Gollywogs - is this guy for real?.

A last though in respect to US comment about Community Councils, Councillors and the like, if you worked in said departments for public bodies and been to such meetings, why did you not know that PACT and Matac meetings went on, I naturally thought that you had not known anything about such meetings in response to you exclamations.

FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, WHICH BIT OF PATRONISING DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

Do I have to list every single bleeding job I've had to satisfy your lust to justify my opinion? It does NOT matter that I've had jobs over the decades ranging from, amongst others, Word Processing Supervisor for Foster Wheeler to Complaints Investigation Officer for a Local Authority, etc. Dare I mention I was also very active within a local tenants and residents association? Hell, can't mention life experience now, can we? Oh, we can, that's allowed, is it? Best not mention I worked for Solicitors dealing with complaints against the Police/Prison Service yet on the other hand within British Transport Police's CJU - wouldn't want a balanced opinion formed now would we?

Community Councils have no REAL power. How many people on here know the names of their Community Councillors without going and looking them up on the SIC website? Many (and I'm not just referring to Shetland) are full of wanna be LA Councillors or "I'm more important than you and you are nothing" types, seemingly thinking that because they are on a CC they have the right to speak on behalf of the community without even having the decency to ASK the local community want they want. You are lucky if they can be bothered to send out more than one piece of literature a year. DON'T say "Well if you went along ..." - how the {'f' it was funny in Father Ted 'eck'} can you if you don't know when they are gonna meet?

The exception to the above was, of course, Kathy Greaves. Did the other Community Councillors listen to her? Did they vote with her on every item? Hell, she wasn't even on my CC but at least I knew who she was.

So SP, for once in your life, why on earth can't you accept that people gain experience and knowledge in different ways?

Edit: Stop making assumptions that I don't know about PACT, etc. - they too are a complete and utter waste of time - have you not realised yet that us mere peeps no longer have people power in the true sense of the word - many of us are sick to death of politicians who, quite frankly, have their own agenda and couldn't give a toss as to what we want and that the Police, etc., have already had their orders from 'up high' - do you really believe the Police take notice at local meetings? The ones in Newham were useless - same old arguments - "We only have 4 Police cars each night to cover X sq miles and blah blah blah". Police involvement in the local community, nicey nicey likkle meetings - called different things up and down the UK. Partners And Communities Together - don't make me laugh.

And in case anyone is wondering, this is probably more suitably placed in the Loud Exhausts thread where SP 'banged on' about PACT and obviously doesn't appreciate the fact I haven't responded to him within 2 hours so now he has to put it in here!

Edit again: Oh, I did respond to you SP - obviously you weren't happy with my response. Is this a case of you banging on and dictating to me until I'm in agreement with you?

...he decreed that the face should be covered when in public, or in company of males other than your husband or family members.....

 

Like I say, these guys carry a lot of weight, after all, they originate from Saudi Arabia, and are pretty much the world financiers for Islam. They have spent between $90 and $100 BILLION dollars worldwide in the last 20 odd years, propagating their brand of Islamic fundamentalism....

 

Having said that, many European countries have banned it in public (France didn't introduce a law to ban it, they enforced an existing secular law from Revolutionary times, which banned display of religious symbols - which they considered it to be). So why are we the odd ones out?

We are the odd ones out because of a law of religious freedom of expression that you approve of that doesn't add up.

So, Dratsy and Gibber, as the Sikh is allowed, in law, the religious freedom to wear this core requirement of his faith, where is the problem? If it WAS a core requirement of the Christian faith, I think you'd find that would be allowed by the same laws and rights.

 

What's the problem with that? How does it affect YOU?

Then what's the problem with extreme Muslim fundamentalists being allowed to show their extreme religious beliefs by wearing religious clothing or symbols at work. It doesn't matter how many BILLIONS of $ or how much indoctorination has been put into these influences to create a "core requirement of faith" such as covering a woman's face, it's still a man made religious requirement/tenet/order, no different to the man made religious requirement/tenet/order of Sikhs to wear a turban.

The only difference is you have a problem with Muslim fundamentalists having these rights, but no problem with a Sikh having these rights based only on personal views about specific points of order. Whereas I have a problem in the first instance with giving special dress dispensation at work (or wherever) because of religious expression and the whole faulty line of reasoning that allows both extremes (Sikhs and fundamentalist Islam) of the situation to be permitted.

Your religious tolerance stops when fundamentalist tenets conflicts with human or civil rights or your own morality, my religious tolerance stops when special dispensation is given in law to people who have decided to believe in or are weak willed enough to be indocterinated into believing in, whatever sky-fairy someone else has told them is real.

Believe whatever creation myth you want, don't expect everyone nowadays to agree with special legal, financial, institutional concessions for religions.

Religions have got away with enough already I think http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17453849

Gibber, religion helps a lot if people. By that, I mean their own personally-held beliefs. It's their right to have those, despite your evident contempt of them for it.

I don't see anything which says anyone APPROVES of this law, just tht it's there, like others, so work to change it, or get over it, is I believe the message.

I understand that, at least.

And you're twisting things a tad, in that Sikhs have holy writings going back to the foundation of their faith, detailing the wearing of the turban, and why.

Wahhabi Muslim leaders, on the other hand, have writings, that go back to the foundation of their faith, that are pretty vague, but say nothing at all about covering the face (same as the "virgins"!) but these guys CHOOSE TO INTERPRET it that way, to their own ends, to control and subdue women.

Big difference, if you ask me.

You despise religion, we get it. But like been said, there's legislation covering religious expression - to a point. But in this country, the PC brigade won't allow any of the folk who abuse that, or use it to their own ends, to be challenged. THAT is the BIG problem here. And it's gonna gt bigger. And bigger. Watch this space...

Is it true that a muslim man can have 4 wives in this country or is this just a urban myth.

You despise religion, we get it. But like been said, there's legislation covering religious expression - to a point. But in this country, the PC brigade won't allow any of the folk who abuse that, or use it to their own ends, to be challenged. THAT is the BIG problem here. And it's gonna gt bigger. And bigger. Watch this space...

Care to elaborate Scoots? As a secularist I have high hopes for the side-lining of religion in the UK (In a political sense), hence my interest.

I'm the last person to deny anyone a belief in anything. I said people can believe what they want and many people get a lot out of religion, the problem is the special dispensation and advantages that are given for choosing to believe in this particular thing called god. If I choose to believe in, take instruction from, act upon or worship anything else that has no evidence for existing I wouldn't get any special advantages in law unless it was a free sectioning.

And you're twisting things a tad, in that Sikhs have holy writings going back to the foundation of their faith, detailing the wearing of the turban, and why.

 

Wahhabi Muslim leaders, on the other hand, have writings, that go back to the foundation of their faith, that are pretty vague, but say nothing at all about covering the face (same as the "virgins"!) but these guys CHOOSE TO INTERPRET it that way, to their own ends, to control and subdue women.

 

Big difference, if you ask me.

Why is it necessarily different? Obviously the examples we are using (Sikhism and Islamic fundamentalism) are very different in the specifics but why should the principle that "holy writings going back to the foundation of their faith" (that men in the past have chosen to write and interpret for whatever reason, good or bad), be any better than "these guys [who] CHOOSE TO INTERPRET it that way, to their own ends"?

The foundations of religion come from men, not an all knowing all benevolent perfect god. Sometimes for good, sometimes for bad, just like the interpretations thereafter. To disagree with an interpretation’s points is no different in principle than disagreeing with the original writings.

But like been said, there's legislation covering religious expression - to a point. But in this country, the PC brigade won't allow any of the folk who abuse that, or use it to their own ends, to be challenged.

It’s not in the first instance the fault of the PC brigade not speaking out against what is subjective "abuse" it’s the fault of the principle that allows special advantages and the possibility of subsequent abuses to be given to religions in the first place. Keep the mystical in a church, in someone’s home or in someone’s head. Express your religious faith within the laws and conventions the rest of us have to abide by. Why should it be allowed benefits in society that I don’t get?

And if people interpret faith as being deserved and entitled to unfair societal advantage, isn’t this exactly the problem you have with religious interpretation being used for abuse? Or is receiving unfair advantage fundamentally morally different to subjugating women?

But the problem with legislation is that the core of the laws in this country (and many others) COMES from religion, from a less secular time, when priests made kings, and all that went with it. You're not going to change that any time soon, short of a "Killing Fields"- style revolution. (as I'm sure you know, that's one of the reasons Pol Pot rounded up & slaughtered priests & monks and burned their scriptures, wherever he could, to divorce man from the man-made God/s, via the bullet and the bayonet).

It's certainly an uphill struggle you've given yourself, particularly as the majority of our Parliament portray themselves as religious, wholesome god (of whatever faith)-fearing types. (and THAT is a laugh!)

Yep, since religion doesn't have a monopoly on morality any more and the Christian god doesn't have a monoploy in Britain nowadays these problems come up.

Why can't everyone start worshipping me? That's the way to heaven on earth, it's almost guananteed!

Yep, since religion doesn't have a monopoly on morality any more and the Christian god doesn't have a monoploy in Britain nowadays these problems come up.

 

Why can't everyone start worshipping me? That's the way to heaven on earth, it's almost guananteed!

I'll need some more details about how many virgins i'll receive on entry to heaven and assurances that they'll all be female, but apart from that count me in.

Cant do Sundays though, clashes with the other fella i worship, gotta keep your options open you know.

Yep, since religion doesn't have a monopoly on morality any more and the Christian god doesn't have a monoploy in Britain nowadays these problems come up.

 

Why can't everyone start worshipping me? That's the way to heaven on earth, it's almost guananteed!

 

I'll need some more details about how many virgins i'll receive on entry to heaven and assurances that they'll all be female, but apart from that count me in.

Cant do Sundays though, clashes with the other fella i worship, gotta keep your options open you know.

That's alright, my son, I am not a jealous god. I can share your soul with Gibber, the fallen one... (Sundays aren't that good for me, anyway. I've got the car to clean, all that water to turn into Coca-Cola, you get the picture...)

I'll need some more details about how many virgins i'll receive on entry to heaven and assurances that they'll all be female, but apart from that count me in.

I can fix you up Friday with a couple of almost certainly female virgins, For a 'Holy Trinity'.

I'll need some more details about how many virgins i'll receive on entry to heaven and assurances that they'll all be female, but apart from that count me in.

 

I can fix you up Friday with a couple of almost certainly female virgins, For a 'Holy Trinity'.

Slack Alice & Big Bertha (Scaffolding not included).

It's not just certain local young folk that think selling Golly Wogs is a bit iffy! 

http://blog.lemnsissay.com/2013/09/06/golly-blog-2/

"The Shetland people are of great standing and greatly let down by the willful racism of one citizen who  gets a weird kick out of selling them. She sees herself as a rebel.  But this is cowardice."

What a pathetic, pathetic rant by an ignorant idiot.

End of.

It is a well described feeling of someone who is offended by what they have seen. Unlike your rebuttle of his opinion, very well written. It does seem that racism and the lack of thought for other folks feelings due to historical events are feelings that are false.

Again, you are wrong in assuming that the complainer is ignorant, I think he has a point. I guess he, as have many folk who have travelled around, knows what is right, wrong and distasteful.

Let us hope any visit he makes to the chip shop go without incident.