Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
Keeping things in perspective, the murderer and his brother killed a man and used any excuse they could to try and get away with it. They failed in their attempts, and actually made a terrible situation worse, if that was even possible. I can't see any justification in pointing blame at anyone other than the murderer, his brother and his mother, all 3 are culpable. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A sad loss of life
Keeping things in perspective, the murderer and his brother killed a man and used any excuse they could to try and get away with it. They failed in their attempts, and actually made a terrible situation worse, if that was even possible. I can't see any justification in pointing blame at anyone other than the murderer, his brother and his mother, all 3 are culpable."In addition to murder, they have put a largely integrated, productive and patriotic community under a microscope and raised questions about their exceptional right to carry weapons for religious reasons. Shameful. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Vickrum Digwa, 23, has been jailed for at least 21 years for the murder of 18-year-old student Henry Nowak in Southampton in December. Clearly though, on here, few are interested in this case as it doesn’t fit comfortably with their worldview where people of colour are victims and white people are racist scum." I don't know how you can make that statement on most of the fab members views, unless you have spoken to a majority of them on this issue. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Julie, your bottom slut… Also to add, the fact that there have been barely any responses to this thread shows the lack of basic human interest on this topic. Had the victim been ‘of colour’, we’d be up to thread number two or three by now. People here and more widely care little about the fate of young Henry because they can’t comfortably blame Digwa for his actions." Who on this thread hasn't blamed the murderer? Secondly why are you are making so many assumptions on how you believe people think, I'm curious to understand what you are seeing that I don't. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Vickrum Digwa, 23, has been jailed for at least 21 years for the murder of 18-year-old student Henry Nowak in Southampton in December. Clearly though, on here, few are interested in this case as it doesn’t fit comfortably with their worldview where people of colour are victims and white people are racist scum." I wouldn't claim people aren't interested but I agree that if the victim had been of colour the thread would have been much busier especially from those that hate people flying the national flag, claim everyone that mentions certain parties must be right wing racist's, Israel is the root of all evil etc etc | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"NotMe66… If you can’t see the difference between a person of colour being stabbed in an equivalent situation and subsequently ignored by the police and left to die and what happened to Henry Nowak then I can’t help you. You know the difference I’m sure. You’re choosing not to see it. Henry has been ignored by the PM and other senior Labour MPs because he’s white. " What do you believe the PM needs to comment on, the police handling it wrong or you would expect the PM to make a statement because the killer wasn't white? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Vickrum Digwa, 23, has been jailed for at least 21 years for the murder of 18-year-old student Henry Nowak in Southampton in December. Clearly though, on here, few are interested in this case as it doesn’t fit comfortably with their worldview where people of colour are victims and white people are racist scum. I wouldn't claim people aren't interested but I agree that if the victim had been of colour the thread would have been much busier especially from those that hate people flying the national flag, claim everyone that mentions certain parties must be right wing racist's, Israel is the root of all evil etc etc" At least someone gets the point I’m trying to make, thank you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"NotMe66… The PM should make a statement because he would more than likely would make a statement if the situation had involved a person of colour as the victim. He took the knee for George Floyd. Numerous Labour MPs went on BLM demos. Again, if you can’t see the parallel then I don’t know what to say to you…" What would you expect the PM to say? I guess the ultimate question is what outcome do you want, that will make you happy? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"NotMe66… You’re being deliberately obtuse. Maybe the PM could try thinking of the Nowak family and say what he’d say to them directly? Some sort of acknowledgement of what happened? Henry died in handcuffs with police officers denying he needed help or even trying to save his life. ‘He would’ve died anyway’ is all the ‘Temporary’ Deputy Chief Constable could essentially say. They couldn’t even find anyone more senior than the Temporary Deputy Chief Constable! " I'm not being obtuse, far from it. I'm trying to understand your rationale, it is not making any sense. A murder happened, circumstances unfolded that were orchestrated by 2 brothers. The poor young man was killed, he was also prevented from being looked after by the actions of those brothers. You are going out of your way to make your broad stroke assumptions known to the point you expect the PM to step in and make a statement. Are you acting the same way as the people you are accusing of are being silent? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"NotMe66… You’re being deliberately obtuse. Maybe the PM could try thinking of the Nowak family and say what he’d say to them directly? Some sort of acknowledgement of what happened? Henry died in handcuffs with police officers denying he needed help or even trying to save his life. ‘He would’ve died anyway’ is all the ‘Temporary’ Deputy Chief Constable could essentially say. They couldn’t even find anyone more senior than the Temporary Deputy Chief Constable! " https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1d2w411rgro Sir Keir Starmer commented on the case in a post on X, where he said: "This an awful, shocking case. "Henry's loved ones have gone through the trauma of a long trial and endured Henry's killer making up appalling claims about their son who was thoughtful, kind and deeply loved. "It is right that the IOPC is investigating the police's response to his senseless murder. And we must end the cycle of tragedy by tackling the horror of knife crime." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"NotMe66… You’re being deliberately obtuse. Maybe the PM could try thinking of the Nowak family and say what he’d say to them directly? Some sort of acknowledgement of what happened? Henry died in handcuffs with police officers denying he needed help or even trying to save his life. ‘He would’ve died anyway’ is all the ‘Temporary’ Deputy Chief Constable could essentially say. They couldn’t even find anyone more senior than the Temporary Deputy Chief Constable! https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1d2w411rgro Sir Keir Starmer commented on the case in a post on X, where he said: "This an awful, shocking case. "Henry's loved ones have gone through the trauma of a long trial and endured Henry's killer making up appalling claims about their son who was thoughtful, kind and deeply loved. "It is right that the IOPC is investigating the police's response to his senseless murder. And we must end the cycle of tragedy by tackling the horror of knife crime."" Thank you for this, it makes blanket statements wanting Starmer to make a statement really confusing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Julie, your bottom slut… You know as well as what I do how many think, even if we don’t know them personally. Had this case actually involved racism, there would’ve been riots and businesses torched in response. Starmer would’ve taken the knee. Vickrum Digwa would have had a statue erected by now." I think your being a bit hyperbolic. The last riots to do with the race of the attackers and victims was the Southport riots, when the victims were white and the attacker was of ethnic minority. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why can starmer put out a statement and take the knee for a guy thousands of miles away.yet a young British lad dies and he says nothing. sums up the guy doesn't fit is narrative doesn't care about British people." THIS EXACTLY  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why can starmer put out a statement and take the knee for a guy thousands of miles away.yet a young British lad dies and he says nothing. sums up the guy doesn't fit is narrative doesn't care about British people." The statement Starmer made is literally in the post above yours. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why can starmer put out a statement and take the knee for a guy thousands of miles away.yet a young British lad dies and he says nothing. sums up the guy doesn't fit is narrative doesn't care about British people. THIS EXACTLY "He has put out a statement, saying it's a shocking case and the killer made appalling claims about the poor boy, and that it's right that the police's response to the murder is investigated. I don't think it's Starmers narrative that is being summed up here. People should be sad and angry when murders happen, but I don't believe jumping on this to make a political point is done in good faith and certainly doesn't help anyone. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why can starmer put out a statement and take the knee for a guy thousands of miles away.yet a young British lad dies and he says nothing. sums up the guy doesn't fit is narrative doesn't care about British people. THIS EXACTLY
He has put out a statement, saying it's a shocking case and the killer made appalling claims about the poor boy, and that it's right that the police's response to the murder is investigated.
I don't think it's Starmers narrative that is being summed up here.
People should be sad and angry when murders happen, but I don't believe jumping on this to make a political point is done in good faith and certainly doesn't help anyone."What do you think about people politicising George Floyd's murder? We had a year long circus going on in the UK with people taking the knee and protesting during a pandemic. Do you think that also wasn't done in good faith? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"NotMe66… You’re being deliberately obtuse. Maybe the PM could try thinking of the Nowak family and say what he’d say to them directly? Some sort of acknowledgement of what happened? Henry died in handcuffs with police officers denying he needed help or even trying to save his life. ‘He would’ve died anyway’ is all the ‘Temporary’ Deputy Chief Constable could essentially say. They couldn’t even find anyone more senior than the Temporary Deputy Chief Constable! https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1d2w411rgro Sir Keir Starmer commented on the case in a post on X, where he said: "This an awful, shocking case. "Henry's loved ones have gone through the trauma of a long trial and endured Henry's killer making up appalling claims about their son who was thoughtful, kind and deeply loved. "It is right that the IOPC is investigating the police's response to his senseless murder. And we must end the cycle of tragedy by tackling the horror of knife crime." Thank you for this, it makes blanket statements wanting Starmer to make a statement really confusing. " From what I have seen from the online discourse, the problem is that Starmer did that ridiculous stunt of taking the knee and talking a LOT when the George Floyd incident happened in the US. Now people were questioning his silence on an incident that actually happened in this country where the police response leaves a lot to be desired. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why can starmer put out a statement and take the knee for a guy thousands of miles away.yet a young British lad dies and he says nothing. sums up the guy doesn't fit is narrative doesn't care about British people. THIS EXACTLY
He has put out a statement, saying it's a shocking case and the killer made appalling claims about the poor boy, and that it's right that the police's response to the murder is investigated.
I don't think it's Starmers narrative that is being summed up here.
People should be sad and angry when murders happen, but I don't believe jumping on this to make a political point is done in good faith and certainly doesn't help anyone."You mean we’re jumping on a far right bandwagon… dog whistle politics etc…  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why can starmer put out a statement and take the knee for a guy thousands of miles away.yet a young British lad dies and he says nothing. sums up the guy doesn't fit is narrative doesn't care about British people. THIS EXACTLY
He has put out a statement, saying it's a shocking case and the killer made appalling claims about the poor boy, and that it's right that the police's response to the murder is investigated.
I don't think it's Starmers narrative that is being summed up here.
People should be sad and angry when murders happen, but I don't believe jumping on this to make a political point is done in good faith and certainly doesn't help anyone.
What do you think about people politicising George Floyd's murder? We had a year long circus going on in the UK with people taking the knee and protesting during a pandemic. Do you think that also wasn't done in good faith?"I don't see any comparison with George Floyd. It seems that the police in this case have fucked up horrendously and should be investigated and hopefully prosecuted. I don't see why this is proof that Keir Starmer hates British people, should be done for treason, is evidence of DEI hires ruining the world, and that people don't care because the victim was white. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" People should be sad and angry when murders happen, but I don't believe jumping on this to make a political point is done in good faith and certainly doesn't help anyone. What do you think about people politicising George Floyd's murder? We had a year long circus going on in the UK with people taking the knee and protesting during a pandemic. Do you think that also wasn't done in good faith? I don't see any comparison with George Floyd. It seems that the police in this case have fucked up horrendously and should be investigated and hopefully prosecuted. I don't see why this is proof that Keir Starmer hates British people, should be done for treason, is evidence of DEI hires ruining the world, and that people don't care because the victim was white." If the British politicians are going to take the knee and talk non-stop about a guy who got killed in the hands of police in the US, it's only fair for people to expect the politicians to react at least to the similar extent in this case. If anything, people would expect more from this case as it happened in the UK. As for DEI, did you watch the bodycam video? The way Henry Nowak was lying in the ground and was struggling to speak, any person who isn't brainwashed would have seen that there was something wrong with him. The behaviour of the police there was outright disgusting. It's not unreasonable for people to speculate that Henry and Vikram's races played a role here. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"NotMe66… You’re being deliberately obtuse. Maybe the PM could try thinking of the Nowak family and say what he’d say to them directly? Some sort of acknowledgement of what happened? Henry died in handcuffs with police officers denying he needed help or even trying to save his life. ‘He would’ve died anyway’ is all the ‘Temporary’ Deputy Chief Constable could essentially say. They couldn’t even find anyone more senior than the Temporary Deputy Chief Constable! https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1d2w411rgro Sir Keir Starmer commented on the case in a post on X, where he said: "This an awful, shocking case. "Henry's loved ones have gone through the trauma of a long trial and endured Henry's killer making up appalling claims about their son who was thoughtful, kind and deeply loved. "It is right that the IOPC is investigating the police's response to his senseless murder. And we must end the cycle of tragedy by tackling the horror of knife crime." Thank you for this, it makes blanket statements wanting Starmer to make a statement really confusing. From what I have seen from the online discourse, the problem is that Starmer did that ridiculous stunt of taking the knee and talking a LOT when the George Floyd incident happened in the US. Now people were questioning his silence on an incident that actually happened in this country where the police response leaves a lot to be desired." "that ridiculous stunt". Would Starmer be repeating the same mistake? We have anger over politicians who are forthright in opinion, and those who are not. Where does this stop? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In my opinion, the whole of the family of the killer must be charged for aiding the murder. They knew that Henry was stabbed and decided to go along with the lies." totally agree they are just as bad dirty scum of a family hope they get life sentence aswell | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" People should be sad and angry when murders happen, but I don't believe jumping on this to make a political point is done in good faith and certainly doesn't help anyone. What do you think about people politicising George Floyd's murder? We had a year long circus going on in the UK with people taking the knee and protesting during a pandemic. Do you think that also wasn't done in good faith? I don't see any comparison with George Floyd. It seems that the police in this case have fucked up horrendously and should be investigated and hopefully prosecuted. I don't see why this is proof that Keir Starmer hates British people, should be done for treason, is evidence of DEI hires ruining the world, and that people don't care because the victim was white. If the British politicians are going to take the knee and talk non-stop about a guy who got killed in the hands of police in the US, it's only fair for people to expect the politicians to react at least to the similar extent in this case. If anything, people would expect more from this case as it happened in the UK. As for DEI, did you watch the bodycam video? The way Henry Nowak was lying in the ground and was struggling to speak, any person who isn't brainwashed would have seen that there was something wrong with him. The behaviour of the police there was outright disgusting. It's not unreasonable for people to speculate that Henry and Vikram's races played a role here." But the reaction to George Floyd wasn't because of one police murder. It was a culmination of decades of police murders and brutality going unpunished and I don't see what the comparison is here. It's clear that the police have fucked up in this case and should be investigated and appropriately punished. The PM has said so himself. I don't know what it is that people are asking for here. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" "It is right that the IOPC is investigating the police's response to his senseless murder. And we must end the cycle of tragedy by tackling the horror of knife crime." Thank you for this, it makes blanket statements wanting Starmer to make a statement really confusing. From what I have seen from the online discourse, the problem is that Starmer did that ridiculous stunt of taking the knee and talking a LOT when the George Floyd incident happened in the US. Now people were questioning his silence on an incident that actually happened in this country where the police response leaves a lot to be desired. "that ridiculous stunt". Would Starmer be repeating the same mistake? We have anger over politicians who are forthright in opinion, and those who are not. Where does this stop? " What happened in response to the George Floyd incident in the UK was mass hysteria of the highest order. Politicians and celebs taking knees, talking over and over for months, about an incident that had nothing to do with this country. It's probably the Covid lockdowns which drove them to participate in these stunts to grab some attention. But unfortunately, they set a benchmark there. So people will judge the response of these politicians to such incidents based on that benchmark. I don't see a way out of it, unless the politicians admit that their response the the George Floyd killing was an overreaction. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And Julie Your Bottom Slut brings in the Southport riots… You’re priceless! If Henry were a member of YOUR family, I wonder if you’d be this cold!" I have had a family member murdered, so don't throw that at me. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" But the reaction to George Floyd wasn't because of one police murder. It was a culmination of decades of police murders and brutality going unpunished and I don't see what the comparison is here. " It didn't even happen in the UK. You said, "I don't believe jumping on this to make a political point is done in good faith and certainly doesn't help anyone." Why is it ok to politicise one over the other? If it's ok to politicise George Floyd murder, it's ok politicise Henry Nowak murder too. If you think one is ok but the other one isn't, you are a hypocrite. " It's clear that the police have fucked up in this case and should be investigated and appropriately punished. The PM has said so himself. I don't know what it is that people are asking for here." They did file a case against Derek Chauvin too. So what was the point of performing those circus stunts like taking the knee? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" But the reaction to George Floyd wasn't because of one police murder. It was a culmination of decades of police murders and brutality going unpunished and I don't see what the comparison is here. It didn't even happen in the UK. You said, "I don't believe jumping on this to make a political point is done in good faith and certainly doesn't help anyone." Why is it ok to politicise one over the other? If it's ok to politicise George Floyd murder, it's ok politicise Henry Nowak murder too. If you think one is ok but the other one isn't, you are a hypocrite. It's clear that the police have fucked up in this case and should be investigated and appropriately punished. The PM has said so himself. I don't know what it is that people are asking for here. They did file a case against Derek Chauvin too. So what was the point of performing those circus stunts like taking the knee?" But as I said, the reaction to the George Floyd murder wasn't about 1 murder, it was about decades of police brutality against black people who regularly murder and get away with it. It was people standing up and expressing that this has to stop. I didn't really agree with Starmer doing the knee thing as he's in a position of power actually do something rather than pose for a photo but that's neither here nor there really. The first post in this thread said that the officers were three women, possibly DEI hires. Before any facts have been ascertained, we've gone straight at culture war nonsense rather than any actual interest in holding police to account. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
feeling angry, saddened and heartbroken all at the same time.
The disgusting copper that said "I don't think so" as Henry repeatedly said "I've been stabbed" should be named and shamed and taken to trial!!!
All of them should be named!
Including the murderers family that shouted in the court room.
Henry's family have shown nothing but dignity throughout this heartbreaking time.
21 years! What a joke!!
Theses are the moments capital punishment seems justified for that sick fuck and anyone who helped him!
And mainstream media will try and brush this away. Let's keep Henry alive and never forget him.
Rest in peace you beautiful boy. 🙏🏼 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If it's ok to politicise George Floyd murder, it's ok politicise Henry Nowak murder too. If you think one is ok but the other one isn't, you are a hypocrite. " How can we expect an end to politicising tragedies when every incident now seems to have become weaponised for hatred? It is a perpetual ball and chain than needs to be broken in my opinion. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If it's ok to politicise George Floyd murder, it's ok politicise Henry Nowak murder too. If you think one is ok but the other one isn't, you are a hypocrite. How can we expect an end to politicising tragedies when every incident now seems to have become weaponised for hatred? It is a perpetual ball and chain than needs to be broken in my opinion." I agree that it has to end. But that's in the hands of the politicians who started it in the first place. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" But as I said, the reaction to the George Floyd murder wasn't about 1 murder, it was about decades of police brutality against black people who regularly murder and get away with it. It was people standing up and expressing that this has to stop. I didn't really agree with Starmer doing the knee thing as he's in a position of power actually do something rather than pose for a photo but that's neither here nor there really. " And as I said before, the George Floyd incident happened in the US and not in the UK. There was no reason for the British politicians and celebs to do those stunts. People will obviously question why the police blindly took the words of the killer as facts when it's clearly visible that the victim was going through some pain. It's not unreasonable to speculate that race was a factor. " The first post in this thread said that the officers were three women, possibly DEI hires. Before any facts have been ascertained, we've gone straight at culture war nonsense rather than any actual interest in holding police to account. " I didn't notice that. I personally don't believe the sex of the officers mattered here. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And Julie Your Bottom Slut brings in the Southport riots… You’re priceless! If Henry were a member of YOUR family, I wonder if you’d be this cold! I have had a family member murdered, so don't throw that at me." Then maybe show some compassion here? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And Julie Your Bottom Slut brings in the Southport riots… You’re priceless! If Henry were a member of YOUR family, I wonder if you’d be this cold! I have had a family member murdered, so don't throw that at me. Then maybe show some compassion here?" If by compassion you mean , using a tragedy for some political upmanship, no i'd rather not. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Also, it is interesting that the clown Zack Polanski created a lot of fuss about the police kicking a guy who went stabbing in Golder's Green and still had the knife in his hand. And no word about this incident. " It doesn’t suit the narrative he follows, which according to some on here, doesn’t even exist! When big stories break, politicians and the media look at who’s involved and spin the story accordingly. Situations involving white guys, Tories etc go one way. Similar situations involving people of colour, women and the left get spun a different way. Then we the public get gaslit that we’re all treated the same! Some believe it! Funny old world, isn’t it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Left to die by three female police officers, possibly DEI hires who were hopelessly out of their depth? Why hasn’t the PM commented? Angela Rayner? They took the knee for BLM and George Floyd! They normally have plenty to say about deaths involving police officers and accusations of racism. Uncomfortable narrative when the racism accusations are false and the real victim is white? Henry died in handcuffs thinking he was being arrested for being racist and no one believed him. RIP Henry x" No such thing as a DEI hire when it comes to police officers. If you're good enough to pass the online assessment, physical and interview you can start the 18-22 weeks of initial training followed by months of further training under a tutor on the street. Race or gender had no bearing on any of the assessments. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you say you dadbod76… I’ve been stabbed! No you ain’t mate! I can’t breathe! Henry said he’d been stabbed a number of times and said he couldn’t breathe! Why was he ignored and left to die?" Incompetence, callousness, not reacting well to a complex situation, a combination of all three - there's any number of things going on. This is why we need an investigation and there needs to be consequences. The fact that all you seem to care about is using this poor boys death to push some kind of agenda is pretty sad. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you say you dadbod76… I’ve been stabbed! No you ain’t mate! I can’t breathe! Henry said he’d been stabbed a number of times and said he couldn’t breathe! Why was he ignored and left to die? Incompetence, callousness, not reacting well to a complex situation, a combination of all three - there's any number of things going on. This is why we need an investigation and there needs to be consequences. The fact that all you seem to care about is using this poor boys death to push some kind of agenda is pretty sad." And yet, you were here defending the ones who pushed agenda over George Floyd's death. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Agp sub01… I’m not pushing any agenda! I’m concerned that the PM seems unbothered, all he’s done so far is put out a tweet. What’s my agenda? " The PM has made a statement and said that there needs to be a police investigation into the response to attack and murder. All you're doing is talking about DEI, sexism, racism against white people, how the PM hates British people, all of which does absolutely nothing to help anything. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you say you dadbod76… I’ve been stabbed! No you ain’t mate! I can’t breathe! Henry said he’d been stabbed a number of times and said he couldn’t breathe! Why was he ignored and left to die? Incompetence, callousness, not reacting well to a complex situation, a combination of all three - there's any number of things going on. This is why we need an investigation and there needs to be consequences. The fact that all you seem to care about is using this poor boys death to push some kind of agenda is pretty sad. And yet, you were here defending the ones who pushed agenda over George Floyd's death. " Oh my god, I'm going to put this in capitals. THE RESPONSE TO THE POLICE MURDERING GEORGE FLOYD WAS NOT ABOUT ONE MURDER. There is no comparison here between the two. Can we stop with this nonsense. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seen the video and 100% those police were in the wrong. I have been stabbed and the reply was I doubt that shows they didn’t care about someone lying on the floor they only cared about the wrongly claimed race card" Horrible to watch! One officer has been given permission to resign, obviously no concerns ove his actions and the police more concerned about protecting pensions. They all should be prosecuted for misconduct and kicked out the police. The validity of the family members should have their right to stay in this country reviewed AND face criminal prosecution for not telling the police that Henry was stabbed and hiding the evidence to pervert the course of justice. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sikh organisations kicking off now for fear of banning the kirpan " As they should. The actions of an individual claiming a racial attack and justification for the violent use of religious item has now put the religion under the microscope and given ammunition to right wing agendas where there was no issue before. RIP Henry Nowak, he was unjustly attacked and failed by the police who didn't handle the situation in the best way. Maybe they came to the scene with the racist attack reported at the forefront of their minds and acted from there, in which case and investigation should take place and better training required. But the practices of an entirely religion shouldn't be made unlawful based on this murder, especially as it wasn't a Kirpan that was used to murder him. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you say you dadbod76… I’ve been stabbed! No you ain’t mate! I can’t breathe! Henry said he’d been stabbed a number of times and said he couldn’t breathe! Why was he ignored and left to die? Incompetence, callousness, not reacting well to a complex situation, a combination of all three - there's any number of things going on. This is why we need an investigation and there needs to be consequences. The fact that all you seem to care about is using this poor boys death to push some kind of agenda is pretty sad. And yet, you were here defending the ones who pushed agenda over George Floyd's death. Oh my god, I'm going to put this in capitals. THE RESPONSE TO THE POLICE MURDERING GEORGE FLOYD WAS NOT ABOUT ONE MURDER. There is no comparison here between the two. Can we stop with this nonsense. " And I explained that it was an incident that happened in the US. It had nothing to do with the UK. And yet the leftist politicians and protestors made a big circus out of it for no reason. Considering the allegations of racism in both the cases, there is clearly a comparison here. The left started the culture wars. The left started politicising events like this. Now they are pissed off when the other side does the same and coming up with excuses like "Let's not politicise this." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sikh organisations kicking off now for fear of banning the kirpan " I am surprised why it wasn't banned in the first place. Laws must be same for everyone irrespective of the religion. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sikh organisations kicking off now for fear of banning the kirpan I am surprised why it wasn't banned in the first place. Laws must be same for everyone irrespective of the religion." The fact you were surprised shows how little the outraged people thought of it before this incident. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sikh organisations kicking off now for fear of banning the kirpan I am surprised why it wasn't banned in the first place. Laws must be same for everyone irrespective of the religion." The law is the same for everyone. Anyone has a defense for carrying something that could be construed as a weapon (with exceptions for certain weapons), if they have a valid reason. Sikhs have the (recognised as valid) reason of religion (on their body). Like chefs with knives (in appropriate bags) and baseball teams with baseball bats (in their kit). It's not a special Sikh law. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sikh organisations kicking off now for fear of banning the kirpan I am surprised why it wasn't banned in the first place. Laws must be same for everyone irrespective of the religion. The law is the same for everyone. Anyone has a defense for carrying something that could be construed as a weapon (with exceptions for certain weapons), if they have a valid reason. Sikhs have the (recognised as valid) reason of religion (on their body). Like chefs with knives (in appropriate bags) and baseball teams with baseball bats (in their kit). It's not a special Sikh law." The problem with giving religious exemptions as always is that it can be misused by anyone. What stops someone from saying that he converted to Sikhism just last week and he is carrying knives for religious reasons? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nigel Farage says Britain has a "two tier culture where the rights and privileges of white people matter less than those of ethnic minorities"." He’s right, however, it’s such an emotionally charged sentence that he needs to be careful he doesn’t cause more problems than he’s attempting to solve. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sikh organisations kicking off now for fear of banning the kirpan I am surprised why it wasn't banned in the first place. Laws must be same for everyone irrespective of the religion. The law is the same for everyone. Anyone has a defense for carrying something that could be construed as a weapon (with exceptions for certain weapons), if they have a valid reason. Sikhs have the (recognised as valid) reason of religion (on their body). Like chefs with knives (in appropriate bags) and baseball teams with baseball bats (in their kit). It's not a special Sikh law. The problem with giving religious exemptions as always is that it can be misused by anyone. What stops someone from saying that he converted to Sikhism just last week and he is carrying knives for religious reasons?" Can you give me an example of when this happend or are we just talking unrealistic hypotheticals? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The problem with giving religious exemptions as always is that it can be misused by anyone. What stops someone from saying that he converted to Sikhism just last week and he is carrying knives for religious reasons?" From a purely practical perspective, it's a pretty stupid defence if you're not a practicing Sikh, since it's simple to ascertain that. Someone who wants to carry a knife for nefarious purposes will not be emboldened by this defence existing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Sikh organisations kicking off now for fear of banning the kirpan I am surprised why it wasn't banned in the first place. Laws must be same for everyone irrespective of the religion. The law is the same for everyone. Anyone has a defense for carrying something that could be construed as a weapon (with exceptions for certain weapons), if they have a valid reason. Sikhs have the (recognised as valid) reason of religion (on their body). Like chefs with knives (in appropriate bags) and baseball teams with baseball bats (in their kit). It's not a special Sikh law. The problem with giving religious exemptions as always is that it can be misused by anyone. What stops someone from saying that he converted to Sikhism just last week and he is carrying knives for religious reasons? Can you give me an example of when this happend or are we just talking unrealistic hypotheticals?" Laws shouldn't be written with such loopholes. If there are loopholes which are known to the public, they will be exploited. Now that the issue gets more publicity, it's only a matter of time before someone exploits this. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The problem with giving religious exemptions as always is that it can be misused by anyone. What stops someone from saying that he converted to Sikhism just last week and he is carrying knives for religious reasons? From a purely practical perspective, it's a pretty stupid defence if you're not a practicing Sikh, since it's simple to ascertain that. Someone who wants to carry a knife for nefarious purposes will not be emboldened by this defence existing." It doesn't have to be Sikhism. Anyone could come up with a new religious sect, which they will claim that it justifies them carrying a knife. I wouldn't be surprised if more people start using this as a justification to carry knives in some time. The law of the land overrides religious restrictions in most cases. Why should there be an exemption for this specific case? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Can you give me an example of when this happend or are we just talking unrealistic hypotheticals? Laws shouldn't be written with such loopholes. If there are loopholes which are known to the public, they will be exploited. Now that the issue gets more publicity, it's only a matter of time before someone exploits this. " So... You can't give me an example, cool. Also, the guy didn't get away with it. Why would people feel the need to do this if the precedent is that they will get found out sentenced? It's a nonsense theory and "loophole" to try and exploit | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Can you give me an example of when this happend or are we just talking unrealistic hypotheticals? Laws shouldn't be written with such loopholes. If there are loopholes which are known to the public, they will be exploited. Now that the issue gets more publicity, it's only a matter of time before someone exploits this. So... You can't give me an example, cool. Also, the guy didn't get away with it. Why would people feel the need to do this if the precedent is that they will get found out sentenced? It's a nonsense theory and "loophole" to try and exploit" The guy got caught and punished because he committed a murder. Not because he was carrying the knife, something which anyone else would be punished for. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Can you give me an example of when this happend or are we just talking unrealistic hypotheticals? Laws shouldn't be written with such loopholes. If there are loopholes which are known to the public, they will be exploited. Now that the issue gets more publicity, it's only a matter of time before someone exploits this. So... You can't give me an example, cool. Also, the guy didn't get away with it. Why would people feel the need to do this if the precedent is that they will get found out sentenced? It's a nonsense theory and "loophole" to try and exploit The guy got caught and punished because he committed a murder. Not because he was carrying the knife, something which anyone else would be punished for." Exactly, something anyone carrying a knife would be punished for if they used it. My point is that Sikhs have carried Kirpans for centuries and you never batted an eyelid. Now a Sikh commits a crime with a knife (not the Kirpan), you want it banned? You're making up your own narrative of how they're used and justifying banning them as a result. I can make things up and give the consequences as well! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The problem with giving religious exemptions as always is that it can be misused by anyone. What stops someone from saying that he converted to Sikhism just last week and he is carrying knives for religious reasons? From a purely practical perspective, it's a pretty stupid defence if you're not a practicing Sikh, since it's simple to ascertain that. Someone who wants to carry a knife for nefarious purposes will not be emboldened by this defence existing." Despite that NO ONE should carry a knife. Plenty of Sikhs wear a pendant with the knife in question as a small item of jewellery. It’s not needed to actually carry a knife, however, it should be said that Digwa was carrying a much bigger and illegal knife than he could legally have on his person anyway. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The problem with giving religious exemptions as always is that it can be misused by anyone. What stops someone from saying that he converted to Sikhism just last week and he is carrying knives for religious reasons? From a purely practical perspective, it's a pretty stupid defence if you're not a practicing Sikh, since it's simple to ascertain that. Someone who wants to carry a knife for nefarious purposes will not be emboldened by this defence existing. Despite that NO ONE should carry a knife. Plenty of Sikhs wear a pendant with the knife in question as a small item of jewellery. It’s not needed to actually carry a knife, however, it should be said that Digwa was carrying a much bigger and illegal knife than he could legally have on his person anyway." "Could have" but didn't. I believe he even used the self defence excuse and it made no difference in the end. Do you think Sikhs are actively thinking this was ok to use a religious item in an attack? I can guarantee you that most, if not all practicing Sikhs are appealed by this | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The problem with giving religious exemptions as always is that it can be misused by anyone. What stops someone from saying that he converted to Sikhism just last week and he is carrying knives for religious reasons? From a purely practical perspective, it's a pretty stupid defence if you're not a practicing Sikh, since it's simple to ascertain that. Someone who wants to carry a knife for nefarious purposes will not be emboldened by this defence existing. Despite that NO ONE should carry a knife. Plenty of Sikhs wear a pendant with the knife in question as a small item of jewellery. It’s not needed to actually carry a knife, however, it should be said that Digwa was carrying a much bigger and illegal knife than he could legally have on his person anyway. "Could have" but didn't. I believe he even used the self defence excuse and it made no difference in the end. Do you think Sikhs are actively thinking this was ok to use a religious item in an attack? I can guarantee you that most, if not all practicing Sikhs are appealed by this" *Appalled | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The law of the land overrides religious restrictions in most cases. Why should there be an exemption for this specific case?" Tolerance. It's a privilege that allows people who fundamentally disagree on things be able to live their different lives in a kind of mutual respect. It's what allows someone who believes that one religion is heresy to live alongside someone of that religion without violence or persecution. When that trust is broken, that tolerance falls down. Currently, there is no real danger from a Kirpan. If there were a weekly kirpan stabbing, then we would be having a different conversation. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Can you give me an example of when this happend or are we just talking unrealistic hypotheticals? Laws shouldn't be written with such loopholes. If there are loopholes which are known to the public, they will be exploited. Now that the issue gets more publicity, it's only a matter of time before someone exploits this. So... You can't give me an example, cool. Also, the guy didn't get away with it. Why would people feel the need to do this if the precedent is that they will get found out sentenced? It's a nonsense theory and "loophole" to try and exploit The guy got caught and punished because he committed a murder. Not because he was carrying the knife, something which anyone else would be punished for. Exactly, something anyone carrying a knife would be punished for if they used it. My point is that Sikhs have carried Kirpans for centuries and you never batted an eyelid. Now a Sikh commits a crime with a knife (not the Kirpan), you want it banned? You're making up your own narrative of how they're used and justifying banning them as a result. I can make things up and give the consequences as well!" In case of Sikhs, they are punished only if they use it. Why not apply the same principle to rest of the people too? Let everyone carry knives and punish them only if they use it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The law of the land overrides religious restrictions in most cases. Why should there be an exemption for this specific case? Tolerance. It's a privilege that allows people who fundamentally disagree on things be able to live their different lives in a kind of mutual respect. It's what allows someone who believes that one religion is heresy to live alongside someone of that religion without violence or persecution. When that trust is broken, that tolerance falls down. Currently, there is no real danger from a Kirpan. If there were a weekly kirpan stabbing, then we would be having a different conversation." Unfortunately, this is the kind of thing that will fire up more two-tier justice system allegations. If some communities are going to have special privilege to override laws of land over the others, the rest won't consider it fair. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Exactly, something anyone carrying a knife would be punished for if they used it. My point is that Sikhs have carried Kirpans for centuries and you never batted an eyelid. Now a Sikh commits a crime with a knife (not the Kirpan), you want it banned? You're making up your own narrative of how they're used and justifying banning them as a result. I can make things up and give the consequences as well! In case of Sikhs, they are punished only if they use it. Why not apply the same principle to rest of the people too? Let everyone carry knives and punish them only if they use it." Because more stabbings in general happen than Sikhs using a Kirpan to stab someone. One incident isn't a religious person doing it, it's an individual who happens to be part of a religion. There's a difference and as someone said above, if it was a weekly occurrence, then there's a conversation to be had. Also, if you care so much about this, where was this energy for the rest of your life where carrying a Kirpan wasn't an issue? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nigel Farage says Britain has a "two tier culture where the rights and privileges of white people matter less than those of ethnic minorities"." Whenever Farage is speaking on the telly my dog goes nuts. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nigel Farage says Britain has a "two tier culture where the rights and privileges of white people matter less than those of ethnic minorities"." After the family asked specifically for it not to be politicised. Farage is a massive cunt. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you say you dadbod76… I’ve been stabbed! No you ain’t mate! I can’t breathe! Henry said he’d been stabbed a number of times and said he couldn’t breathe! Why was he ignored and left to die?" Irrelevant to my point. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Nigel Farage says Britain has a "two tier culture where the rights and privileges of white people matter less than those of ethnic minorities"." He is correct in what he says. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Exactly, something anyone carrying a knife would be punished for if they used it. My point is that Sikhs have carried Kirpans for centuries and you never batted an eyelid. Now a Sikh commits a crime with a knife (not the Kirpan), you want it banned? You're making up your own narrative of how they're used and justifying banning them as a result. I can make things up and give the consequences as well! In case of Sikhs, they are punished only if they use it. Why not apply the same principle to rest of the people too? Let everyone carry knives and punish them only if they use it. Because more stabbings in general happen than Sikhs using a Kirpan to stab someone. One incident isn't a religious person doing it, it's an individual who happens to be part of a religion. There's a difference and as someone said above, if it was a weekly occurrence, then there's a conversation to be had. Also, if you care so much about this, where was this energy for the rest of your life where carrying a Kirpan wasn't an issue?" So the law is justified based on the idea that Sikhs are less inclined to stab people than the others? One could argue that people working above director levels in companies don't go around stabbing people. Maybe we should allow them to carry knives too? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you say you dadbod76… I’ve been stabbed! No you ain’t mate! I can’t breathe! Henry said he’d been stabbed a number of times and said he couldn’t breathe! Why was he ignored and left to die? Irrelevant to my point." Not really when you consider what actually happened. It’s very relevant. These officers come across as DEI hires captured by critical race theory, which is why they assumed they were dealing with a racist rather than a victim of a very serious assault. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Exactly, something anyone carrying a knife would be punished for if they used it. My point is that Sikhs have carried Kirpans for centuries and you never batted an eyelid. Now a Sikh commits a crime with a knife (not the Kirpan), you want it banned? You're making up your own narrative of how they're used and justifying banning them as a result. I can make things up and give the consequences as well! In case of Sikhs, they are punished only if they use it. Why not apply the same principle to rest of the people too? Let everyone carry knives and punish them only if they use it. Because more stabbings in general happen than Sikhs using a Kirpan to stab someone. One incident isn't a religious person doing it, it's an individual who happens to be part of a religion. There's a difference and as someone said above, if it was a weekly occurrence, then there's a conversation to be had. Also, if you care so much about this, where was this energy for the rest of your life where carrying a Kirpan wasn't an issue? So the law is justified based on the idea that Sikhs are less inclined to stab people than the others? One could argue that people working above director levels in companies don't go around stabbing people. Maybe we should allow them to carry knives too?" Is it part of a director's culture and beliefs to carry a knife around for non-violent purposes and a show of faith? No? Then it's a pointless analogy | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you say you dadbod76… I’ve been stabbed! No you ain’t mate! I can’t breathe! Henry said he’d been stabbed a number of times and said he couldn’t breathe! Why was he ignored and left to die? Irrelevant to my point. Not really when you consider what actually happened. It’s very relevant. These officers come across as DEI hires captured by critical race theory, which is why they assumed they were dealing with a racist rather than a victim of a very serious assault." Maybe they assumed they were dealing with a racist because it was a racist report that had occurred. By no means do I think they handled it well, someone died and better care should've been taken but of course they assumed they were dealing with a racist because that's what was reported. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you say you dadbod76… I’ve been stabbed! No you ain’t mate! I can’t breathe! Henry said he’d been stabbed a number of times and said he couldn’t breathe! Why was he ignored and left to die? Irrelevant to my point. Not really when you consider what actually happened. It’s very relevant. These officers come across as DEI hires captured by critical race theory, which is why they assumed they were dealing with a racist rather than a victim of a very serious assault." So DEI hire is equivalent to incompetence? You don't know much about HR Strategy, do you? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Exactly, something anyone carrying a knife would be punished for if they used it. My point is that Sikhs have carried Kirpans for centuries and you never batted an eyelid. Now a Sikh commits a crime with a knife (not the Kirpan), you want it banned? You're making up your own narrative of how they're used and justifying banning them as a result. I can make things up and give the consequences as well! In case of Sikhs, they are punished only if they use it. Why not apply the same principle to rest of the people too? Let everyone carry knives and punish them only if they use it. Because more stabbings in general happen than Sikhs using a Kirpan to stab someone. One incident isn't a religious person doing it, it's an individual who happens to be part of a religion. There's a difference and as someone said above, if it was a weekly occurrence, then there's a conversation to be had. Also, if you care so much about this, where was this energy for the rest of your life where carrying a Kirpan wasn't an issue? So the law is justified based on the idea that Sikhs are less inclined to stab people than the others? One could argue that people working above director levels in companies don't go around stabbing people. Maybe we should allow them to carry knives too? Is it part of a director's culture and beliefs to carry a knife around for non-violent purposes and a show of faith? No? Then it's a pointless analogy" Ok, so the requirement is that someone must have a religious belief to justify it. That's cool. Scientology is a relatively modern religion. They could update their belief system however the fuck they want to. If scientologists say that it's now part of their religious beliefs to carry knives, will you allow it? Scientologists have a lot of problems, but knife crime isn't one of them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you say you dadbod76… I’ve been stabbed! No you ain’t mate! I can’t breathe! Henry said he’d been stabbed a number of times and said he couldn’t breathe! Why was he ignored and left to die? Irrelevant to my point. Not really when you consider what actually happened. It’s very relevant. These officers come across as DEI hires captured by critical race theory, which is why they assumed they were dealing with a racist rather than a victim of a very serious assault." Youre asking people to consider what actually happened and then creating a story in your head. They responded in that way because that's the scene they arrived at. Now the way they responded was callous, and I imagine procedure should be to check on the health of everyone at the scene which they didn't do. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is it part of a director's culture and beliefs to carry a knife around for non-violent purposes and a show of faith? No? Then it's a pointless analogy Ok, so the requirement is that someone must have a religious belief to justify it. That's cool. Scientology is a relatively modern religion. They could update their belief system however the fuck they want to. If scientologists say that it's now part of their religious beliefs to carry knives, will you allow it? Scientologists have a lot of problems, but knife crime isn't one of them." Do you ever approach an argument with reality in mind or is it only ifs and hypotheticals? If so, can you please let me know so I can just ignore any point you make? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is it part of a director's culture and beliefs to carry a knife around for non-violent purposes and a show of faith? No? Then it's a pointless analogy Ok, so the requirement is that someone must have a religious belief to justify it. That's cool. Scientology is a relatively modern religion. They could update their belief system however the fuck they want to. If scientologists say that it's now part of their religious beliefs to carry knives, will you allow it? Scientologists have a lot of problems, but knife crime isn't one of them. Do you ever approach an argument with reality in mind or is it only ifs and hypotheticals? If so, can you please let me know so I can just ignore any point you make?" Many laws are written based on how hypothetically someone could cause trouble. Empiricism is not the only thing that drives laws. Many laws are preemptive. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is it part of a director's culture and beliefs to carry a knife around for non-violent purposes and a show of faith? No? Then it's a pointless analogy Ok, so the requirement is that someone must have a religious belief to justify it. That's cool. Scientology is a relatively modern religion. They could update their belief system however the fuck they want to. If scientologists say that it's now part of their religious beliefs to carry knives, will you allow it? Scientologists have a lot of problems, but knife crime isn't one of them. Do you ever approach an argument with reality in mind or is it only ifs and hypotheticals? If so, can you please let me know so I can just ignore any point you make? Many laws are written based on how hypothetically someone could cause trouble. Empiricism is not the only thing that drives laws. Many laws are preemptive." Based on realistic scenarios which you have yet to give. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" So the law is justified based on the idea that Sikhs are less inclined to stab people than the others? One could argue that people working above director levels in companies don't go around stabbing people. Maybe we should allow them to carry knives too?" Or chefs. Or tradespeople. Or woodworkers. Or hobby fishermen. It's the same law for everyone. You need a reason. Easier than claiming to be a Sikh is to claim to be an angling enthusiast. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" That's cool. Scientology is a relatively modern religion. They could update their belief system however the fuck they want to. If scientologists say that it's now part of their religious beliefs to carry knives, will you allow it? Scientologists have a lot of problems, but knife crime isn't one of them." Scientology should be banned as a noxious and abusive cult... But to your argument, there are some common-sense checks and balances for absurd abuses of religious freedom, and limits on what can be done within a religion (e.g. FGM). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Is it part of a director's culture and beliefs to carry a knife around for non-violent purposes and a show of faith? No? Then it's a pointless analogy Ok, so the requirement is that someone must have a religious belief to justify it. That's cool. Scientology is a relatively modern religion. They could update their belief system however the fuck they want to. If scientologists say that it's now part of their religious beliefs to carry knives, will you allow it? Scientologists have a lot of problems, but knife crime isn't one of them. Do you ever approach an argument with reality in mind or is it only ifs and hypotheticals? If so, can you please let me know so I can just ignore any point you make? Many laws are written based on how hypothetically someone could cause trouble. Empiricism is not the only thing that drives laws. Many laws are preemptive. Based on realistic scenarios which you have yet to give." What I said is indeed a realistic scenario. If a religious exemption is publicised, it's only a matter of time before people misuse it and try to use it in the court of law. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" That's cool. Scientology is a relatively modern religion. They could update their belief system however the fuck they want to. If scientologists say that it's now part of their religious beliefs to carry knives, will you allow it? Scientologists have a lot of problems, but knife crime isn't one of them. Scientology should be banned as a noxious and abusive cult... But to your argument, there are some common-sense checks and balances for absurd abuses of religious freedom, and limits on what can be done within a religion (e.g. FGM)." I mean Tom Cruise is a scientologist. Is he an abuser? I haven't heard anything like that. My point is not against the Sikhs. Most of them are law abiding. But laws allowing religious exemptions like these cannot sustain well in the long term. There will be abuses of the law which will make the wider populace question these exemptions. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" 3. I'm confused on a law which is maybe outdated now. A person can legally carry a knife for religious purposes, but that was in an era when kids could carry a pen knife for scouts. However, modern times possession of a bladed article has you in cuffs but not if it is for religious purposes. Surely a religion or ceremonial reason doesnt mean the person isn't capable of violence. " From what I know, most of the practicing Sikhs today don't even carry a real knife. Instead they carry something symbolic, like a miniature of the knife. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Based on realistic scenarios which you have yet to give. What I said is indeed a realistic scenario. If a religious exemption is publicised, it's only a matter of time before people misuse it and try to use it in the court of law." It's been publicised that Sikhs can carry a Kirpan. It's not anything new in the stream of public consciousness. You just can't see the differences between a knife carried around for crime and a knife carried around for religious purposes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I mean Tom Cruise is a scientologist. Is he an abuser? I haven't heard anything like that. " Look at the lengths Katie Holmes went to (and the secrecy/NDAs)... It's more the organisation than the individuals, really. But if you go digging, it's pretty chilling how much control they exert. Up there with the nasty cults. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Based on realistic scenarios which you have yet to give. What I said is indeed a realistic scenario. If a religious exemption is publicised, it's only a matter of time before people misuse it and try to use it in the court of law. It's been publicised that Sikhs can carry a Kirpan. It's not anything new in the stream of public consciousness. You just can't see the differences between a knife carried around for crime and a knife carried around for religious purposes." I guarantee that most of the population did not know that Sikhs have this exemption and | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" That's cool. Scientology is a relatively modern religion. They could update their belief system however the fuck they want to. If scientologists say that it's now part of their religious beliefs to carry knives, will you allow it? Scientologists have a lot of problems, but knife crime isn't one of them. Scientology should be banned as a noxious and abusive cult... But to your argument, there are some common-sense checks and balances for absurd abuses of religious freedom, and limits on what can be done within a religion (e.g. FGM). I mean Tom Cruise is a scientologist. Is he an abuser? I haven't heard anything like that. My point is not against the Sikhs. Most of them are law abiding. But laws allowing religious exemptions like these cannot sustain well in the long term. There will be abuses of the law which will make the wider populace question these exemptions." Not Tom Cruise, that I know of, most of the worst allegations were in the 1960s and 70's. By the late 1960s, the British government, concerned by reports of abuse, the "brainwashing" of vulnerable members, and the organization's aggressive legal tactics against critics, began to restrict the ability of foreign Scientologists to enter the country for training at Saint Hill (near East Grinstead, West Sussex). This environment of near constant litigation and government pushback was one of the primary drivers behind L. Ron Hubbard's decision to shift operations to international waters. He sought to create an environment where the organization could operate beyond the reach of local law enforcement and regulatory oversight. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Based on realistic scenarios which you have yet to give. What I said is indeed a realistic scenario. If a religious exemption is publicised, it's only a matter of time before people misuse it and try to use it in the court of law. It's been publicised that Sikhs can carry a Kirpan. It's not anything new in the stream of public consciousness. You just can't see the differences between a knife carried around for crime and a knife carried around for religious purposes. I guarantee that most of the population did not know that Sikhs have this exemption and " So this strong position you hold is essentially... A week old | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Based on realistic scenarios which you have yet to give. What I said is indeed a realistic scenario. If a religious exemption is publicised, it's only a matter of time before people misuse it and try to use it in the court of law. It's been publicised that Sikhs can carry a Kirpan. It's not anything new in the stream of public consciousness. You just can't see the differences between a knife carried around for crime and a knife carried around for religious purposes. I guarantee that most of the population did not know that Sikhs have this exemption and So this strong position you hold is essentially... A week old" So? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" That's cool. Scientology is a relatively modern religion. They could update their belief system however the fuck they want to. If scientologists say that it's now part of their religious beliefs to carry knives, will you allow it? Scientologists have a lot of problems, but knife crime isn't one of them. Scientology should be banned as a noxious and abusive cult... But to your argument, there are some common-sense checks and balances for absurd abuses of religious freedom, and limits on what can be done within a religion (e.g. FGM). I mean Tom Cruise is a scientologist. Is he an abuser? I haven't heard anything like that. My point is not against the Sikhs. Most of them are law abiding. But laws allowing religious exemptions like these cannot sustain well in the long term. There will be abuses of the law which will make the wider populace question these exemptions. Not Tom Cruise, that I know of, most of the worst allegations were in the 1960s and 70's. By the late 1960s, the British government, concerned by reports of abuse, the "brainwashing" of vulnerable members, and the organization's aggressive legal tactics against critics, began to restrict the ability of foreign Scientologists to enter the country for training at Saint Hill (near East Grinstead, West Sussex). This environment of near constant litigation and government pushback was one of the primary drivers behind L. Ron Hubbard's decision to shift operations to international waters. He sought to create an environment where the organization could operate beyond the reach of local law enforcement and regulatory oversight. " I can find cults like these in every religion | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Based on realistic scenarios which you have yet to give. What I said is indeed a realistic scenario. If a religious exemption is publicised, it's only a matter of time before people misuse it and try to use it in the court of law. It's been publicised that Sikhs can carry a Kirpan. It's not anything new in the stream of public consciousness. You just can't see the differences between a knife carried around for crime and a knife carried around for religious purposes. I guarantee that most of the population did not know that Sikhs have this exemption and So this strong position you hold is essentially... A week old So?" I just think it loses legitimacy when paired against however long people have loved their lives without this being an issue. But you do you, boo | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Based on realistic scenarios which you have yet to give. What I said is indeed a realistic scenario. If a religious exemption is publicised, it's only a matter of time before people misuse it and try to use it in the court of law. It's been publicised that Sikhs can carry a Kirpan. It's not anything new in the stream of public consciousness. You just can't see the differences between a knife carried around for crime and a knife carried around for religious purposes. I guarantee that most of the population did not know that Sikhs have this exemption and So this strong position you hold is essentially... A week old So? I just think it loses legitimacy when paired against however long people have loved their lives without this being an issue. But you do you, boo" I don't think you understand what I am saying. There are primarily two issues here: 1) The lack of fairness in one group of people having privilege over the rest on account of religion. 2) The can of worms this will open in the future in court cases about someone carrying a knife. None of the your arguments refute that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"NotMe66… You’re being deliberately obtuse. Maybe the PM could try thinking of the Nowak family and say what he’d say to them directly? Some sort of acknowledgement of what happened? Henry died in handcuffs with police officers denying he needed help or even trying to save his life. ‘He would’ve died anyway’ is all the ‘Temporary’ Deputy Chief Constable could essentially say. They couldn’t even find anyone more senior than the Temporary Deputy Chief Constable! " To say he would have died anyway was what I found unelectable. He overusly was not bleding out as an officer should have seen that, and a shortness of breath would indicate a punched lung. Cam footage will be Key Did Henry resist arrest or was he compliant. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"NotMe66… You’re being deliberately obtuse. Maybe the PM could try thinking of the Nowak family and say what he’d say to them directly? Some sort of acknowledgement of what happened? Henry died in handcuffs with police officers denying he needed help or even trying to save his life. ‘He would’ve died anyway’ is all the ‘Temporary’ Deputy Chief Constable could essentially say. They couldn’t even find anyone more senior than the Temporary Deputy Chief Constable! To say he would have died anyway was what I found unelectable. He overusly was not bleding out as an officer should have seen that, and a shortness of breath would indicate a punched lung. Cam footage will be Key Did Henry resist arrest or was he compliant. " Cam footage has been released and he’s begging for help telling the officers that he’s been stabbed. “ I don’t think you have” was the officers words as he handcuffed him. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think you understand what I am saying. There are primarily two issues here: 1) The lack of fairness in one group of people having privilege over the rest on account of religion. 2) The can of worms this will open in the future in court cases about someone carrying a knife. None of the your arguments refute that." 1. Didn't someone address this above in terms of careers where knives are required, I don't think you answered them for some reason. 2. What can of worms will it open? The guy murdered someone else, falsely claimed religious self defence punished as a result. You don't think the courts will treat this as an example to others? You're the one coming up with daft hypotheticals as a way to support an non-existant point. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"NotMe66… You’re being deliberately obtuse. Maybe the PM could try thinking of the Nowak family and say what he’d say to them directly? Some sort of acknowledgement of what happened? Henry died in handcuffs with police officers denying he needed help or even trying to save his life. ‘He would’ve died anyway’ is all the ‘Temporary’ Deputy Chief Constable could essentially say. They couldn’t even find anyone more senior than the Temporary Deputy Chief Constable! To say he would have died anyway was what I found unelectable. He overusly was not bleding out as an officer should have seen that, and a shortness of breath would indicate a punched lung. Cam footage will be Key Did Henry resist arrest or was he compliant. Cam footage has been released and he’s begging for help telling the officers that he’s been stabbed. “ I don’t think you have” was the officers words as he handcuffed him. " I have not seen the footage but if he was compliant this must put more blame on the officers in question as, he was not going to run and they could have requested parameters. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"NotMe66… You’re being deliberately obtuse. Maybe the PM could try thinking of the Nowak family and say what he’d say to them directly? Some sort of acknowledgement of what happened? Henry died in handcuffs with police officers denying he needed help or even trying to save his life. ‘He would’ve died anyway’ is all the ‘Temporary’ Deputy Chief Constable could essentially say. They couldn’t even find anyone more senior than the Temporary Deputy Chief Constable! To say he would have died anyway was what I found unelectable. He overusly was not bleding out as an officer should have seen that, and a shortness of breath would indicate a punched lung. Cam footage will be Key Did Henry resist arrest or was he compliant. Cam footage has been released and he’s begging for help telling the officers that he’s been stabbed. “ I don’t think you have” was the officers words as he handcuffed him. I have not seen the footage but if he was compliant this must put more blame on the officers in question as, he was not going to run and they could have requested parameters. " It should have been the first thing that happened. It’s heartbreaking to see. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think you understand what I am saying. There are primarily two issues here: 1) The lack of fairness in one group of people having privilege over the rest on account of religion. 2) The can of worms this will open in the future in court cases about someone carrying a knife. None of the your arguments refute that. 1. Didn't someone address this above in terms of careers where knives are required, I don't think you answered them for some reason. 2. What can of worms will it open? The guy murdered someone else, falsely claimed religious self defence punished as a result. You don't think the courts will treat this as an example to others? You're the one coming up with daft hypotheticals as a way to support an non-existant point." I find it strange that knives are are all ways the problem, a screwdriver could do as much damage if you wanted it to. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think you understand what I am saying. There are primarily two issues here: 1) The lack of fairness in one group of people having privilege over the rest on account of religion. 2) The can of worms this will open in the future in court cases about someone carrying a knife. None of the your arguments refute that. 1. Didn't someone address this above in terms of careers where knives are required, I don't think you answered them for some reason. 2. What can of worms will it open? The guy murdered someone else, falsely claimed religious self defence punished as a result. You don't think the courts will treat this as an example to others? You're the one coming up with daft hypotheticals as a way to support an non-existant point." 1) Career based exemptions are fine. Just like police are allowed to carry guns. There is already a lot of backlash against the idea of giving privilege to some people on religious basis. Pretty sure right wing parties will latch on it and promise to get rid of that exemption if they already haven't. 2) But lot of others get arrested for just carrying a knife. Now they know that they have a loophole that can be potentially exploited. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think you understand what I am saying. There are primarily two issues here: 1) The lack of fairness in one group of people having privilege over the rest on account of religion. 2) The can of worms this will open in the future in court cases about someone carrying a knife. None of the your arguments refute that. 1. Didn't someone address this above in terms of careers where knives are required, I don't think you answered them for some reason. 2. What can of worms will it open? The guy murdered someone else, falsely claimed religious self defence punished as a result. You don't think the courts will treat this as an example to others? You're the one coming up with daft hypotheticals as a way to support an non-existant point. I find it strange that knives are are all ways the problem, a screwdriver could do as much damage if you wanted it to. " I *think* the laws which apply for knives apply for screwdrivers too. If you are caught with one without a valid reason, I believe they can still prosecute you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think you understand what I am saying. There are primarily two issues here: 1) The lack of fairness in one group of people having privilege over the rest on account of religion. 2) The can of worms this will open in the future in court cases about someone carrying a knife. None of the your arguments refute that. 1. Didn't someone address this above in terms of careers where knives are required, I don't think you answered them for some reason. 2. What can of worms will it open? The guy murdered someone else, falsely claimed religious self defence punished as a result. You don't think the courts will treat this as an example to others? You're the one coming up with daft hypotheticals as a way to support an non-existant point. I find it strange that knives are are all ways the problem, a screwdriver could do as much damage if you wanted it to. I *think* the laws which apply for knives apply for screwdrivers too. If you are caught with one without a valid reason, I believe they can still prosecute you." Good, if your carrieing anything with intent. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think you understand what I am saying. There are primarily two issues here: 1) The lack of fairness in one group of people having privilege over the rest on account of religion. 2) The can of worms this will open in the future in court cases about someone carrying a knife. None of the your arguments refute that. 1. Didn't someone address this above in terms of careers where knives are required, I don't think you answered them for some reason. 2. What can of worms will it open? The guy murdered someone else, falsely claimed religious self defence punished as a result. You don't think the courts will treat this as an example to others? You're the one coming up with daft hypotheticals as a way to support an non-existant point. 1) Career based exemptions are fine. Just like police are allowed to carry guns. There is already a lot of backlash against the idea of giving privilege to some people on religious basis. Pretty sure right wing parties will latch on it and promise to get rid of that exemption if they already haven't. 2) But lot of others get arrested for just carrying a knife. Now they know that they have a loophole that can be potentially exploited." 1. Oh so some exemptions are fine then, because there are no one on those trades that could possibly stab anyone. 2. You keep mentioning a loophole, what loophole? The used a knife that wasn't even a Kirpan and was arrested and sentenced. What loophole are you on about? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't think you understand what I am saying. There are primarily two issues here: 1) The lack of fairness in one group of people having privilege over the rest on account of religion. 2) The can of worms this will open in the future in court cases about someone carrying a knife. None of the your arguments refute that. 1. Didn't someone address this above in terms of careers where knives are required, I don't think you answered them for some reason. 2. What can of worms will it open? The guy murdered someone else, falsely claimed religious self defence punished as a result. You don't think the courts will treat this as an example to others? You're the one coming up with daft hypotheticals as a way to support an non-existant point. 1) Career based exemptions are fine. Just like police are allowed to carry guns. There is already a lot of backlash against the idea of giving privilege to some people on religious basis. Pretty sure right wing parties will latch on it and promise to get rid of that exemption if they already haven't. 2) But lot of others get arrested for just carrying a knife. Now they know that they have a loophole that can be potentially exploited. 1. Oh so some exemptions are fine then, because there are no one on those trades that could possibly stab anyone. 2. You keep mentioning a loophole, what loophole? The used a knife that wasn't even a Kirpan and was arrested and sentenced. What loophole are you on about?" 1) Are you saying that it's ok to treat people differently depending on their religion? It has always been ok to treat people differently on the basis of profession. You would let a doctor cut you up not the others. We let police carry guns, not the others. 2) I have explained the loophole that could be exploited so many times. Our asylum system, for example, allows people to claim asylum if they are gay and they come from a county where gays are prosecuted. And recently, we found that many of them pretend to be gays to claim asylum. Now that the religion based exemption for carrying knives is publicised, what makes you think that criminals wouldn't exploit this loophole if they get caught carrying knife? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"1) Are you saying that it's ok to treat people differently depending on their religion? It has always been ok to treat people differently on the basis of profession. You would let a doctor cut you up not the others. We let police carry guns, not the others. 2) I have explained the loophole that could be exploited so many times. Our asylum system, for example, allows people to claim asylum if they are gay and they come from a county where gays are prosecuted. And recently, we found that many of them pretend to be gays to claim asylum. Now that the religion based exemption for carrying knives is publicised, what makes you think that criminals wouldn't exploit this loophole if they get caught carrying knife?" 1. Yes! Muslims have the burqa which covers their face and is allowed. Christians aren't forced to have abortions even in medical emergencies. There are loads of ways religions are treated differently but you're zoning in on this one topic even though you literally can't give me a previous example of this issue. 2. It kind of ties into point 1. Muslims can cover their faces but others can't and yet they don't claim religious freedom when committing a crime where their face cannot be seen. Religion, whether you like or not is protect characteristic and taking away the religious freedom of one group is setting precedent that it's ok to do it to other groups. I like how you also avoided my point of the Kirpan not even being fucking used in the incident because why would you? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" 1. Yes! Muslims have the burqa which covers their face and is allowed. Christians aren't forced to have abortions even in medical emergencies. There are loads of ways religions are treated differently but you're zoning in on this one topic even though you literally can't give me a previous example of this issue. " There is no law banning face coverings in the country. If there is one that bans face coverings but allows Burqa, let me know. There is no legal exemption for Christianity in abortion laws either. You are just making things up at this point. " 2. It kind of ties into point 1. Muslims can cover their faces but others can't and yet they don't claim religious freedom when committing a crime where their face cannot be seen. " Based on wrong premises, as I mentioned above. " Religion, whether you like or not is protect characteristic and taking away the religious freedom of one group is setting precedent that it's ok to do it to other groups. I like how you also avoided my point of the Kirpan not even being fucking used in the incident because why would you?" Religion is a protected characteristic and hence people shouldn't be discriminated on that basis. You, on the other hand are asking for discrimination based on religion, which is basically the opposite of what a protected characteristic is intended to be used for. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There is no law banning face coverings in the country. If there is one that bans face coverings but allows Burqa, let me know. There is no legal exemption for Christianity in abortion laws either. You are just making things up at this point. Religion is a protected characteristic and hence people shouldn't be discriminated on that basis. You, on the other hand are asking for discrimination based on religion, which is basically the opposite of what a protected characteristic is intended to be used for." What did I say that was wrong in my post? Granted, what I mentioned may not be illegal otherwise but I stated the religious choices that occur. You should know all about making things up based on your hypotheticals of things that haven't happened and yet you still hold such a strong opinion on this. Something you have no context of in society, that you've only thought about for a week without understanding the societal effect of what you want to bring into place. Sikhs have proven themselves to be non-violent and you want to risk alienating them for someone who used a weapon that had nothing to do with the religion. It's short-sighted and typical of people like you to latch onto something you don't like to hell with the people effected. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Kicking off now in Southampton." Some just looking for a fight probably, but yelling ‘on your knees’ at the police was rather delicious to watch. They took the knee for George Floyd after all. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" What did I say that was wrong in my post? Granted, what I mentioned may not be illegal otherwise but I stated the religious choices that occur. " We all know that religious choices occur. But my point was that laws shouldn't discriminate based on religion. So pretty much everything you typed in that last message was wrong because none of them are laws which give special privilege to some groups on religious basis. " You should know all about making things up based on your hypotheticals of things that haven't happened and yet you still hold such a strong opinion on this. Something you have no context of in society, that you've only thought about for a week without understanding the societal effect of what you want to bring into place. " The law being discriminatory here isn't hypothetical. " Sikhs have proven themselves to be non-violent and you want to risk alienating them for someone who used a weapon that had nothing to do with the religion. It's short-sighted and typical of people like you to latch onto something you don't like to hell with the people effected." I never said Sikhs are violent people. But laws giving special privilege to one group of people based on religion is unfair. And people who aren't Sikhs can easily take advantage of it. End of the day, the law of the land takes precedence over religious beliefs. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" End of the day, the law of the land takes precedence over religious beliefs. " Sikhs don’t have to wear motorcycle crash helmets. Everyone else does. Pitbulls are banned but you can have a blade in your turban | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Kicking off now in Southampton. Some just looking for a fight probably, but yelling ‘on your knees’ at the police was rather delicious to watch. They took the knee for George Floyd after all." some are looking for a fight but the police don't help themselves people trying to talk to them then they ignore them and use there body shields to hit them.you never see them with shields every Saturday when the Palestine lot causing trouble or masked up.no doubt the next few days there will be a few early knock on the door and arrests made.some deserved some not | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" What did I say that was wrong in my post? Granted, what I mentioned may not be illegal otherwise but I stated the religious choices that occur. We all know that religious choices occur. But my point was that laws shouldn't discriminate based on religion. So pretty much everything you typed in that last message was wrong because none of them are laws which give special privilege to some groups on religious basis. You should know all about making things up based on your hypotheticals of things that haven't happened and yet you still hold such a strong opinion on this. Something you have no context of in society, that you've only thought about for a week without understanding the societal effect of what you want to bring into place. The law being discriminatory here isn't hypothetical. Sikhs have proven themselves to be non-violent and you want to risk alienating them for someone who used a weapon that had nothing to do with the religion. It's short-sighted and typical of people like you to latch onto something you don't like to hell with the people effected. I never said Sikhs are violent people. But laws giving special privilege to one group of people based on religion is unfair. And people who aren't Sikhs can easily take advantage of it. End of the day, the law of the land takes precedence over religious beliefs. " Exactly, law of the land takes precedence and as it stands, Sikhs are allowed to carry them around and no amount of moaning you do says otherwise | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" What did I say that was wrong in my post? Granted, what I mentioned may not be illegal otherwise but I stated the religious choices that occur. We all know that religious choices occur. But my point was that laws shouldn't discriminate based on religion. So pretty much everything you typed in that last message was wrong because none of them are laws which give special privilege to some groups on religious basis. You should know all about making things up based on your hypotheticals of things that haven't happened and yet you still hold such a strong opinion on this. Something you have no context of in society, that you've only thought about for a week without understanding the societal effect of what you want to bring into place. The law being discriminatory here isn't hypothetical. Sikhs have proven themselves to be non-violent and you want to risk alienating them for someone who used a weapon that had nothing to do with the religion. It's short-sighted and typical of people like you to latch onto something you don't like to hell with the people effected. I never said Sikhs are violent people. But laws giving special privilege to one group of people based on religion is unfair. And people who aren't Sikhs can easily take advantage of it. End of the day, the law of the land takes precedence over religious beliefs. Exactly, law of the land takes precedence and as it stands, Sikhs are allowed to carry them around and no amount of moaning you do says otherwise" So if any party changes the law that removes the religious exemption, you wouldn't moan about it, right? Because some parties have already said they will do so when they come to power. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We all know that religious choices occur. But my point was that laws shouldn't discriminate based on religion. So pretty much everything you typed in that last message was wrong because none of them are laws which give special privilege to some groups on religious basis." Nothing I said in my post was wrong, I was listing out religious freedoms rather than actual laws. If you interpreted that way, it's on you. "The law being discriminatory here isn't hypothetical. " It's not discriminatory, it's exemptions as there are for many laws. You're getting confused by your ignorance. "I never said Sikhs are violent people. But laws giving special privilege to one group of people based on religion is unfair. And people who aren't Sikhs can easily take advantage of it. End of the day, the law of the land takes precedence over religious beliefs." You have no basis for saying that others will take advantage. It's fiction, make-believe all based on your own perception of society. If you want to deal in facts, then the Kirpan is a non-violent item and hasn't been used as such. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" What did I say that was wrong in my post? Granted, what I mentioned may not be illegal otherwise but I stated the religious choices that occur. We all know that religious choices occur. But my point was that laws shouldn't discriminate based on religion. So pretty much everything you typed in that last message was wrong because none of them are laws which give special privilege to some groups on religious basis. You should know all about making things up based on your hypotheticals of things that haven't happened and yet you still hold such a strong opinion on this. Something you have no context of in society, that you've only thought about for a week without understanding the societal effect of what you want to bring into place. The law being discriminatory here isn't hypothetical. Sikhs have proven themselves to be non-violent and you want to risk alienating them for someone who used a weapon that had nothing to do with the religion. It's short-sighted and typical of people like you to latch onto something you don't like to hell with the people effected. I never said Sikhs are violent people. But laws giving special privilege to one group of people based on religion is unfair. And people who aren't Sikhs can easily take advantage of it. End of the day, the law of the land takes precedence over religious beliefs. Exactly, law of the land takes precedence and as it stands, Sikhs are allowed to carry them around and no amount of moaning you do says otherwise So if any party changes the law that removes the religious exemption, you wouldn't moan about it, right? Because some parties have already said they will do so when they come to power." I would think it was the wrong move, but I wouldn't complain about it because it's the law. But parties are definitely always truthful about what they do when brought into power 🙄 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Nothing I said in my post was wrong, I was listing out religious freedoms rather than actual laws. If you interpreted that way, it's on you. " In that case, it doesn't refute the arguments I made because I am questioning the laws which are discriminatory. " It's not discriminatory, it's exemptions as there are for many laws. You're getting confused by your ignorance. " Which laws? You just admitted that the examples you gave aren't laws. " You have no basis for saying that others will take advantage. It's fiction, make-believe all based on your own perception of society. If you want to deal in facts, then the Kirpan is a non-violent item and hasn't been used as such." If there are loopholes in law, people will take advantage. Kirpan was just used to kill someone. So much for a "non-violent" item. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I would think it was the wrong move, but I wouldn't complain about it because it's the law. But parties are definitely always truthful about what they do when brought into power 🙄" You saying it's a wrong move is same as complaining about it. If that's not the case, then I am also only saying that the laws are wrong, but I am not really complaining about it  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In that case, it doesn't refute the arguments I made because I am questioning the laws which are discriminatory. Which laws? You just admitted that the examples you gave aren't laws. If there are loopholes in law, people will take advantage. Kirpan was just used to kill someone. So much for a "non-violent" item." Show me where I refuted them when you pointed it out. And like I said, they're not discriminatory, that what you made up in your own mind and what you chose to label them. And you're wrong about it being used in a crime. Considering you clearly don't even know what one is, I don't think you're in a position to say it should be banned. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I would think it was the wrong move, but I wouldn't complain about it because it's the law. But parties are definitely always truthful about what they do when brought into power 🙄 You saying it's a wrong move is same as complaining about it. If that's not the case, then I am also only saying that the laws are wrong, but I am not really complaining about it "Except it isn't, you can think something is wrong without complaining about it. It just involves keeping your mouth shut and if you're not complaining about it, what have you been doing all day when spouting your agenda against something you know nothing about. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I would think it was the wrong move, but I wouldn't complain about it because it's the law. But parties are definitely always truthful about what they do when brought into power 🙄 You saying it's a wrong move is same as complaining about it. If that's not the case, then I am also only saying that the laws are wrong, but I am not really complaining about it
Except it isn't, you can think something is wrong without complaining about it. It just involves keeping your mouth shut and if you're not complaining about it, what have you been doing all day when spouting your agenda against something you know nothing about."If you wouldn't complain if such a law is passed, you wouldn't be spending so much time on a forum complaining about people complaining about it  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In that case, it doesn't refute the arguments I made because I am questioning the laws which are discriminatory. Which laws? You just admitted that the examples you gave aren't laws. If there are loopholes in law, people will take advantage. Kirpan was just used to kill someone. So much for a "non-violent" item. Show me where I refuted them when you pointed it out. And like I said, they're not discriminatory, that what you made up in your own mind and what you chose to label them. " A law that applies to different people differently based on religion is discriminatory by definition. " And you're wrong about it being used in a crime. Considering you clearly don't even know what one is, I don't think you're in a position to say it should be banned." Pretty much everyone is in a position to say if they want something to be banned. We live in a democracy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I would think it was the wrong move, but I wouldn't complain about it because it's the law. But parties are definitely always truthful about what they do when brought into power 🙄 You saying it's a wrong move is same as complaining about it. If that's not the case, then I am also only saying that the laws are wrong, but I am not really complaining about it
Except it isn't, you can think something is wrong without complaining about it. It just involves keeping your mouth shut and if you're not complaining about it, what have you been doing all day when spouting your agenda against something you know nothing about.
If you wouldn't complain if such a law is passed, you wouldn't be spending so much time on a forum complaining about people complaining about it " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In that case, it doesn't refute the arguments I made because I am questioning the laws which are discriminatory. Which laws? You just admitted that the examples you gave aren't laws. If there are loopholes in law, people will take advantage. Kirpan was just used to kill someone. So much for a "non-violent" item. Show me where I refuted them when you pointed it out. And like I said, they're not discriminatory, that what you made up in your own mind and what you chose to label them. A law that applies to different people differently based on religion is discriminatory by definition. And you're wrong about it being used in a crime. Considering you clearly don't even know what one is, I don't think you're in a position to say it should be banned. Pretty much everyone is in a position to say if they want something to be banned. We live in a democracy." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In that case, it doesn't refute the arguments I made because I am questioning the laws which are discriminatory. Which laws? You just admitted that the examples you gave aren't laws. If there are loopholes in law, people will take advantage. Kirpan was just used to kill someone. So much for a "non-violent" item. Show me where I refuted them when you pointed it out. And like I said, they're not discriminatory, that what you made up in your own mind and what you chose to label them. A law that applies to different people differently based on religion is discriminatory by definition. And you're wrong about it being used in a crime. Considering you clearly don't even know what one is, I don't think you're in a position to say it should be banned. Pretty much everyone is in a position to say if they want something to be banned. We live in a democracy." A democracy where you get to be uneducated about something to have a negative opinion on it. Joy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The police behaviour is disgusting. That poor child. The worst thing to me is that people can legally walk the streets with a deadly weapon in I the name of religion. This country is done. " Whilst it gives you a great opportunity to have a pop at Sikhs, using all the outrage that you can muster, have you not yet bothered reading that it was a totally different and probably grossly illicit knife that was used as the murder weapon? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The police behaviour is disgusting. That poor child. The worst thing to me is that people can legally walk the streets with a deadly weapon in I the name of religion. This country is done. Whilst it gives you a great opportunity to have a pop at Sikhs, using all the outrage that you can muster, have you not yet bothered reading that it was a totally different and probably grossly illicit knife that was used as the murder weapon?" The knife he used was within the legal allowance of a knife that Sikhs are allowed to carry. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The police behaviour is disgusting. That poor child. The worst thing to me is that people can legally walk the streets with a deadly weapon in I the name of religion. This country is done. Whilst it gives you a great opportunity to have a pop at Sikhs, using all the outrage that you can muster, have you not yet bothered reading that it was a totally different and probably grossly illicit knife that was used as the murder weapon? The knife he used was within the legal allowance of a knife that Sikhs are allowed to carry." It wasn't the Kirpan, which is the one most people appear to be confusing it with. I will be very surprised to find out that Sikhs are really exempted from laws relating to anti stabbing laws. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The police behaviour is disgusting. That poor child. The worst thing to me is that people can legally walk the streets with a deadly weapon in I the name of religion. This country is done. Whilst it gives you a great opportunity to have a pop at Sikhs, using all the outrage that you can muster, have you not yet bothered reading that it was a totally different and probably grossly illicit knife that was used as the murder weapon? The knife he used was within the legal allowance of a knife that Sikhs are allowed to carry. It wasn't the Kirpan, which is the one most people appear to be confusing it with. I will be very surprised to find out that Sikhs are really exempted from laws relating to anti stabbing laws." The law doesn't state anything specifically about kirpan. It sets limits on size of knives which can be carried for religious reasons and what he used was within that size limit. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The police behaviour is disgusting. That poor child. The worst thing to me is that people can legally walk the streets with a deadly weapon in I the name of religion. This country is done. Whilst it gives you a great opportunity to have a pop at Sikhs, using all the outrage that you can muster, have you not yet bothered reading that it was a totally different and probably grossly illicit knife that was used as the murder weapon? The knife he used was within the legal allowance of a knife that Sikhs are allowed to carry. It wasn't the Kirpan, which is the one most people appear to be confusing it with. I will be very surprised to find out that Sikhs are really exempted from laws relating to anti stabbing laws. The law doesn't state anything specifically about kirpan. It sets limits on size of knives which can be carried for religious reasons and what he used was within that size limit." Legal limit to carry, not use. But I can understand why that would confuse you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The police behaviour is disgusting. That poor child. The worst thing to me is that people can legally walk the streets with a deadly weapon in I the name of religion. This country is done. Whilst it gives you a great opportunity to have a pop at Sikhs, using all the outrage that you can muster, have you not yet bothered reading that it was a totally different and probably grossly illicit knife that was used as the murder weapon? The knife he used was within the legal allowance of a knife that Sikhs are allowed to carry. It wasn't the Kirpan, which is the one most people appear to be confusing it with. I will be very surprised to find out that Sikhs are really exempted from laws relating to anti stabbing laws. The law doesn't state anything specifically about kirpan. It sets limits on size of knives which can be carried for religious reasons and what he used was within that size limit. Legal limit to carry, not use. But I can understand why that would confuse you." We were not arguing about what can be used. We are arguing about what can be carried. But I can understand why you did not care to read fully. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The police behaviour is disgusting. That poor child. The worst thing to me is that people can legally walk the streets with a deadly weapon in I the name of religion. This country is done. Whilst it gives you a great opportunity to have a pop at Sikhs, using all the outrage that you can muster, have you not yet bothered reading that it was a totally different and probably grossly illicit knife that was used as the murder weapon? The knife he used was within the legal allowance of a knife that Sikhs are allowed to carry. It wasn't the Kirpan, which is the one most people appear to be confusing it with. I will be very surprised to find out that Sikhs are really exempted from laws relating to anti stabbing laws. The law doesn't state anything specifically about kirpan. It sets limits on size of knives which can be carried for religious reasons and what he used was within that size limit. Legal limit to carry, not use. But I can understand why that would confuse you. We were not arguing about what can be used. We are arguing about what can be carried. But I can understand why you did not care to read fully." "and what he used was within that size limit." And clearly you can't remember what you just posted  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The police behaviour is disgusting. That poor child. The worst thing to me is that people can legally walk the streets with a deadly weapon in I the name of religion. This country is done. Whilst it gives you a great opportunity to have a pop at Sikhs, using all the outrage that you can muster, have you not yet bothered reading that it was a totally different and probably grossly illicit knife that was used as the murder weapon? The knife he used was within the legal allowance of a knife that Sikhs are allowed to carry. It wasn't the Kirpan, which is the one most people appear to be confusing it with. I will be very surprised to find out that Sikhs are really exempted from laws relating to anti stabbing laws. The law doesn't state anything specifically about kirpan. It sets limits on size of knives which can be carried for religious reasons and what he used was within that size limit. Legal limit to carry, not use. But I can understand why that would confuse you. We were not arguing about what can be used. We are arguing about what can be carried. But I can understand why you did not care to read fully. "and what he used was within that size limit." And clearly you can't remember what you just posted "Literally the second paragraph of what you quoted: "The worst thing to me is that people can legally walk the streets with a deadly weapon in I the name of religion. This country is done." And the other replies were addressing that. You know it doesn't take that long to read a post before you reply  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The police behaviour is disgusting. That poor child. The worst thing to me is that people can legally walk the streets with a deadly weapon in I the name of religion. This country is done. Whilst it gives you a great opportunity to have a pop at Sikhs, using all the outrage that you can muster, have you not yet bothered reading that it was a totally different and probably grossly illicit knife that was used as the murder weapon? The knife he used was within the legal allowance of a knife that Sikhs are allowed to carry. It wasn't the Kirpan, which is the one most people appear to be confusing it with. I will be very surprised to find out that Sikhs are really exempted from laws relating to anti stabbing laws. The law doesn't state anything specifically about kirpan. It sets limits on size of knives which can be carried for religious reasons and what he used was within that size limit. Legal limit to carry, not use. But I can understand why that would confuse you. We were not arguing about what can be used. We are arguing about what can be carried. But I can understand why you did not care to read fully. "and what he used was within that size limit." And clearly you can't remember what you just posted
Literally the second paragraph of what you quoted:
"The worst thing to me is that people can legally walk the streets with a deadly weapon in I the name of religion. This country is done."
And the other replies were addressing that. You know it doesn't take that long to read a post before you reply "But you still didn't know the difference before you made your point. But I wouldn't expect you to with an opinion you didn't care to have a week ago | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The police behaviour is disgusting. That poor child. The worst thing to me is that people can legally walk the streets with a deadly weapon in I the name of religion. This country is done. Whilst it gives you a great opportunity to have a pop at Sikhs, using all the outrage that you can muster, have you not yet bothered reading that it was a totally different and probably grossly illicit knife that was used as the murder weapon? The knife he used was within the legal allowance of a knife that Sikhs are allowed to carry. It wasn't the Kirpan, which is the one most people appear to be confusing it with. I will be very surprised to find out that Sikhs are really exempted from laws relating to anti stabbing laws. The law doesn't state anything specifically about kirpan. It sets limits on size of knives which can be carried for religious reasons and what he used was within that size limit. Legal limit to carry, not use. But I can understand why that would confuse you. We were not arguing about what can be used. We are arguing about what can be carried. But I can understand why you did not care to read fully. "and what he used was within that size limit." And clearly you can't remember what you just posted Literally the second paragraph of what you quoted: "The worst thing to me is that people can legally walk the streets with a deadly weapon in I the name of religion. This country is done." And the other replies were addressing that. You know it doesn't take that long to read a post before you reply " But you still didn't know the difference before you made your point. But I wouldn't expect you to with an opinion you didn't care to have a week ago " Pretty much everyone involved in the conversation know what we were talking about, until you came in and made that completely irrelevant argument | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
