Welcome to the middle ages

[Chainguy]

XitUp said:

Chainguy said:

Certain areas of the UK in 20 years?

No.

I'd happily take a bet on that if you want, proceeds to charity.

[Sheets Tabuer]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/art...

[XitUp]

Chainguy said:

XitUp said:

Chainguy said:

Certain areas of the UK in 20 years?

No.

I'd happily take a bet on that if you want, proceeds to charity.

OK, ten grand.
Where do you want me to send it in 20 years if I'm wrong?

[Chainguy]

XitUp said:

Chainguy said:

XitUp said:

Chainguy said:

Certain areas of the UK in 20 years?

No.

I'd happily take a bet on that if you want, proceeds to charity.

OK, ten grand.
Where do you want me to send it in 20 years if I'm wrong?

Any cancer charity is fine with me if you're agreeable. Happy to reciprocate. In 20 years time 10k will still be a decent chunk of change, so yeah, sounds good.

[109 Bob]

elster said:

Sheets Tabuer said:

109 Bob said:

Lefty Guns said:

Is sharia law already practiced in "some areas of the UK"?

Just wondering to what extent?

There is no Sharia law in the UK.

That's what you think, most sharia law is about simple stuff like neighbour disputes, family arguments etc and is practiced by communities up and down the country.

Yes but it is not a law.

Exactly it is not law, There is no Sharia law in the UK as such. Although the rulings of the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal courts can now be enforced by county & high courts (since Sep.last year I think) they will be enforced with English law. They are still voluntary & if both parties do not agree to a Sharia tribunal then the matter is dealt with by English law.

[Sheets Tabuer]

semantics, if walks like a duck.

[Pesty]

Chainguy said:

Certain areas of the UK now

EFA
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article67...

[elster]

109 Bob said:

Exactly it is not law, There is no Sharia law in the UK as such. Although the rulings of the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal courts can now be enforced by county & high courts (since Sep.last year I think) they will be enforced with English law. They are still voluntary & if both parties do not agree to a Sharia tribunal then the matter is dealt with by English law.

So it is mediation.

Just with the "spin" to make it sound as though it is religious.

[AndrewW-G]

cheapoman said:

It wasn't that long ago we'd be doing that to brown people, just for a laugh.

Least we forget

We?.... at no point in my lifetime and that of any of my living relatives have people been flogged in England or by the English for fun based on the colour of their skin or ethnicity (excluding Max Mosely S&M style action)

Slavery is wrong which is why it was outlawed in England 176 years ago!............long before any “brown” country did the same!

Humanity has always ultimately had little regard for the value of life and is one of a tiny number of species who kill for fun (or in the name of a long dead paedophile / Jewish zombie / imaginary friend) irrespective of the colour of their skin.

[elster]

TVR Moneypit said:

Extract from the Guardian;

"Debate mostly focused on how to deal with the burgeoning Taliban menace, however. Some worry that the "Talibanisation" of the frontier could eventually spread into the rest of pakistan."


That is a worry, and something that I think will be likely to happen. Then we really are in the st.

Do you mean the creation of words?

Or the extremist rules coming into play?

But then again this is the new communism, that's all. Go to see a few dictators in Africa, make the Taliban look a little bit liberal.

[thehawk]

109 Bob said:

elster said:

Sheets Tabuer said:

109 Bob said:

Lefty Guns said:

Is sharia law already practiced in "some areas of the UK"?

Just wondering to what extent?

There is no Sharia law in the UK.

That's what you think, most sharia law is about simple stuff like neighbour disputes, family arguments etc and is practiced by communities up and down the country.

Yes but it is not a law.

Exactly it is not law, There is no Sharia law in the UK as such. Although the rulings of the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal courts can now be enforced by county & high courts (since Sep.last year I think) they will be enforced with English law. They are still voluntary & if both parties do not agree to a Sharia tribunal then the matter is dealt with by English law.

As if a Muslim woman would ever not agree with the religious, cultural and familial pressure on her.

[cheapoman]

AndrewW-G said:

cheapoman said:

It wasn't that long ago we'd be doing that to brown people, just for a laugh.

Least we forget

We?.... at no point in my lifetime and that of any of my living relatives have people been flogged in England or by the English for fun based on the colour of their skin or ethnicity (excluding Max Mosely S&M style action)

Slavery is wrong which is why it was outlawed in England 176 years ago!............long before any “brown” country did the same!

Humanity has always ultimately had little regard for the value of life and is one of a tiny number of species who kill for fun (or in the name of a long dead paedophile / Jewish zombie / imaginary friend) irrespective of the colour of their skin.

Yes WE.

Ohhh so you think violence stopped when slavery was outlawed?

Short or selective memory?

I know people's parents that had the pleasure of having the s**t kicked out of them (sadly they also know people that were killed) because the colour of their skin. As a country, we or only one generation from it being acceptable to attack people based on skin colour, the general population and certainly the police didn't care.

There are people alive today that still remember those times.

I just find it funny when as a nation we highlight how barbaric this kind of thing is (it really is) but conveniently forget about our very recent past.

[Alfanatic]

Jasandjules said:

The State as such in theory defines law which the majority find acceptable, and thus formulate society. Those rules can be found throughout many nations and many different cultures (property/theft, not beating up/killing someone to take their stuff etc).

I still don't see the difference between some politician thinking a law up and getting support from thousands of his supporters and some author writing a law on behalf of his imaginary friend and getting support from thousands of his followers. My point is not that flogging the girl is acceptable (or not) but that condoning flogging of thieves and drug dealers puts you in the same (very large) ballpark as those supporting flogging for adultery, IMHO. Saying that though, there's a big difference between saying someone deserves flogging, and supporting such activity when it actually happens.

[elster]

cheapoman said:

Yes WE.

Ohhh so you think violence stopped when slavery was outlawed?

Short or selective memory?

I know people's parents that had the pleasure of having the s**t kicked out of them (sadly they also know people that were killed) because the colour of their skin. As a country, we or only one generation from it being acceptable to attack people based on skin colour, the general population and certainly the police didn't care.

There are people alive today that still remember those times.

I just find it funny when as a nation we highlight how barbaric this kind of thing is (it really is) but conveniently forget about our very recent past.

So not WE then.

Can you also point me to a country that haven't behaved like this?

In the UK the current society as it stands doesn't need to apologise. A majority of the population will not even bat an eyelid at what colour a person is.

Compare this to USA, Korea, China, Italy, France, Poland, Ukraine, Argentina, etc. Do you want me to continue?

The behaviour is barbaric yes. I can say that as well I was taught to think for myself. Do you not want people to have a current opinion? Must everyone live their lives in the past?

erm nope.

Whatever the chip on your shoulder is from, I think you would live a lot happier life by getting rid of it.

[cheapoman]

elster said:

cheapoman said:

Yes WE.

Ohhh so you think violence stopped when slavery was outlawed?

Short or selective memory?

I know people's parents that had the pleasure of having the s**t kicked out of them (sadly they also know people that were killed) because the colour of their skin. As a country, we or only one generation from it being acceptable to attack people based on skin colour, the general population and certainly the police didn't care.

There are people alive today that still remember those times.

I just find it funny when as a nation we highlight how barbaric this kind of thing is (it really is) but conveniently forget about our very recent past.

So not WE then.

Can you also point me to a country that haven't behaved like this?

In the UK the current society as it stands doesn't need to apologise. A majority of the population will not even bat an eyelid at what colour a person is.

Compare this to USA, Korea, China, Italy, France, Poland, Ukraine, Argentina, etc. Do you want me to continue?

The behaviour is barbaric yes. I can say that as well I was taught to think for myself. Do you not want people to have a current opinion? Must everyone live their lives in the past?

erm nope.

Whatever the chip on your shoulder is from, I think you would live a lot happier life by getting rid of it.

There is no chip on my shoulder?

I'm just pointing out, things weren't that great over here and there are people still alive that can testify to that.

Stones, glass houses and all that.

[AndrewW-G]

cheapoman said:

AndrewW-G said:

cheapoman said:

It wasn't that long ago we'd be doing that to brown people, just for a laugh.

Least we forget

We?.... at no point in my lifetime and that of any of my living relatives have people been flogged in England or by the English for fun based on the colour of their skin or ethnicity (excluding Max Mosely S&M style action)

Slavery is wrong which is why it was outlawed in England 176 years ago!............long before any “brown” country did the same!

Humanity has always ultimately had little regard for the value of life and is one of a tiny number of species who kill for fun (or in the name of a long dead paedophile / Jewish zombie / imaginary friend) irrespective of the colour of their skin.

Yes WE.

Ohhh so you think violence stopped when slavery was outlawed?

Short or selective memory?

I know people's parents that had the pleasure of having the s**t kicked out of them (sadly they also know people that were killed) because the colour of their skin. As a country, we or only one generation from it being acceptable to attack people based on skin colour, the general population and certainly the police didn't care.

There are people alive today that still remember those times.

I just find it funny when as a nation we highlight how barbaric this kind of thing is (it really is) but conveniently forget about our very recent past.

The point that people are making about this case, is that the flogging was sanctioned by a court of law for the “crime” of having a relationship with somebody who believed in a different imaginary friend.

The beatings you've mentioned whilst appalling, have no relevance to this debate as they weren’t sanctioned by a court "merely" the actions of a small minded bunch of thugs...........behaviour that isn’t limited to whites beating browns, but symptomatic of humanity as a whole(as per my post)

[elster]

cheapoman said:

There is no chip on my shoulder?

I'm just pointing out, things weren't that great over here and there are people still alive that can testify to that.

Stones, glass houses and all that.

So what was the rant about?

There are people alive that can testify to all sorts.

Doesn't mean modern society is like that.

[cheapoman]

elster said:

cheapoman said:

There is no chip on my shoulder?

I'm just pointing out, things weren't that great over here and there are people still alive that can testify to that.

Stones, glass houses and all that.

So what was the rant about?

There are people alive that can testify to all sorts.

Doesn't mean modern society is like that.

Wasn't a rant?

[elster]

cheapoman said:

Wasn't a rant?

Christ. If the words you wrote after WE weren't a rant I would hate to see you on a bad day.

[cheapoman]

elster said:

cheapoman said:

Wasn't a rant?

Christ. If the words you wrote after WE weren't a rant I would hate to see you on a bad day.

Sorry but I think you're mistaken? There is no anger in my posting in this thread.

rant said:

v., rant·ed, rant·ing, rants.
v.intr.

To speak or write in an angry or violent manner; rave.
v.tr.

To utter or express with violence or extravagance: a dictator who ranted his vitriol onto a captive audience.

Edited by cheapoman on Saturday 4th April 23:53