Sholmes]

We have a big problem here and it’s going to get bigger and bigger because of our fear of dealing with it. I’d suggest that it’s possibly the biggest problem that this country has faced since the war. In reality it’s a global problem and what is likeliest to make this problem greater and to exacerbate its effect is apathy and cowardice. This isn’t about hating a people its about having very good reason to fear them, And here’s a worrying (but clearly not for all) thing, we here the phrase ‘moderate Muslims’ used a lot. I know quite a few Muslims who I like as people. But ‘moderate’ ? Is there scope for someone to be a moderate Muslim? It’s difficult to see how. There are some horrible things in the Quran, just as there are horrible things in the Bible. But….and this is a humongous BUT….christians can be non-fundamentalist and say “these were things written by men in a brutal dark age…we no longer believe this,” which is fine. What tools does a ‘moderate’ Muslim have for this same approach to distance his or herself from some of the horrors? The answer is obvious..there are none. A Muslim cannot distant him or herself from what is written in the Quran because to them it’s the unalterable, inarguable word of god. Beyond criticism. Perfect.

So when you get a whole religion that is so dedicated to their religion; for whom religion is the be all and end all of everything, how can they say “no, not in our name.” Or, “We don’t want to hate Jews or gays,” even if they really want to. And I believe that there is a vast amount of Muslims who really, genuinely want to live in peace alongside other religions and cultures and who don’t wish to hate others or to demand their death just because they are different. Unless, like Christianity, Islam goes through some kind of modernisation world peace is nothing more than a pipe dream.

Believe me, this isn’t hatred on my part, it’s a genuine fear. I’m an atheist so I’m not favouring one believe system over another (except that I believe that a secular society is more favourable) A problem has to be named and dealt with. The consequences of not doing so are unthinkable.