The ArgusMarch for England told to expect 'frosty reception' (From The Argus)

Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.

March for England told to expect 'frosty reception'

The Argus: Last year's March for England Last year's March for England

Nationalist protesters have been told to expect a “frosty reception” when they gather for the annual March for England on Sunday.

More than 1,500 people are expected to descend on Brighton seafront for the event, held to mark St George's Day.

While organisers of the event call it a celebration of being English, opposition protesters have labelled it as an excuse for racism and violence.

Tony Campbell, from the Stop the March for England group, said more than 1,300 people are expected to take to the streets in opposition.

He said: “Brighton always comes out in huge numbers to oppose events like this.

“We are expecting around the same number as last year if not more. The response this time round has been fantastic.

“They can expect a frosty and noisy reception from us. We will outnumber them and we will drown out their message.”

Although march organisers had not responded to The Argus at the time of going to press last night, last year about 200 members took part in the event.

While the seafront march passed without incident, a number of running battles and skirmishes broke out away from the organised route.

Yesterday police issued a series of special measures in an attempt to prevent similar scenes.

Special powers have been pre-authorised to enable extensive stop and searches throughout the city on the day.

Officers will also have the power to ask anyone wearing a mask to remove it. If they refuse they could be arrested.

Those taking part in the march will also be banned from carrying banners, other than the cross of St George.

Superintendent Steve Whitton said: “As always, our priority is public safety, whether they be in the march, counter protest or anyone else in the city.

“It is vitally important that those attending the event work with us and comply with directions or other restrictions which we will need to give to keep people safe.

“Unlawful behaviour - or that which goes beyond what could be considered reasonable in terms of peaceful protest - will not be tolerated.”

Don't miss The Argus on Friday for a full preview of the day, including a map and information on road closures.

Comments (99)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:44am Thu 24 Apr 14

rogerthefish says...

Do they really think a "frosty" reception will stop the destruction.
Do they really think a "frosty" reception will stop the destruction. rogerthefish
  • Score: 9

7:25am Thu 24 Apr 14

hoveguyactually says...

Rather them than Sharia Law any day.
Rather them than Sharia Law any day. hoveguyactually
  • Score: 34

7:28am Thu 24 Apr 14

Fight_Back says...

Clearly it's beyond the left wing morons intelligence to understand that what they plan to do is EXACTLY why the right wing morons come here. Both as idiotic and vile as each other and neither are welcome to in this city. Hopefully the police will be a bit tougher on both groups this year.
Clearly it's beyond the left wing morons intelligence to understand that what they plan to do is EXACTLY why the right wing morons come here. Both as idiotic and vile as each other and neither are welcome to in this city. Hopefully the police will be a bit tougher on both groups this year. Fight_Back
  • Score: 27

8:29am Thu 24 Apr 14

pachallis says...

If it had been SmashEDO or UAF marching then I imagine they would be welcomed with open arms again by Lucas and Kitkat.

As it is Kitkat has been unable to ban the march (as he would want to for any right-wing causes entering the left-wing controlled city) because of the right to 'freedom of expression' . A concept apparently normally alien to the greens (Do you remember the expelled green Christian?).
If it had been SmashEDO or UAF marching then I imagine they would be welcomed with open arms again by Lucas and Kitkat. As it is Kitkat has been unable to ban the march (as he would want to for any right-wing causes entering the left-wing controlled city) because of the right to 'freedom of expression' . A concept apparently normally alien to the greens (Do you remember the expelled green Christian?). pachallis
  • Score: 31

8:55am Thu 24 Apr 14

Andy R says...

hoveguyactually wrote:
Rather them than Sharia Law any day.
Oh dear. Has your local stopped selling pork scratchings?
[quote][p][bold]hoveguyactually[/bold] wrote: Rather them than Sharia Law any day.[/p][/quote]Oh dear. Has your local stopped selling pork scratchings? Andy R
  • Score: -8

9:34am Thu 24 Apr 14

JHunty says...

Andy R wrote:
hoveguyactually wrote:
Rather them than Sharia Law any day.
Oh dear. Has your local stopped selling pork scratchings?
Go on Andy r sing your comedy song about St George, you're such a hero. Of course there is the little matter of you being a member of an organisation that wants to replace our democratic system of governance with communism, a political system responsible for more deaths and oppression than the right wingers, no fascists, no nazis that seem to imagine you see everywhere.
How many times have we had to listen to you banging on about the right to protest when people have complained about the cost of Smashedo marches and here you are trying to deny the march for England exactly the same rights you claim for yourself.
Hypocrisy doesn't even start to cover it and your stance is exactly mirrored by. Ben Duncan, Caroline Lucas and Smashedo oh sorry they will be the UAF for the day.
[quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hoveguyactually[/bold] wrote: Rather them than Sharia Law any day.[/p][/quote]Oh dear. Has your local stopped selling pork scratchings?[/p][/quote]Go on Andy r sing your comedy song about St George, you're such a hero. Of course there is the little matter of you being a member of an organisation that wants to replace our democratic system of governance with communism, a political system responsible for more deaths and oppression than the right wingers, no fascists, no nazis that seem to imagine you see everywhere. How many times have we had to listen to you banging on about the right to protest when people have complained about the cost of Smashedo marches and here you are trying to deny the march for England exactly the same rights you claim for yourself. Hypocrisy doesn't even start to cover it and your stance is exactly mirrored by. Ben Duncan, Caroline Lucas and Smashedo oh sorry they will be the UAF for the day. JHunty
  • Score: 39

9:45am Thu 24 Apr 14

hursthill says...

Bring on Punch & Judy .( AKA - JHunty & Andy R ! ).
Bring on Punch & Judy .( AKA - JHunty & Andy R ! ). hursthill
  • Score: 11

9:45am Thu 24 Apr 14

Ashles says...

hoveguyactually wrote:
Rather them than Sharia Law any day.
Is it a binary choice them?

How about... neither?
[quote][p][bold]hoveguyactually[/bold] wrote: Rather them than Sharia Law any day.[/p][/quote]Is it a binary choice them? How about... neither? Ashles
  • Score: 36

9:49am Thu 24 Apr 14

NickBrt says...

I am organising an eco friendly travellers van to collect Caroline from the middle of the road in Balcombe to bring her to Brighton, if anyone wants to help me let me know.
I am organising an eco friendly travellers van to collect Caroline from the middle of the road in Balcombe to bring her to Brighton, if anyone wants to help me let me know. NickBrt
  • Score: 12

9:59am Thu 24 Apr 14

tykemison says...

Can they really stop people holding up flags other than the st.george flag? What if someone takes a flag declaring"i love my Mum", will that person be arrested? Free country my backside.
Can they really stop people holding up flags other than the st.george flag? What if someone takes a flag declaring"i love my Mum", will that person be arrested? Free country my backside. tykemison
  • Score: 28

10:03am Thu 24 Apr 14

Andy R says...

JHunty wrote:
Andy R wrote:
hoveguyactually wrote:
Rather them than Sharia Law any day.
Oh dear. Has your local stopped selling pork scratchings?
Go on Andy r sing your comedy song about St George, you're such a hero. Of course there is the little matter of you being a member of an organisation that wants to replace our democratic system of governance with communism, a political system responsible for more deaths and oppression than the right wingers, no fascists, no nazis that seem to imagine you see everywhere.
How many times have we had to listen to you banging on about the right to protest when people have complained about the cost of Smashedo marches and here you are trying to deny the march for England exactly the same rights you claim for yourself.
Hypocrisy doesn't even start to cover it and your stance is exactly mirrored by. Ben Duncan, Caroline Lucas and Smashedo oh sorry they will be the UAF for the day.
Bang on cue....the EDL's local useful idiot appears.

Of course there is the hope that if someone can diplomatically explain to them about "that really massive mosque" they think is at the bottom of Edward Street, they won't come.

Hey! Maybe we could get JHunty on to that? Something to keep him busy.....?
[quote][p][bold]JHunty[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hoveguyactually[/bold] wrote: Rather them than Sharia Law any day.[/p][/quote]Oh dear. Has your local stopped selling pork scratchings?[/p][/quote]Go on Andy r sing your comedy song about St George, you're such a hero. Of course there is the little matter of you being a member of an organisation that wants to replace our democratic system of governance with communism, a political system responsible for more deaths and oppression than the right wingers, no fascists, no nazis that seem to imagine you see everywhere. How many times have we had to listen to you banging on about the right to protest when people have complained about the cost of Smashedo marches and here you are trying to deny the march for England exactly the same rights you claim for yourself. Hypocrisy doesn't even start to cover it and your stance is exactly mirrored by. Ben Duncan, Caroline Lucas and Smashedo oh sorry they will be the UAF for the day.[/p][/quote]Bang on cue....the EDL's local useful idiot appears. Of course there is the hope that if someone can diplomatically explain to them about "that really massive mosque" they think is at the bottom of Edward Street, they won't come. Hey! Maybe we could get JHunty on to that? Something to keep him busy.....? Andy R
  • Score: -5

10:48am Thu 24 Apr 14

Ashles says...

Have the Morons For England ever managed to adequately explain why, since they are so filled to bursting with pride for their national day, they don't march where they actually live, as opposed to coming all the way to a city where there are not wanted?
Have the Morons For England ever managed to adequately explain why, since they are so filled to bursting with pride for their national day, they don't march where they actually live, as opposed to coming all the way to a city where there are not wanted? Ashles
  • Score: 24

10:52am Thu 24 Apr 14

gheese77 says...

Ashles wrote:
hoveguyactually wrote:
Rather them than Sharia Law any day.
Is it a binary choice them?

How about... neither?
Very good point.
Surely we can find a quiet field somewhere and let them kick the cr*p out of each other there so they don't bother the rest of us
[quote][p][bold]Ashles[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hoveguyactually[/bold] wrote: Rather them than Sharia Law any day.[/p][/quote]Is it a binary choice them? How about... neither?[/p][/quote]Very good point. Surely we can find a quiet field somewhere and let them kick the cr*p out of each other there so they don't bother the rest of us gheese77
  • Score: 13

10:52am Thu 24 Apr 14

gheese77 says...

Ashles wrote:
hoveguyactually wrote:
Rather them than Sharia Law any day.
Is it a binary choice them?

How about... neither?
Very good point.
Surely we can find a quiet field somewhere and let them kick the cr*p out of each other there so they don't bother the rest of us
[quote][p][bold]Ashles[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hoveguyactually[/bold] wrote: Rather them than Sharia Law any day.[/p][/quote]Is it a binary choice them? How about... neither?[/p][/quote]Very good point. Surely we can find a quiet field somewhere and let them kick the cr*p out of each other there so they don't bother the rest of us gheese77
  • Score: 3

10:53am Thu 24 Apr 14

Ashles says...

NB - Just so the MFE can remind themselves about the noble saint for whom they are marching:

"St George was a Roman soldier during the Third Century AD, when the Emperor Diocletian was in power. It is said that he once lived in al-Khadr near Bethlehem, on land owned by his mother's family.

While the saint's father is usually traced back to Cappadocia, an area in modern Turkey, it is believed his mother was Palestinian from Lydda - now Lod, in Israel."

I suppose in a way it's quite multicultural and liberal of them to be so proud of this half Turkish, half Palestinian Italian soldier.

http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/magazine-27048
219
NB - Just so the MFE can remind themselves about the noble saint for whom they are marching: "St George was a Roman soldier during the Third Century AD, when the Emperor Diocletian was in power. It is said that he once lived in al-Khadr near Bethlehem, on land owned by his mother's family. While the saint's father is usually traced back to Cappadocia, an area in modern Turkey, it is believed his mother was Palestinian from Lydda - now Lod, in Israel." I suppose in a way it's quite multicultural and liberal of them to be so proud of this half Turkish, half Palestinian Italian soldier. http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/magazine-27048 219 Ashles
  • Score: 16

11:19am Thu 24 Apr 14

Mrs Newcastle says...

Who has put stickers all over the push bottom control panels at the Pelican crossing all over the city??????
Who has put stickers all over the push bottom control panels at the Pelican crossing all over the city?????? Mrs Newcastle
  • Score: 10

11:28am Thu 24 Apr 14

Ashles says...

rogerthefish wrote:
Do they really think a "frosty" reception will stop the destruction.
In Hove we're planning on really upping the ante and may introduce some tutting.
Personally, I'm a bit maverick and sometimes go all the way to sighing and shaking my head.

Anyway it doesn't really matter how many people turn up. The Morons for England can only really count "One, two... lots."
[quote][p][bold]rogerthefish[/bold] wrote: Do they really think a "frosty" reception will stop the destruction.[/p][/quote]In Hove we're planning on really upping the ante and may introduce some tutting. Personally, I'm a bit maverick and sometimes go all the way to sighing and shaking my head. Anyway it doesn't really matter how many people turn up. The Morons for England can only really count "One, two... lots." Ashles
  • Score: 13

11:49am Thu 24 Apr 14

NickBrt says...

Ashles please don't go too far, like sucking though your teeth!
Ashles please don't go too far, like sucking though your teeth! NickBrt
  • Score: 5

11:55am Thu 24 Apr 14

Ashles says...

NickBrt wrote:
Ashles please don't go too far, like sucking though your teeth!
What do you think I am, crazy?
[quote][p][bold]NickBrt[/bold] wrote: Ashles please don't go too far, like sucking though your teeth![/p][/quote]What do you think I am, crazy? Ashles
  • Score: 3

12:38pm Thu 24 Apr 14

Stoney33 says...

Fight_Back wrote:
Clearly it's beyond the left wing morons intelligence to understand that what they plan to do is EXACTLY why the right wing morons come here. Both as idiotic and vile as each other and neither are welcome to in this city. Hopefully the police will be a bit tougher on both groups this year.
quite right, best thing that Brighton can do is just ignore this march and carry on as usual, even the police shouldn't acknowledge them

They will soon clear off when they realise no one cares
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: Clearly it's beyond the left wing morons intelligence to understand that what they plan to do is EXACTLY why the right wing morons come here. Both as idiotic and vile as each other and neither are welcome to in this city. Hopefully the police will be a bit tougher on both groups this year.[/p][/quote]quite right, best thing that Brighton can do is just ignore this march and carry on as usual, even the police shouldn't acknowledge them They will soon clear off when they realise no one cares Stoney33
  • Score: 3

1:14pm Thu 24 Apr 14

Arrggh says...

In other towns that have granted permission for MfE and other groups like it permission to hold a demo they have saved lots on policing by having it out of the way in a car park or similar. Why couldn't that be done here?
Last year the Argus gave a figure of 100 attending the march on the day and then the police estimate of twice that was released and the Argus followed suite. Photos from the day made the original figure seem more realistic- did the rest just have a day out?
In other towns that have granted permission for MfE and other groups like it permission to hold a demo they have saved lots on policing by having it out of the way in a car park or similar. Why couldn't that be done here? Last year the Argus gave a figure of 100 attending the march on the day and then the police estimate of twice that was released and the Argus followed suite. Photos from the day made the original figure seem more realistic- did the rest just have a day out? Arrggh
  • Score: 2

1:47pm Thu 24 Apr 14

Mark63 says...

WHY WHY WHY are we letting them do this? We don't want their thuggish attituide and anti-everyone-that-i
sn't-like-them opinions!
WHY WHY WHY are we letting them do this? We don't want their thuggish attituide and anti-everyone-that-i sn't-like-them opinions! Mark63
  • Score: 3

2:18pm Thu 24 Apr 14

voiceofthescoombe says...

Its not funny any more its waving a red flag at every wannabe battle of cable street renactor then hiding behind ranks of riot police.
Its not funny any more its waving a red flag at every wannabe battle of cable street renactor then hiding behind ranks of riot police. voiceofthescoombe
  • Score: -2

3:25pm Thu 24 Apr 14

Arrggh says...

voiceofthescoombe wrote:
Its not funny any more its waving a red flag at every wannabe battle ofNot sure how any re-enactor would manage that when the march is surrounded by four times as many police as marchers.
[quote][p][bold]voiceofthescoombe[/bold] wrote: Its not funny any more its waving a red flag at every wannabe battle ofNot sure how any re-enactor would manage that when the march is surrounded by four times as many police as marchers. Arrggh
  • Score: 3

4:46pm Thu 24 Apr 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

"opposition protesters have labelled it as an excuse for racism and violence. "

All coming from them, lol.

Let's face it, these people hate Englishmen being allowed to celebrate their country. It smacks of racism on their part. They also turn up in the hope that the march will be stopped by whatever means possible, and that includes violence. They do this hoping that the march will one day be banned because of its violent past. I trust that the security forces will not allow these unwashed thugs to disrupt a peaceful event.
"opposition protesters have labelled it as an excuse for racism and violence. " All coming from them, lol. Let's face it, these people hate Englishmen being allowed to celebrate their country. It smacks of racism on their part. They also turn up in the hope that the march will be stopped by whatever means possible, and that includes violence. They do this hoping that the march will one day be banned because of its violent past. I trust that the security forces will not allow these unwashed thugs to disrupt a peaceful event. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 17

4:50pm Thu 24 Apr 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

Ashles wrote:
hoveguyactually wrote:
Rather them than Sharia Law any day.
Is it a binary choice them?

How about... neither?
Sadly, with sharia, it isn't a binary choice. You won't be allowed to argue should sharia be imposed on the UK. It is already here among the muslims, because that is what their faith is based upon. The day is coming when a sharia court overrules a decision in an English court. Don't take my word for it.....there is a plethora of sites informing you of all this, and just because some people choose to ignore them, it doesn't mean that they don't exist.
[quote][p][bold]Ashles[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hoveguyactually[/bold] wrote: Rather them than Sharia Law any day.[/p][/quote]Is it a binary choice them? How about... neither?[/p][/quote]Sadly, with sharia, it isn't a binary choice. You won't be allowed to argue should sharia be imposed on the UK. It is already here among the muslims, because that is what their faith is based upon. The day is coming when a sharia court overrules a decision in an English court. Don't take my word for it.....there is a plethora of sites informing you of all this, and just because some people choose to ignore them, it doesn't mean that they don't exist. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 8

4:58pm Thu 24 Apr 14

mhaiti says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Ashles wrote:
hoveguyactually wrote: Rather them than Sharia Law any day.
Is it a binary choice them? How about... neither?
Sadly, with sharia, it isn't a binary choice. You won't be allowed to argue should sharia be imposed on the UK. It is already here among the muslims, because that is what their faith is based upon. The day is coming when a sharia court overrules a decision in an English court. Don't take my word for it.....there is a plethora of sites informing you of all this, and just because some people choose to ignore them, it doesn't mean that they don't exist.
No it's not.

No it won't.
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ashles[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hoveguyactually[/bold] wrote: Rather them than Sharia Law any day.[/p][/quote]Is it a binary choice them? How about... neither?[/p][/quote]Sadly, with sharia, it isn't a binary choice. You won't be allowed to argue should sharia be imposed on the UK. It is already here among the muslims, because that is what their faith is based upon. The day is coming when a sharia court overrules a decision in an English court. Don't take my word for it.....there is a plethora of sites informing you of all this, and just because some people choose to ignore them, it doesn't mean that they don't exist.[/p][/quote]No it's not. No it won't. mhaiti
  • Score: -5

5:04pm Thu 24 Apr 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

"They will soon clear off when they realise no one cares"

But people DO care. They have expressed that they care across the media, including in this very newspaper, both in their opposition and their support for it.

And why shouldn't our patron saint be celebrated? I saw hundreds of English people in Brighton on St Patricks Day, wearing green and getting drunk in the traditional manner. Did all those people celebrate on April 23rd? If not, why not?

St George has been adopted by the English despite being a foreigner and being imposed by a foreign regime. St Alban has a far better claim, but we have taken St George to our hearts. I cannot understand why people are opposed to him and why people object to his celebrations.
"They will soon clear off when they realise no one cares" But people DO care. They have expressed that they care across the media, including in this very newspaper, both in their opposition and their support for it. And why shouldn't our patron saint be celebrated? I saw hundreds of English people in Brighton on St Patricks Day, wearing green and getting drunk in the traditional manner. Did all those people celebrate on April 23rd? If not, why not? St George has been adopted by the English despite being a foreigner and being imposed by a foreign regime. St Alban has a far better claim, but we have taken St George to our hearts. I cannot understand why people are opposed to him and why people object to his celebrations. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 16

5:07pm Thu 24 Apr 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

Sharia law is already operating in this country

http://www.islamic-s
haria.org/

Sorry to burst anyone's bubble........actual
ly, I'm not sorry at all ;-)
Sharia law is already operating in this country http://www.islamic-s haria.org/ Sorry to burst anyone's bubble........actual ly, I'm not sorry at all ;-) ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 0

5:52pm Thu 24 Apr 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

Ashles wrote:
Have the Morons For England ever managed to adequately explain why, since they are so filled to bursting with pride for their national day, they don't march where they actually live, as opposed to coming all the way to a city where there are not wanted?
Have you asked the same of the protesters who are coming down to Brighton to oppose the march?

Haven't you realised that tourism built Brighton from being a nothing settlement into the great place it is today?
[quote][p][bold]Ashles[/bold] wrote: Have the Morons For England ever managed to adequately explain why, since they are so filled to bursting with pride for their national day, they don't march where they actually live, as opposed to coming all the way to a city where there are not wanted?[/p][/quote]Have you asked the same of the protesters who are coming down to Brighton to oppose the march? Haven't you realised that tourism built Brighton from being a nothing settlement into the great place it is today? ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 7

6:45pm Thu 24 Apr 14

Andy R says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Sharia law is already operating in this country

http://www.islamic-s

haria.org/

Sorry to burst anyone's bubble........actual

ly, I'm not sorry at all ;-)
...and that's it......that's your "evidence" that we're all going to be subject to sharia law. Hilarious....utterly hilarious......
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: Sharia law is already operating in this country http://www.islamic-s haria.org/ Sorry to burst anyone's bubble........actual ly, I'm not sorry at all ;-)[/p][/quote]...and that's it......that's your "evidence" that we're all going to be subject to sharia law. Hilarious....utterly hilarious...... Andy R
  • Score: -7

6:46pm Thu 24 Apr 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

The article states:

"Although march organisers had not responded to The Argus at the time of going to press last night, last year about 200 members took part in the event. "

That's odd. The organiser of the MFE Facebook page has stated minutes ago that The Argus has his/her contact details yet has not bothered to get in touch.

One side is lying about this, but it does seem odd that The Argus hasn't been able to find a single person who supports this march to talk to about it. The Argus has also failed to quote any of the many posts in support of the march on its Facebook page. I note that The Argus manged to quote Tony Campbell........do I detect a bias?
The article states: "Although march organisers had not responded to The Argus at the time of going to press last night, last year about 200 members took part in the event. " That's odd. The organiser of the MFE Facebook page has stated minutes ago that The Argus has his/her contact details yet has not bothered to get in touch. One side is lying about this, but it does seem odd that The Argus hasn't been able to find a single person who supports this march to talk to about it. The Argus has also failed to quote any of the many posts in support of the march on its Facebook page. I note that The Argus manged to quote Tony Campbell........do I detect a bias? ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 8

6:48pm Thu 24 Apr 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

Andy R wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Sharia law is already operating in this country

http://www.islamic-s


haria.org/

Sorry to burst anyone's bubble........actual


ly, I'm not sorry at all ;-)
...and that's it......that's your "evidence" that we're all going to be subject to sharia law. Hilarious....utterly hilarious......
I posted evidence that sharia law is already operating in this country.

Here's some more evidence of the advance of sharia:

http://www.telegraph
.co.uk/news/religion
/10716844/Islamic-la
w-is-adopted-by-Brit
ish-legal-chiefs.htm
l

You can ignore this all you want, but it doesn't mean that it isn't happening.
[quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: Sharia law is already operating in this country http://www.islamic-s haria.org/ Sorry to burst anyone's bubble........actual ly, I'm not sorry at all ;-)[/p][/quote]...and that's it......that's your "evidence" that we're all going to be subject to sharia law. Hilarious....utterly hilarious......[/p][/quote]I posted evidence that sharia law is already operating in this country. Here's some more evidence of the advance of sharia: http://www.telegraph .co.uk/news/religion /10716844/Islamic-la w-is-adopted-by-Brit ish-legal-chiefs.htm l You can ignore this all you want, but it doesn't mean that it isn't happening. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 9

7:07pm Thu 24 Apr 14

Arrggh says...

Islamic law isn't applicable in Britain- the article cited by zeegee ffs includes the following sentence- Currently, Sharia principles are not formally addressed by or included in Britain’s laws.
It refers to guidance so that non Muslim solicitors can draw up wills in accordance with sharia but at any point of conflict between it and British law the current situation maintains that British law is supreme.
Any change would have to go through parliament and that isn't going to happen.
Is that what the march is all about? Why don't they also protest about the Beth Din rabbinical courts used by some Jews?
Islamic law isn't applicable in Britain- the article cited by zeegee ffs includes the following sentence- Currently, Sharia principles are not formally addressed by or included in Britain’s laws. It refers to guidance so that non Muslim solicitors can draw up wills in accordance with sharia but at any point of conflict between it and British law the current situation maintains that British law is supreme. Any change would have to go through parliament and that isn't going to happen. Is that what the march is all about? Why don't they also protest about the Beth Din rabbinical courts used by some Jews? Arrggh
  • Score: -6

7:08pm Thu 24 Apr 14

Bill in Hanover says...

Ashles wrote:
Have the Morons For England ever managed to adequately explain why, since they are so filled to bursting with pride for their national day, they don't march where they actually live, as opposed to coming all the way to a city where there are not wanted?
I wonder if the young lady walking past the demonstration last year when hit by a brick thrown by a member of the anti-fascist brigade, who was from Hampshire I think, has recovered yet. I don't particularly want thugs from either end of the spectrum coming here thank you.
[quote][p][bold]Ashles[/bold] wrote: Have the Morons For England ever managed to adequately explain why, since they are so filled to bursting with pride for their national day, they don't march where they actually live, as opposed to coming all the way to a city where there are not wanted?[/p][/quote]I wonder if the young lady walking past the demonstration last year when hit by a brick thrown by a member of the anti-fascist brigade, who was from Hampshire I think, has recovered yet. I don't particularly want thugs from either end of the spectrum coming here thank you. Bill in Hanover
  • Score: 11

7:33pm Thu 24 Apr 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

Arrggh wrote:
Islamic law isn't applicable in Britain- the article cited by zeegee ffs includes the following sentence- Currently, Sharia principles are not formally addressed by or included in Britain’s laws.
It refers to guidance so that non Muslim solicitors can draw up wills in accordance with sharia but at any point of conflict between it and British law the current situation maintains that British law is supreme.
Any change would have to go through parliament and that isn't going to happen.
Is that what the march is all about? Why don't they also protest about the Beth Din rabbinical courts used by some Jews?
The article I linked states:

"

Under ground-breaking guidance, produced by The Law Society, High Street solicitors will be able to write Islamic wills that deny women an equal share of inheritances and exclude unbelievers altogether.

The documents, which would be recognised by Britain’s courts, will also prevent children born out of wedlock – and even those who have been adopted – from being counted as legitimate heirs. "

It means that the sharia position on gender discrimination will be upheld IN BRITISH COURTS, despite UK law holding females to be equal to males.

So Arrggh was completely mistaken in his comments.....as usual.
[quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: Islamic law isn't applicable in Britain- the article cited by zeegee ffs includes the following sentence- Currently, Sharia principles are not formally addressed by or included in Britain’s laws. It refers to guidance so that non Muslim solicitors can draw up wills in accordance with sharia but at any point of conflict between it and British law the current situation maintains that British law is supreme. Any change would have to go through parliament and that isn't going to happen. Is that what the march is all about? Why don't they also protest about the Beth Din rabbinical courts used by some Jews?[/p][/quote]The article I linked states: " Under ground-breaking guidance, produced by The Law Society, High Street solicitors will be able to write Islamic wills that deny women an equal share of inheritances and exclude unbelievers altogether. The documents, which would be recognised by Britain’s courts, will also prevent children born out of wedlock – and even those who have been adopted – from being counted as legitimate heirs. " It means that the sharia position on gender discrimination will be upheld IN BRITISH COURTS, despite UK law holding females to be equal to males. So Arrggh was completely mistaken in his comments.....as usual. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 4

7:50pm Thu 24 Apr 14

Arrggh says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
Islamic law isn't applicable in Britain- the article cited by zeegee ffs includes the following sentence- Currently, Sharia principles are not formally addressed by or included in Britain’s laws.
It refers to guidance so that non Muslim solicitors can draw up wills in accordance with sharia but at any point of conflict between it and British law the current situation maintains that British law is supreme.
Any change would have to go through parliament and that isn't going to happen.
Is that what the march is all about? Why don't they also protest about the Beth Din rabbinical courts used by some Jews?
The article I linked states:

"

Under ground-breaking guidance, produced by The Law Society, High Street solicitors will be able to write Islamic wills that deny women an equal share of inheritances and exclude unbelievers altogether.

The documents, which would be recognised by Britain’s courts, will also prevent children born out of wedlock – and even those who have been adopted – from being counted as legitimate heirs. "

It means that the sharia position on gender discrimination will be upheld IN BRITISH COURTS, despite UK law holding females to be equal to males.

So Arrggh was completely mistaken in his comments.....as usual.
It's called guidance because that is all it is- guidance. Without an act of parliament recognising Sharia it will only ever be guidance.
In the same way Hasidic Jews turn to the Beth Din for guidance in accordance with rabbinical law- in both cases any advice issued is not legally binding.
There is a link in the article you cite to another about the matter being brought up in the House of Commons. In it the Law Society says-
“The Law Society responded to requests from its members for guidance on how to help clients asking for wills that distribute their assets in accordance with Sharia practice.
“Our practice note focuses on how to do that, where it is allowed under English law.
“The Law of England and Wales will give effect to wishes clearly expressed in a valid will in so far as those wishes are compliant with the law of England.
"The issue is no more complicated than that.”
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: Islamic law isn't applicable in Britain- the article cited by zeegee ffs includes the following sentence- Currently, Sharia principles are not formally addressed by or included in Britain’s laws. It refers to guidance so that non Muslim solicitors can draw up wills in accordance with sharia but at any point of conflict between it and British law the current situation maintains that British law is supreme. Any change would have to go through parliament and that isn't going to happen. Is that what the march is all about? Why don't they also protest about the Beth Din rabbinical courts used by some Jews?[/p][/quote]The article I linked states: " Under ground-breaking guidance, produced by The Law Society, High Street solicitors will be able to write Islamic wills that deny women an equal share of inheritances and exclude unbelievers altogether. The documents, which would be recognised by Britain’s courts, will also prevent children born out of wedlock – and even those who have been adopted – from being counted as legitimate heirs. " It means that the sharia position on gender discrimination will be upheld IN BRITISH COURTS, despite UK law holding females to be equal to males. So Arrggh was completely mistaken in his comments.....as usual.[/p][/quote]It's called guidance because that is all it is- guidance. Without an act of parliament recognising Sharia it will only ever be guidance. In the same way Hasidic Jews turn to the Beth Din for guidance in accordance with rabbinical law- in both cases any advice issued is not legally binding. There is a link in the article you cite to another about the matter being brought up in the House of Commons. In it the Law Society says- “The Law Society responded to requests from its members for guidance on how to help clients asking for wills that distribute their assets in accordance with Sharia practice. “Our practice note focuses on how to do that, where it is allowed under English law. “The Law of England and Wales will give effect to wishes clearly expressed in a valid will in so far as those wishes are compliant with the law of England. "The issue is no more complicated than that.” Arrggh
  • Score: -3

8:39pm Thu 24 Apr 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

The Law Society states on its Guidance notes section when drawing up sharia compliant wills in the UK:

"2.2 English conflict of law rules

Conflict-of-law rules apply whenever more than one law could apply to the same succession. These rules are particularly complex, not least because each country may have different conflict-of-law rules.

In England and Wales, a distinction is made between immoveable assets (land and buildings) and moveable assets (such as cash, shares and chattels).

The laws of the location of the asset (lex situs) govern the validity of dispositions of immoveable assets. The laws of the jurisdiction in which the testator was domiciled at the date of death (lex domicilii) govern the disposition of moveable assets, even if those assets are physically situated in England & Wales.

This means the English court will recognise the forced heirship requirements of a Sharia country if those apply to the moveable assets due to the deceased's domicile.

Where the client has assets outside England and Wales, local advice should be obtained to ascertain which laws will apply to those assets: whether the lex situs or the lex domicilii will apply."

Note how sharia heirship rules will apply.

HTH
The Law Society states on its Guidance notes section when drawing up sharia compliant wills in the UK: "2.2 English conflict of law rules Conflict-of-law rules apply whenever more than one law could apply to the same succession. These rules are particularly complex, not least because each country may have different conflict-of-law rules. In England and Wales, a distinction is made between immoveable assets (land and buildings) and moveable assets (such as cash, shares and chattels). The laws of the location of the asset (lex situs) govern the validity of dispositions of immoveable assets. The laws of the jurisdiction in which the testator was domiciled at the date of death (lex domicilii) govern the disposition of moveable assets, even if those assets are physically situated in England & Wales. This means the English court will recognise the forced heirship requirements of a Sharia country if those apply to the moveable assets due to the deceased's domicile. Where the client has assets outside England and Wales, local advice should be obtained to ascertain which laws will apply to those assets: whether the lex situs or the lex domicilii will apply." Note how sharia heirship rules will apply. HTH ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: -2

9:04pm Thu 24 Apr 14

Arrggh says...

Zeegee ffs- The example you cite is of a will in another country- not the UK. I'm not sure how you think it equates to an alternate system being recognised in this country- it only states that where applicable another countries laws are recognised where it has jurisdiction.
If the Law Society view it all as a lot of fuss over nothing and we have had no new legislation introduced that's good enough for me.
Do you want to do away with the Beth Din also?
Zeegee ffs- The example you cite is of a will in another country- not the UK. I'm not sure how you think it equates to an alternate system being recognised in this country- it only states that where applicable another countries laws are recognised where it has jurisdiction. If the Law Society view it all as a lot of fuss over nothing and we have had no new legislation introduced that's good enough for me. Do you want to do away with the Beth Din also? Arrggh
  • Score: 0

9:12pm Thu 24 Apr 14

tez1959 says...

so they cant wave banners other than the st georges day flag but its allright for the terrorist sleepers of this country to burn effigys of our own prime minister and the police do nothing if they dont like our laws of this country do us all a favour and go home cos thats what this is all about making a point good on em
so they cant wave banners other than the st georges day flag but its allright for the terrorist sleepers of this country to burn effigys of our own prime minister and the police do nothing if they dont like our laws of this country do us all a favour and go home cos thats what this is all about making a point good on em tez1959
  • Score: 5

9:19pm Thu 24 Apr 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

Arrggh wrote:
Zeegee ffs- The example you cite is of a will in another country- not the UK. I'm not sure how you think it equates to an alternate system being recognised in this country- it only states that where applicable another countries laws are recognised where it has jurisdiction.
If the Law Society view it all as a lot of fuss over nothing and we have had no new legislation introduced that's good enough for me.
Do you want to do away with the Beth Din also?
The Law Society clearly stated that the sharia law of another country would be superior to that of the UK in certain areas in UK courts. That means that another legal system would be recognised in a UK court.

The Law Society plainly doesn't see it as 'fuss over nothing' because it has devoted its website to attending to the matter.

Beth Din refers to theological issues in another religion....shame you had to be told that ;-)
[quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: Zeegee ffs- The example you cite is of a will in another country- not the UK. I'm not sure how you think it equates to an alternate system being recognised in this country- it only states that where applicable another countries laws are recognised where it has jurisdiction. If the Law Society view it all as a lot of fuss over nothing and we have had no new legislation introduced that's good enough for me. Do you want to do away with the Beth Din also?[/p][/quote]The Law Society clearly stated that the sharia law of another country would be superior to that of the UK in certain areas in UK courts. That means that another legal system would be recognised in a UK court. The Law Society plainly doesn't see it as 'fuss over nothing' because it has devoted its website to attending to the matter. Beth Din refers to theological issues in another religion....shame you had to be told that ;-) ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: -2

9:31pm Thu 24 Apr 14

clubrob6 says...

The police are quite right to alloy this march,but they are in a very difficult position.Most of the violence at these sorts of events actually comes from groups such as the UAF who unfortunately just like the march for England supporters also has an extremist element just going to cause trouble.I have noticed at past events be it march for England,EDL,events that there is a certain element including the UAF that cover there faces WHY??.Im not sure if its possible but if it is I would separate whoever are covering there faces from whichever side and refuse them to go on the march or counter demonstration and hold them in holding bays.There is a reason these people from all sides don't want to show there face.The other year it was UAF/counter demonstrators with covered faces that were throwing things at police horses.Even though the UAF is government funded it does not mean they are peaceful from what I have seen watching back on youtube they are anything but.The media should play its part to and report on arrests from all sides not just the ones on the march.When I went to a UKIP public meeting just to see what it was about I was abused by UAF members shouting racists,there was totally nothing racist about the event in fact I was pleased to see many races at the event .All I say is I hope it all goes peacefully and that people from all sides act lawfully,when you here about trouble people automatically assume its the people on the march causing trouble when sadly its usually people hiding behind the UAF that are the trouble makers.
The police are quite right to alloy this march,but they are in a very difficult position.Most of the violence at these sorts of events actually comes from groups such as the UAF who unfortunately just like the march for England supporters also has an extremist element just going to cause trouble.I have noticed at past events be it march for England,EDL,events that there is a certain element including the UAF that cover there faces WHY??.Im not sure if its possible but if it is I would separate whoever are covering there faces from whichever side and refuse them to go on the march or counter demonstration and hold them in holding bays.There is a reason these people from all sides don't want to show there face.The other year it was UAF/counter demonstrators with covered faces that were throwing things at police horses.Even though the UAF is government funded it does not mean they are peaceful from what I have seen watching back on youtube they are anything but.The media should play its part to and report on arrests from all sides not just the ones on the march.When I went to a UKIP public meeting just to see what it was about I was abused by UAF members shouting racists,there was totally nothing racist about the event in fact I was pleased to see many races at the event .All I say is I hope it all goes peacefully and that people from all sides act lawfully,when you here about trouble people automatically assume its the people on the march causing trouble when sadly its usually people hiding behind the UAF that are the trouble makers. clubrob6
  • Score: 10

9:31pm Thu 24 Apr 14

Arrggh says...

ZeeGee, ffs- Recognising another countries jurisdiction over property held there is not the same as a fundamental alteration of this countries legal system.
The very specific instance you cite doesn't take place wholly within the UK nor does it at any point show how Sharia would be operating here. It simply recognises that it is used elsewhere and recognises the law of that country as valid there.
The Law Society answer I've already provided should be clear enough for anyone with a grasp of English.
The only difference between the Beth Din and Sharia courts is the religion to which they apply.
ZeeGee, ffs- Recognising another countries jurisdiction over property held there is not the same as a fundamental alteration of this countries legal system. The very specific instance you cite doesn't take place wholly within the UK nor does it at any point show how Sharia would be operating here. It simply recognises that it is used elsewhere and recognises the law of that country as valid there. The Law Society answer I've already provided should be clear enough for anyone with a grasp of English. The only difference between the Beth Din and Sharia courts is the religion to which they apply. Arrggh
  • Score: 3

9:45pm Thu 24 Apr 14

clubrob6 says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
"opposition protesters have labelled it as an excuse for racism and violence. "

All coming from them, lol.

Let's face it, these people hate Englishmen being allowed to celebrate their country. It smacks of racism on their part. They also turn up in the hope that the march will be stopped by whatever means possible, and that includes violence. They do this hoping that the march will one day be banned because of its violent past. I trust that the security forces will not allow these unwashed thugs to disrupt a peaceful event.
Its a fact that the government funded UAF cause most of the trouble at these events but unfortunately the media fail to mention this.The UAF has been took over by an extremist element.I think anyone either on the march or the counter demonstation/UAF who have there faces covered should be held in holding bays while the rest are allowed to march.You have just got to look on youtube to see that the UAF is not the peaceful organisation it claims.I was up in Cumbria yesterday there were flags all over the place and the pubs were having party nights is it not allowed in the south of England anymore in case it offends?.At such marches I think its good the police video the events to prove that the extremist element is in the march and the UAF.
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: "opposition protesters have labelled it as an excuse for racism and violence. " All coming from them, lol. Let's face it, these people hate Englishmen being allowed to celebrate their country. It smacks of racism on their part. They also turn up in the hope that the march will be stopped by whatever means possible, and that includes violence. They do this hoping that the march will one day be banned because of its violent past. I trust that the security forces will not allow these unwashed thugs to disrupt a peaceful event.[/p][/quote]Its a fact that the government funded UAF cause most of the trouble at these events but unfortunately the media fail to mention this.The UAF has been took over by an extremist element.I think anyone either on the march or the counter demonstation/UAF who have there faces covered should be held in holding bays while the rest are allowed to march.You have just got to look on youtube to see that the UAF is not the peaceful organisation it claims.I was up in Cumbria yesterday there were flags all over the place and the pubs were having party nights is it not allowed in the south of England anymore in case it offends?.At such marches I think its good the police video the events to prove that the extremist element is in the march and the UAF. clubrob6
  • Score: 0

9:52pm Thu 24 Apr 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs- Recognising another countries jurisdiction over property held there is not the same as a fundamental alteration of this countries legal system.
The very specific instance you cite doesn't take place wholly within the UK nor does it at any point show how Sharia would be operating here. It simply recognises that it is used elsewhere and recognises the law of that country as valid there.
The Law Society answer I've already provided should be clear enough for anyone with a grasp of English.
The only difference between the Beth Din and Sharia courts is the religion to which they apply.
If 'it' doesn't take place in this country, why is the Law Society stating that UK courts will respect the laws of another with regard to heirship? Why is the Law Society even bothering to mention the issue?

" The Law Society answer I've already provided should be clear enough for anyone with a grasp of English."

I hope you're not including yourself. The Law Society has told us that some aspects of sharia law WILL be upheld in UK courts regardless of UK law.

"The only difference between the Beth Din and Sharia courts is the religion to which they apply." You have no idea what Beth Din and sharia are.

Sharia is the way a muslim should conduct their entire life if they are considered by others to be 'muslim'. It includes following the koran to the letter on everything, hence the fact that suicide bombers quote from the koran in their justification videos, etc. Beth Din has no bearing on the daily lives of Jewish people.
[quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: ZeeGee, ffs- Recognising another countries jurisdiction over property held there is not the same as a fundamental alteration of this countries legal system. The very specific instance you cite doesn't take place wholly within the UK nor does it at any point show how Sharia would be operating here. It simply recognises that it is used elsewhere and recognises the law of that country as valid there. The Law Society answer I've already provided should be clear enough for anyone with a grasp of English. The only difference between the Beth Din and Sharia courts is the religion to which they apply.[/p][/quote]If 'it' doesn't take place in this country, why is the Law Society stating that UK courts will respect the laws of another with regard to heirship? Why is the Law Society even bothering to mention the issue? " The Law Society answer I've already provided should be clear enough for anyone with a grasp of English." I hope you're not including yourself. The Law Society has told us that some aspects of sharia law WILL be upheld in UK courts regardless of UK law. "The only difference between the Beth Din and Sharia courts is the religion to which they apply." You have no idea what Beth Din and sharia are. Sharia is the way a muslim should conduct their entire life if they are considered by others to be 'muslim'. It includes following the koran to the letter on everything, hence the fact that suicide bombers quote from the koran in their justification videos, etc. Beth Din has no bearing on the daily lives of Jewish people. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: -2

9:52pm Thu 24 Apr 14

clubrob6 says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
The article states:

"Although march organisers had not responded to The Argus at the time of going to press last night, last year about 200 members took part in the event. "

That's odd. The organiser of the MFE Facebook page has stated minutes ago that The Argus has his/her contact details yet has not bothered to get in touch.

One side is lying about this, but it does seem odd that The Argus hasn't been able to find a single person who supports this march to talk to about it. The Argus has also failed to quote any of the many posts in support of the march on its Facebook page. I note that The Argus manged to quote Tony Campbell........do I detect a bias?
The argus like any media in the UK will only report on arrests etc from the march for England side,but at such events most arrests are made from the counter demonstrators the UAF.Anyone with masks on should not be allowed to march.The media on such occasions are always politically correct and avoid the real truth.If the UAF kept away the march would hardly be noticed with no trouble.
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: The article states: "Although march organisers had not responded to The Argus at the time of going to press last night, last year about 200 members took part in the event. " That's odd. The organiser of the MFE Facebook page has stated minutes ago that The Argus has his/her contact details yet has not bothered to get in touch. One side is lying about this, but it does seem odd that The Argus hasn't been able to find a single person who supports this march to talk to about it. The Argus has also failed to quote any of the many posts in support of the march on its Facebook page. I note that The Argus manged to quote Tony Campbell........do I detect a bias?[/p][/quote]The argus like any media in the UK will only report on arrests etc from the march for England side,but at such events most arrests are made from the counter demonstrators the UAF.Anyone with masks on should not be allowed to march.The media on such occasions are always politically correct and avoid the real truth.If the UAF kept away the march would hardly be noticed with no trouble. clubrob6
  • Score: 2

10:03pm Thu 24 Apr 14

Arrggh says...

Zeegee-
The Law Society statement again-
“The Law Society responded to requests from its members for guidance on how to help clients asking for wills that distribute their assets in accordance with Sharia practice.
“Our practice note focuses on how to do that, where it is allowed under English law.
“The Law of England and Wales will give effect to wishes clearly expressed in a valid will in so far as those wishes are compliant with the law of England.
"The issue is no more complicated than that.”
Which parts of it don't you understand? I compared the Beth Din with Sharia Courts because they are also known as Rabbinical Courts and in both cases their advice isn't legally binding- for the reasons stated by the Law Society.
Many Muslims would dispute your claim that they have to live according to Sharia to be true to their faith.
Zeegee- The Law Society statement again- “The Law Society responded to requests from its members for guidance on how to help clients asking for wills that distribute their assets in accordance with Sharia practice. “Our practice note focuses on how to do that, where it is allowed under English law. “The Law of England and Wales will give effect to wishes clearly expressed in a valid will in so far as those wishes are compliant with the law of England. "The issue is no more complicated than that.” Which parts of it don't you understand? I compared the Beth Din with Sharia Courts because they are also known as Rabbinical Courts and in both cases their advice isn't legally binding- for the reasons stated by the Law Society. Many Muslims would dispute your claim that they have to live according to Sharia to be true to their faith. Arrggh
  • Score: 1

10:04pm Thu 24 Apr 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
Zeegee ffs- The example you cite is of a will in another country- not the UK. I'm not sure how you think it equates to an alternate system being recognised in this country- it only states that where applicable another countries laws are recognised where it has jurisdiction.
If the Law Society view it all as a lot of fuss over nothing and we have had no new legislation introduced that's good enough for me.
Do you want to do away with the Beth Din also?
The Law Society clearly stated that the sharia law of another country would be superior to that of the UK in certain areas in UK courts. That means that another legal system would be recognised in a UK court.

The Law Society plainly doesn't see it as 'fuss over nothing' because it has devoted its website to attending to the matter.

Beth Din refers to theological issues in another religion....shame you had to be told that ;-)
" The example you cite is of a will in another country- not the UK."

No, it's a will drawn up by a UK solicitor - that's why the Law Society was involved.

HTH
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: Zeegee ffs- The example you cite is of a will in another country- not the UK. I'm not sure how you think it equates to an alternate system being recognised in this country- it only states that where applicable another countries laws are recognised where it has jurisdiction. If the Law Society view it all as a lot of fuss over nothing and we have had no new legislation introduced that's good enough for me. Do you want to do away with the Beth Din also?[/p][/quote]The Law Society clearly stated that the sharia law of another country would be superior to that of the UK in certain areas in UK courts. That means that another legal system would be recognised in a UK court. The Law Society plainly doesn't see it as 'fuss over nothing' because it has devoted its website to attending to the matter. Beth Din refers to theological issues in another religion....shame you had to be told that ;-)[/p][/quote]" The example you cite is of a will in another country- not the UK." No, it's a will drawn up by a UK solicitor - that's why the Law Society was involved. HTH ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 1

10:06pm Thu 24 Apr 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

Arrggh wrote:
Zeegee-
The Law Society statement again-
“The Law Society responded to requests from its members for guidance on how to help clients asking for wills that distribute their assets in accordance with Sharia practice.
“Our practice note focuses on how to do that, where it is allowed under English law.
“The Law of England and Wales will give effect to wishes clearly expressed in a valid will in so far as those wishes are compliant with the law of England.
"The issue is no more complicated than that.”
Which parts of it don't you understand? I compared the Beth Din with Sharia Courts because they are also known as Rabbinical Courts and in both cases their advice isn't legally binding- for the reasons stated by the Law Society.
Many Muslims would dispute your claim that they have to live according to Sharia to be true to their faith.
You can repeat that bit all you like. I've quoted the Law Society stating that sharia is superior to UK law in UK law courts on certain aspects of wills.
[quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: Zeegee- The Law Society statement again- “The Law Society responded to requests from its members for guidance on how to help clients asking for wills that distribute their assets in accordance with Sharia practice. “Our practice note focuses on how to do that, where it is allowed under English law. “The Law of England and Wales will give effect to wishes clearly expressed in a valid will in so far as those wishes are compliant with the law of England. "The issue is no more complicated than that.” Which parts of it don't you understand? I compared the Beth Din with Sharia Courts because they are also known as Rabbinical Courts and in both cases their advice isn't legally binding- for the reasons stated by the Law Society. Many Muslims would dispute your claim that they have to live according to Sharia to be true to their faith.[/p][/quote]You can repeat that bit all you like. I've quoted the Law Society stating that sharia is superior to UK law in UK law courts on certain aspects of wills. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: -2

10:09pm Thu 24 Apr 14

Arrggh says...

Zeegee- I'll cut out the rest as it seems to be confusing you- the most important line of that quote-
in so far as those wishes are compliant with the law of England.
What's HTH?
Zeegee- I'll cut out the rest as it seems to be confusing you- the most important line of that quote- in so far as those wishes are compliant with the law of England. What's HTH? Arrggh
  • Score: 1

10:10pm Thu 24 Apr 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

clubrob6 wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
The article states:

"Although march organisers had not responded to The Argus at the time of going to press last night, last year about 200 members took part in the event. "

That's odd. The organiser of the MFE Facebook page has stated minutes ago that The Argus has his/her contact details yet has not bothered to get in touch.

One side is lying about this, but it does seem odd that The Argus hasn't been able to find a single person who supports this march to talk to about it. The Argus has also failed to quote any of the many posts in support of the march on its Facebook page. I note that The Argus manged to quote Tony Campbell........do I detect a bias?
The argus like any media in the UK will only report on arrests etc from the march for England side,but at such events most arrests are made from the counter demonstrators the UAF.Anyone with masks on should not be allowed to march.The media on such occasions are always politically correct and avoid the real truth.If the UAF kept away the march would hardly be noticed with no trouble.
Totally correct!

The arrests at such events are caused by anti-patriots like the UAF, who gather support from all over the country to oppose the right to celebrate our patron saint.

Why would the patriots turn up to cause trouble and risk future events being banned? They wouldn't...it's the unwashed UAF/Antifa/etc who cause the problems, AND who raise the costs of policing this event.
[quote][p][bold]clubrob6[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: The article states: "Although march organisers had not responded to The Argus at the time of going to press last night, last year about 200 members took part in the event. " That's odd. The organiser of the MFE Facebook page has stated minutes ago that The Argus has his/her contact details yet has not bothered to get in touch. One side is lying about this, but it does seem odd that The Argus hasn't been able to find a single person who supports this march to talk to about it. The Argus has also failed to quote any of the many posts in support of the march on its Facebook page. I note that The Argus manged to quote Tony Campbell........do I detect a bias?[/p][/quote]The argus like any media in the UK will only report on arrests etc from the march for England side,but at such events most arrests are made from the counter demonstrators the UAF.Anyone with masks on should not be allowed to march.The media on such occasions are always politically correct and avoid the real truth.If the UAF kept away the march would hardly be noticed with no trouble.[/p][/quote]Totally correct! The arrests at such events are caused by anti-patriots like the UAF, who gather support from all over the country to oppose the right to celebrate our patron saint. Why would the patriots turn up to cause trouble and risk future events being banned? They wouldn't...it's the unwashed UAF/Antifa/etc who cause the problems, AND who raise the costs of policing this event. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 2

10:11pm Thu 24 Apr 14

clubrob6 says...

Bill in Hanover wrote:
Ashles wrote:
Have the Morons For England ever managed to adequately explain why, since they are so filled to bursting with pride for their national day, they don't march where they actually live, as opposed to coming all the way to a city where there are not wanted?
I wonder if the young lady walking past the demonstration last year when hit by a brick thrown by a member of the anti-fascist brigade, who was from Hampshire I think, has recovered yet. I don't particularly want thugs from either end of the spectrum coming here thank you.
My point exactly there is a element in both sides that are there for trouble,this year the police are going to make anyone with there face covered remove it which is good.Looking on youtube it was the counter demonstrators that caused most trouble with there faces covered.I now call them UNITE AGAINST FREEDOM as they have unfortunately been took over by an extremist element.
[quote][p][bold]Bill in Hanover[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ashles[/bold] wrote: Have the Morons For England ever managed to adequately explain why, since they are so filled to bursting with pride for their national day, they don't march where they actually live, as opposed to coming all the way to a city where there are not wanted?[/p][/quote]I wonder if the young lady walking past the demonstration last year when hit by a brick thrown by a member of the anti-fascist brigade, who was from Hampshire I think, has recovered yet. I don't particularly want thugs from either end of the spectrum coming here thank you.[/p][/quote]My point exactly there is a element in both sides that are there for trouble,this year the police are going to make anyone with there face covered remove it which is good.Looking on youtube it was the counter demonstrators that caused most trouble with there faces covered.I now call them UNITE AGAINST FREEDOM as they have unfortunately been took over by an extremist element. clubrob6
  • Score: 3

10:12pm Thu 24 Apr 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

Arrggh wrote:
Zeegee- I'll cut out the rest as it seems to be confusing you- the most important line of that quote-
in so far as those wishes are compliant with the law of England.
What's HTH?
Nothing you've posted confuses me. I've stated that you can post all you like but I have the statement from the Law Society backing my claim that sharia takes precedence in UK courts as afar as heirship goes.

The law in question was written in 1837, funnily enough. Since then, women have been given equal rights. That law only applies to how the will is written.

HTH = Hope This helps

HTH
[quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: Zeegee- I'll cut out the rest as it seems to be confusing you- the most important line of that quote- in so far as those wishes are compliant with the law of England. What's HTH?[/p][/quote]Nothing you've posted confuses me. I've stated that you can post all you like but I have the statement from the Law Society backing my claim that sharia takes precedence in UK courts as afar as heirship goes. The law in question was written in 1837, funnily enough. Since then, women have been given equal rights. That law only applies to how the will is written. HTH = Hope This helps HTH ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: -1

10:17pm Thu 24 Apr 14

Arrggh says...

Those attending the March have been issuing threats to the commies, delightfully retro of them, and others for some time. Recently some received visits from the police in advance so at least some of these threats were taken seriously enough that they warranted a chat.
They have also admitted it is their intention to cost the police as much as possible.
Why couldn't they be given a site out of town where they and any counter protesters wouldn't disrupt trade for businesses in the centre of a city that needs tourists?
Those attending the March have been issuing threats to the commies, delightfully retro of them, and others for some time. Recently some received visits from the police in advance so at least some of these threats were taken seriously enough that they warranted a chat. They have also admitted it is their intention to cost the police as much as possible. Why couldn't they be given a site out of town where they and any counter protesters wouldn't disrupt trade for businesses in the centre of a city that needs tourists? Arrggh
  • Score: 2

10:19pm Thu 24 Apr 14

Arrggh says...

Zeegee- how can you claim to understand this line-
in so far as those wishes are compliant with the law of England' and still think your response makes sense?
Zeegee- how can you claim to understand this line- in so far as those wishes are compliant with the law of England' and still think your response makes sense? Arrggh
  • Score: 3

10:19pm Thu 24 Apr 14

clubrob6 says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
"They will soon clear off when they realise no one cares"

But people DO care. They have expressed that they care across the media, including in this very newspaper, both in their opposition and their support for it.

And why shouldn't our patron saint be celebrated? I saw hundreds of English people in Brighton on St Patricks Day, wearing green and getting drunk in the traditional manner. Did all those people celebrate on April 23rd? If not, why not?

St George has been adopted by the English despite being a foreigner and being imposed by a foreign regime. St Alban has a far better claim, but we have taken St George to our hearts. I cannot understand why people are opposed to him and why people object to his celebrations.
I was up north yesterday where im from in Cumbria people had flags out,the pubs had party nights,its quite a big thing further north but unfortunately it offends certain elements of the community down south so people don't bother with it which is quite sad.The event on sunday will attract a violant element from both sides,and the press will only report on arrests from the march for England side.But im pleased this year the police are making people take face masks off etc which should hopefully avoid trouble from all sides.
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: "They will soon clear off when they realise no one cares" But people DO care. They have expressed that they care across the media, including in this very newspaper, both in their opposition and their support for it. And why shouldn't our patron saint be celebrated? I saw hundreds of English people in Brighton on St Patricks Day, wearing green and getting drunk in the traditional manner. Did all those people celebrate on April 23rd? If not, why not? St George has been adopted by the English despite being a foreigner and being imposed by a foreign regime. St Alban has a far better claim, but we have taken St George to our hearts. I cannot understand why people are opposed to him and why people object to his celebrations.[/p][/quote]I was up north yesterday where im from in Cumbria people had flags out,the pubs had party nights,its quite a big thing further north but unfortunately it offends certain elements of the community down south so people don't bother with it which is quite sad.The event on sunday will attract a violant element from both sides,and the press will only report on arrests from the march for England side.But im pleased this year the police are making people take face masks off etc which should hopefully avoid trouble from all sides. clubrob6
  • Score: 1

10:23pm Thu 24 Apr 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

Arrggh wrote:
Zeegee- how can you claim to understand this line-
in so far as those wishes are compliant with the law of England' and still think your response makes sense?
I understood the line perfectly, thanks.

I also understood the line:

"This means the English court will recognise the forced heirship requirements of a Sharia country if those apply to the moveable assets due to the deceased's domicile."
[quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: Zeegee- how can you claim to understand this line- in so far as those wishes are compliant with the law of England' and still think your response makes sense?[/p][/quote]I understood the line perfectly, thanks. I also understood the line: "This means the English court will recognise the forced heirship requirements of a Sharia country if those apply to the moveable assets due to the deceased's domicile." ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: -3

10:25pm Thu 24 Apr 14

clubrob6 says...

Andy R wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Sharia law is already operating in this country

http://www.islamic-s


haria.org/

Sorry to burst anyone's bubble........actual


ly, I'm not sorry at all ;-)
...and that's it......that's your "evidence" that we're all going to be subject to sharia law. Hilarious....utterly hilarious......
Andy R im afraid Sharia law is operating in many areas of the country,in one area a charity was doing a fancy dress run and they had to be recued.
[quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: Sharia law is already operating in this country http://www.islamic-s haria.org/ Sorry to burst anyone's bubble........actual ly, I'm not sorry at all ;-)[/p][/quote]...and that's it......that's your "evidence" that we're all going to be subject to sharia law. Hilarious....utterly hilarious......[/p][/quote]Andy R im afraid Sharia law is operating in many areas of the country,in one area a charity was doing a fancy dress run and they had to be recued. clubrob6
  • Score: -4

10:25pm Thu 24 Apr 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

Arrggh wrote:
Zeegee- how can you claim to understand this line-
in so far as those wishes are compliant with the law of England' and still think your response makes sense?
From the Law Society:

"Where Sharia rules apply, the heirs may be able to obtain a certificate of succession from the court in the jurisdiction where the deceased was domiciled. The heirs may wish to confirm the disposition of the estate under the applicable foreign law, particularly where the English law will conflicts with Sharia rules."

So yet again sharia law is superior the English law in a UK court.

HTH
[quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: Zeegee- how can you claim to understand this line- in so far as those wishes are compliant with the law of England' and still think your response makes sense?[/p][/quote]From the Law Society: "Where Sharia rules apply, the heirs may be able to obtain a certificate of succession from the court in the jurisdiction where the deceased was domiciled. The heirs may wish to confirm the disposition of the estate under the applicable foreign law, particularly where the English law will conflicts with Sharia rules." So yet again sharia law is superior the English law in a UK court. HTH ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: -3

10:34pm Thu 24 Apr 14

Arrggh says...

Zeegee- applicable foreign law, particularly where the English law will conflicts with Sharia rules."
Now how can that be in this country if the phrase 'applicable foreign law' is used? Surely that is simply recognising that in this regard British courts do not claim extra territorial jurisdiction?
Recognising the validity of another countries laws, in that country, in no way alters the legal framework of this one.
HTH
Zeegee- applicable foreign law, particularly where the English law will conflicts with Sharia rules." Now how can that be in this country if the phrase 'applicable foreign law' is used? Surely that is simply recognising that in this regard British courts do not claim extra territorial jurisdiction? Recognising the validity of another countries laws, in that country, in no way alters the legal framework of this one. HTH Arrggh
  • Score: 2

10:41pm Thu 24 Apr 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

Arrggh wrote:
Zeegee- applicable foreign law, particularly where the English law will conflicts with Sharia rules."
Now how can that be in this country if the phrase 'applicable foreign law' is used? Surely that is simply recognising that in this regard British courts do not claim extra territorial jurisdiction?
Recognising the validity of another countries laws, in that country, in no way alters the legal framework of this one.
HTH
" Surely that is simply recognising that in this regard British courts do not claim extra territorial jurisdiction? "

No, it's an acceptance that certain aspect of foreign law (in this case sharia) are superior to English law in an English court.
[quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: Zeegee- applicable foreign law, particularly where the English law will conflicts with Sharia rules." Now how can that be in this country if the phrase 'applicable foreign law' is used? Surely that is simply recognising that in this regard British courts do not claim extra territorial jurisdiction? Recognising the validity of another countries laws, in that country, in no way alters the legal framework of this one. HTH[/p][/quote]" Surely that is simply recognising that in this regard British courts do not claim extra territorial jurisdiction? " No, it's an acceptance that certain aspect of foreign law (in this case sharia) are superior to English law in an English court. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: -4

10:44pm Thu 24 Apr 14

Arrggh says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
Zeegee- applicable foreign law, particularly where the English law will conflicts with Sharia rules."
Now how can that be in this country if the phrase 'applicable foreign law' is used? Surely that is simply recognising that in this regard British courts do not claim extra territorial jurisdiction?
Recognising the validity of another countries laws, in that country, in no way alters the legal framework of this one.
HTH
" Surely that is simply recognising that in this regard British courts do not claim extra territorial jurisdiction? "

No, it's an acceptance that certain aspect of foreign law (in this case sharia) are superior to English law in an English court.
Ask someone you know who can read English to a sufficient level as to understand basic legalese.
Unless you can provide an example entirely relating to events in this country then I call bs.
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: Zeegee- applicable foreign law, particularly where the English law will conflicts with Sharia rules." Now how can that be in this country if the phrase 'applicable foreign law' is used? Surely that is simply recognising that in this regard British courts do not claim extra territorial jurisdiction? Recognising the validity of another countries laws, in that country, in no way alters the legal framework of this one. HTH[/p][/quote]" Surely that is simply recognising that in this regard British courts do not claim extra territorial jurisdiction? " No, it's an acceptance that certain aspect of foreign law (in this case sharia) are superior to English law in an English court.[/p][/quote]Ask someone you know who can read English to a sufficient level as to understand basic legalese. Unless you can provide an example entirely relating to events in this country then I call bs. Arrggh
  • Score: 3

11:43pm Thu 24 Apr 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
Zeegee- applicable foreign law, particularly where the English law will conflicts with Sharia rules."
Now how can that be in this country if the phrase 'applicable foreign law' is used? Surely that is simply recognising that in this regard British courts do not claim extra territorial jurisdiction?
Recognising the validity of another countries laws, in that country, in no way alters the legal framework of this one.
HTH
" Surely that is simply recognising that in this regard British courts do not claim extra territorial jurisdiction? "

No, it's an acceptance that certain aspect of foreign law (in this case sharia) are superior to English law in an English court.
Ask someone you know who can read English to a sufficient level as to understand basic legalese.
Unless you can provide an example entirely relating to events in this country then I call bs.
If you have issues with what the Law Society says on the matter (caused by your inability to understand its use of English) then I suggest you take them up with it.

The rest of us are free to note that certain aspects of sharia are superior to UK law in English courts.

HTH
[quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: Zeegee- applicable foreign law, particularly where the English law will conflicts with Sharia rules." Now how can that be in this country if the phrase 'applicable foreign law' is used? Surely that is simply recognising that in this regard British courts do not claim extra territorial jurisdiction? Recognising the validity of another countries laws, in that country, in no way alters the legal framework of this one. HTH[/p][/quote]" Surely that is simply recognising that in this regard British courts do not claim extra territorial jurisdiction? " No, it's an acceptance that certain aspect of foreign law (in this case sharia) are superior to English law in an English court.[/p][/quote]Ask someone you know who can read English to a sufficient level as to understand basic legalese. Unless you can provide an example entirely relating to events in this country then I call bs.[/p][/quote]If you have issues with what the Law Society says on the matter (caused by your inability to understand its use of English) then I suggest you take them up with it. The rest of us are free to note that certain aspects of sharia are superior to UK law in English courts. HTH ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: -4

11:50pm Thu 24 Apr 14

Arrggh says...

Zeegee ffs- I have no issue with the Law Society they clearly stated
'at any point of conflict between it and British law the current situation maintains that British law is supreme. '
As I've previously said the above sentence is in complete agreement with the fact that Sharia isn't part of British law.
The only example you can come up with concerns a will involving property in another country- you cannot provide an example set only in this country because there isn't one.
Try using a dictionary.
Zeegee ffs- I have no issue with the Law Society they clearly stated 'at any point of conflict between it and British law the current situation maintains that British law is supreme. ' As I've previously said the above sentence is in complete agreement with the fact that Sharia isn't part of British law. The only example you can come up with concerns a will involving property in another country- you cannot provide an example set only in this country because there isn't one. Try using a dictionary. Arrggh
  • Score: 2

12:18am Fri 25 Apr 14

Andy R says...

clubrob6 wrote:
Andy R wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Sharia law is already operating in this country

http://www.islamic-s



haria.org/

Sorry to burst anyone's bubble........actual



ly, I'm not sorry at all ;-)
...and that's it......that's your "evidence" that we're all going to be subject to sharia law. Hilarious....utterly hilarious......
Andy R im afraid Sharia law is operating in many areas of the country,in one area a charity was doing a fancy dress run and they had to be recued.
Oh...right....that all makes perfect sense......







Doh........
[quote][p][bold]clubrob6[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: Sharia law is already operating in this country http://www.islamic-s haria.org/ Sorry to burst anyone's bubble........actual ly, I'm not sorry at all ;-)[/p][/quote]...and that's it......that's your "evidence" that we're all going to be subject to sharia law. Hilarious....utterly hilarious......[/p][/quote]Andy R im afraid Sharia law is operating in many areas of the country,in one area a charity was doing a fancy dress run and they had to be recued.[/p][/quote]Oh...right....that all makes perfect sense...... Doh........ Andy R
  • Score: 4

2:32pm Fri 25 Apr 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

Arrggh wrote:
Zeegee ffs- I have no issue with the Law Society they clearly stated
'at any point of conflict between it and British law the current situation maintains that British law is supreme. '
As I've previously said the above sentence is in complete agreement with the fact that Sharia isn't part of British law.
The only example you can come up with concerns a will involving property in another country- you cannot provide an example set only in this country because there isn't one.
Try using a dictionary.
So I came up with an example to prove my case.
[quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: Zeegee ffs- I have no issue with the Law Society they clearly stated 'at any point of conflict between it and British law the current situation maintains that British law is supreme. ' As I've previously said the above sentence is in complete agreement with the fact that Sharia isn't part of British law. The only example you can come up with concerns a will involving property in another country- you cannot provide an example set only in this country because there isn't one. Try using a dictionary.[/p][/quote]So I came up with an example to prove my case. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: -1

3:06pm Fri 25 Apr 14

mimseycal says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Ashles wrote:
hoveguyactually wrote:
Rather them than Sharia Law any day.
Is it a binary choice them?

How about... neither?
Sadly, with sharia, it isn't a binary choice. You won't be allowed to argue should sharia be imposed on the UK. It is already here among the muslims, because that is what their faith is based upon. The day is coming when a sharia court overrules a decision in an English court. Don't take my word for it.....there is a plethora of sites informing you of all this, and just because some people choose to ignore them, it doesn't mean that they don't exist.
There is a plethora of sites informing us that the Martians have landed. Doesn't make it fact or even a high probability. Just scaremongering talk for those who are willing to buy in to it.

The law of the land is paramount and if you want to make sure that it remains so, exercise your right to vote. Scrutinise the actions of your local and central government representatives and hold them to account.
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ashles[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hoveguyactually[/bold] wrote: Rather them than Sharia Law any day.[/p][/quote]Is it a binary choice them? How about... neither?[/p][/quote]Sadly, with sharia, it isn't a binary choice. You won't be allowed to argue should sharia be imposed on the UK. It is already here among the muslims, because that is what their faith is based upon. The day is coming when a sharia court overrules a decision in an English court. Don't take my word for it.....there is a plethora of sites informing you of all this, and just because some people choose to ignore them, it doesn't mean that they don't exist.[/p][/quote]There is a plethora of sites informing us that the Martians have landed. Doesn't make it fact or even a high probability. Just scaremongering talk for those who are willing to buy in to it. The law of the land is paramount and if you want to make sure that it remains so, exercise your right to vote. Scrutinise the actions of your local and central government representatives and hold them to account. mimseycal
  • Score: -2

3:29pm Fri 25 Apr 14

Arrggh says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
Zeegee ffs- I have no issue with the Law Society they clearly stated
'at any point of conflict between it and British law the current situation maintains that British law is supreme. '
As I've previously said the above sentence is in complete agreement with the fact that Sharia isn't part of British law.
The only example you can come up with concerns a will involving property in another country- you cannot provide an example set only in this country because there isn't one.
Try using a dictionary.
So I came up with an example to prove my case.
So have you decided what you mean- is Sharia in force in this country or not? You seemed to be having trouble with your memory on the other thread.
The example you came up with isn't in this country it simply recognises another lands jurisdiction.
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: Zeegee ffs- I have no issue with the Law Society they clearly stated 'at any point of conflict between it and British law the current situation maintains that British law is supreme. ' As I've previously said the above sentence is in complete agreement with the fact that Sharia isn't part of British law. The only example you can come up with concerns a will involving property in another country- you cannot provide an example set only in this country because there isn't one. Try using a dictionary.[/p][/quote]So I came up with an example to prove my case.[/p][/quote]So have you decided what you mean- is Sharia in force in this country or not? You seemed to be having trouble with your memory on the other thread. The example you came up with isn't in this country it simply recognises another lands jurisdiction. Arrggh
  • Score: 1

3:31pm Fri 25 Apr 14

Mr chock says...

Andy R wrote:
hoveguyactually wrote:
Rather them than Sharia Law any day.
Oh dear. Has your local stopped selling pork scratchings?
i dont like the halal produced marshmallows that my local shop now stocks .. why is it that the food we eat is now even something islam and other religions get involved with... i know marshmallows contain gelatine but REALLy do many muslims like to see the animals suffer with their necks cut and the poor animal bled to death slow and must be more distressing than the traditional english way..
[quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hoveguyactually[/bold] wrote: Rather them than Sharia Law any day.[/p][/quote]Oh dear. Has your local stopped selling pork scratchings?[/p][/quote]i dont like the halal produced marshmallows that my local shop now stocks .. why is it that the food we eat is now even something islam and other religions get involved with... i know marshmallows contain gelatine but REALLy do many muslims like to see the animals suffer with their necks cut and the poor animal bled to death slow and must be more distressing than the traditional english way.. Mr chock
  • Score: 1

3:33pm Fri 25 Apr 14

Arrggh says...

Mr chock wrote:
Andy R wrote:
hoveguyactually wrote:
Rather them than Sharia Law any day.
Oh dear. Has your local stopped selling pork scratchings?
i dont like the halal produced marshmallows that my local shop now stocks .. why is it that the food we eat is now even something islam and other religions get involved with... i know marshmallows contain gelatine but REALLy do many muslims like to see the animals suffer with their necks cut and the poor animal bled to death slow and must be more distressing than the traditional english way..
Are you in any other way involved in animal rights? Sounds like opportunism to me.
[quote][p][bold]Mr chock[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hoveguyactually[/bold] wrote: Rather them than Sharia Law any day.[/p][/quote]Oh dear. Has your local stopped selling pork scratchings?[/p][/quote]i dont like the halal produced marshmallows that my local shop now stocks .. why is it that the food we eat is now even something islam and other religions get involved with... i know marshmallows contain gelatine but REALLy do many muslims like to see the animals suffer with their necks cut and the poor animal bled to death slow and must be more distressing than the traditional english way..[/p][/quote]Are you in any other way involved in animal rights? Sounds like opportunism to me. Arrggh
  • Score: 0

3:54pm Fri 25 Apr 14

mimseycal says...

Mr chock wrote:
Andy R wrote:
hoveguyactually wrote:
Rather them than Sharia Law any day.
Oh dear. Has your local stopped selling pork scratchings?
i dont like the halal produced marshmallows that my local shop now stocks .. why is it that the food we eat is now even something islam and other religions get involved with... i know marshmallows contain gelatine but REALLy do many muslims like to see the animals suffer with their necks cut and the poor animal bled to death slow and must be more distressing than the traditional english way..
If gelatin is involved in the manufacture of marshmellows then they are not suitable for vegetarians either. Does this mean that our laws are all conformable to vegans?

Like Beth Dins, Sharia Courts are 'opt ins' where both parties to a case have to accept that the matter be considered by either the Beth Din or the Sharia Court.
In addition, both the Beth Din and the Sharia Courts cannot enforce a judgement that runs contrary to the primary Rule of Law which here in England is the the English rule of law..

So all this getting hot under the collar is just huffing and puffing. People need to find justification for their fear of the 'other' and it seems that in their stormy teacup ... the spectre of Sharia Law will do.
[quote][p][bold]Mr chock[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hoveguyactually[/bold] wrote: Rather them than Sharia Law any day.[/p][/quote]Oh dear. Has your local stopped selling pork scratchings?[/p][/quote]i dont like the halal produced marshmallows that my local shop now stocks .. why is it that the food we eat is now even something islam and other religions get involved with... i know marshmallows contain gelatine but REALLy do many muslims like to see the animals suffer with their necks cut and the poor animal bled to death slow and must be more distressing than the traditional english way..[/p][/quote]If gelatin is involved in the manufacture of marshmellows then they are not suitable for vegetarians either. Does this mean that our laws are all conformable to vegans? Like Beth Dins, Sharia Courts are 'opt ins' where both parties to a case have to accept that the matter be considered by either the Beth Din or the Sharia Court. In addition, both the Beth Din and the Sharia Courts cannot enforce a judgement that runs contrary to the primary Rule of Law which here in England is the the English rule of law.. So all this getting hot under the collar is just huffing and puffing. People need to find justification for their fear of the 'other' and it seems that in their stormy teacup ... the spectre of Sharia Law will do. mimseycal
  • Score: 1

3:59pm Fri 25 Apr 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

mimseycal wrote:
Mr chock wrote:
Andy R wrote:
hoveguyactually wrote:
Rather them than Sharia Law any day.
Oh dear. Has your local stopped selling pork scratchings?
i dont like the halal produced marshmallows that my local shop now stocks .. why is it that the food we eat is now even something islam and other religions get involved with... i know marshmallows contain gelatine but REALLy do many muslims like to see the animals suffer with their necks cut and the poor animal bled to death slow and must be more distressing than the traditional english way..
If gelatin is involved in the manufacture of marshmellows then they are not suitable for vegetarians either. Does this mean that our laws are all conformable to vegans?

Like Beth Dins, Sharia Courts are 'opt ins' where both parties to a case have to accept that the matter be considered by either the Beth Din or the Sharia Court.
In addition, both the Beth Din and the Sharia Courts cannot enforce a judgement that runs contrary to the primary Rule of Law which here in England is the the English rule of law..

So all this getting hot under the collar is just huffing and puffing. People need to find justification for their fear of the 'other' and it seems that in their stormy teacup ... the spectre of Sharia Law will do.
You forget that 'sharia' governs everything a muslim ever does.
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr chock[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hoveguyactually[/bold] wrote: Rather them than Sharia Law any day.[/p][/quote]Oh dear. Has your local stopped selling pork scratchings?[/p][/quote]i dont like the halal produced marshmallows that my local shop now stocks .. why is it that the food we eat is now even something islam and other religions get involved with... i know marshmallows contain gelatine but REALLy do many muslims like to see the animals suffer with their necks cut and the poor animal bled to death slow and must be more distressing than the traditional english way..[/p][/quote]If gelatin is involved in the manufacture of marshmellows then they are not suitable for vegetarians either. Does this mean that our laws are all conformable to vegans? Like Beth Dins, Sharia Courts are 'opt ins' where both parties to a case have to accept that the matter be considered by either the Beth Din or the Sharia Court. In addition, both the Beth Din and the Sharia Courts cannot enforce a judgement that runs contrary to the primary Rule of Law which here in England is the the English rule of law.. So all this getting hot under the collar is just huffing and puffing. People need to find justification for their fear of the 'other' and it seems that in their stormy teacup ... the spectre of Sharia Law will do.[/p][/quote]You forget that 'sharia' governs everything a muslim ever does. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: -2

4:09pm Fri 25 Apr 14

Arrggh says...

zeegee ffs - You forget that 'sharia' governs everything a muslim ever does.
Really? Because that would mean no muslim has ever served me booze in an off-licence. Most Muslims would disagree but I'm sure you know more about their faith than they do.
zeegee ffs - You forget that 'sharia' governs everything a muslim ever does. Really? Because that would mean no muslim has ever served me booze in an off-licence. Most Muslims would disagree but I'm sure you know more about their faith than they do. Arrggh
  • Score: 2

4:10pm Fri 25 Apr 14

mimseycal says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
Mr chock wrote:
Andy R wrote:
hoveguyactually wrote:
Rather them than Sharia Law any day.
Oh dear. Has your local stopped selling pork scratchings?
i dont like the halal produced marshmallows that my local shop now stocks .. why is it that the food we eat is now even something islam and other religions get involved with... i know marshmallows contain gelatine but REALLy do many muslims like to see the animals suffer with their necks cut and the poor animal bled to death slow and must be more distressing than the traditional english way..
If gelatin is involved in the manufacture of marshmellows then they are not suitable for vegetarians either. Does this mean that our laws are all conformable to vegans?

Like Beth Dins, Sharia Courts are 'opt ins' where both parties to a case have to accept that the matter be considered by either the Beth Din or the Sharia Court.
In addition, both the Beth Din and the Sharia Courts cannot enforce a judgement that runs contrary to the primary Rule of Law which here in England is the the English rule of law..

So all this getting hot under the collar is just huffing and puffing. People need to find justification for their fear of the 'other' and it seems that in their stormy teacup ... the spectre of Sharia Law will do.
You forget that 'sharia' governs everything a muslim ever does.
Wrong! The only one who governs what a Muslim does is just the same as for anyone else. It is the individual him or herself that will determine what they do.
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr chock[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hoveguyactually[/bold] wrote: Rather them than Sharia Law any day.[/p][/quote]Oh dear. Has your local stopped selling pork scratchings?[/p][/quote]i dont like the halal produced marshmallows that my local shop now stocks .. why is it that the food we eat is now even something islam and other religions get involved with... i know marshmallows contain gelatine but REALLy do many muslims like to see the animals suffer with their necks cut and the poor animal bled to death slow and must be more distressing than the traditional english way..[/p][/quote]If gelatin is involved in the manufacture of marshmellows then they are not suitable for vegetarians either. Does this mean that our laws are all conformable to vegans? Like Beth Dins, Sharia Courts are 'opt ins' where both parties to a case have to accept that the matter be considered by either the Beth Din or the Sharia Court. In addition, both the Beth Din and the Sharia Courts cannot enforce a judgement that runs contrary to the primary Rule of Law which here in England is the the English rule of law.. So all this getting hot under the collar is just huffing and puffing. People need to find justification for their fear of the 'other' and it seems that in their stormy teacup ... the spectre of Sharia Law will do.[/p][/quote]You forget that 'sharia' governs everything a muslim ever does.[/p][/quote]Wrong! The only one who governs what a Muslim does is just the same as for anyone else. It is the individual him or herself that will determine what they do. mimseycal
  • Score: -1

12:56am Sat 26 Apr 14

Ricayboy says...

Ashles wrote:
NB - Just so the MFE can remind themselves about the noble saint for whom they are marching:

"St George was a Roman soldier during the Third Century AD, when the Emperor Diocletian was in power. It is said that he once lived in al-Khadr near Bethlehem, on land owned by his mother's family.

While the saint's father is usually traced back to Cappadocia, an area in modern Turkey, it is believed his mother was Palestinian from Lydda - now Lod, in Israel."

I suppose in a way it's quite multicultural and liberal of them to be so proud of this half Turkish, half Palestinian Italian soldier.

http://www.bbc.co.uk

/news/magazine-27048

219
Perhaps they are marching for England rather than a particular saint, who was by the way a mythical figure. It's not cool or clever to point out that St George wasn't English. We know and don't care. St Patrick wasn't Irish.
[quote][p][bold]Ashles[/bold] wrote: NB - Just so the MFE can remind themselves about the noble saint for whom they are marching: "St George was a Roman soldier during the Third Century AD, when the Emperor Diocletian was in power. It is said that he once lived in al-Khadr near Bethlehem, on land owned by his mother's family. While the saint's father is usually traced back to Cappadocia, an area in modern Turkey, it is believed his mother was Palestinian from Lydda - now Lod, in Israel." I suppose in a way it's quite multicultural and liberal of them to be so proud of this half Turkish, half Palestinian Italian soldier. http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/magazine-27048 219[/p][/quote]Perhaps they are marching for England rather than a particular saint, who was by the way a mythical figure. It's not cool or clever to point out that St George wasn't English. We know and don't care. St Patrick wasn't Irish. Ricayboy
  • Score: 2

1:00am Sat 26 Apr 14

Ricayboy says...

The truth is, these anti-MFE goons don't hate extremism and racism as they claim. Actually they hate England and they hate any notion of an English identity. Whilst they claim to hate the concept of nations, they are more than happy for other cultural groups to assert and celebrate their identities.

I don't like MFE because it does the English cause no favours, but I hate the violent and sanctimonious 'anti-racism' protests even more. It's just an excuse for the Brighton chattering classes, middle class Caroline Lucas clones to get alongside a load of brainwashed students, anarchists and hard-left types to shout abuse at a handful of blokes who are -credit to the them- sticking their necks out to say that England isn't quite dead yet. That some of us still love our country.

From a hundred dingy flats and smoke-filled squats the Cowley Club cavaliers will emerge trailing cannabis clouds and copies of the Socialist Worker. They'll be joined by posh women with plummy accents, Guardian readers and feminists, and all the other card-carry members of the right-on brigade. The Battle of Cable street! Fight fascism!

In any normal country the national day would be celebrated in every town and city. In Brighton it's seen as a controversial and racist act, proving that this town really has lost its head. The joke is, the more they stigmatise English patriotism and identity the more they fuel anger and extremism. If St George's Day was celebrated as something positive as it is in many other places there would be no issue in Brighton.
The truth is, these anti-MFE goons don't hate extremism and racism as they claim. Actually they hate England and they hate any notion of an English identity. Whilst they claim to hate the concept of nations, they are more than happy for other cultural groups to assert and celebrate their identities. I don't like MFE because it does the English cause no favours, but I hate the violent and sanctimonious 'anti-racism' protests even more. It's just an excuse for the Brighton chattering classes, middle class Caroline Lucas clones to get alongside a load of brainwashed students, anarchists and hard-left types to shout abuse at a handful of blokes who are -credit to the them- sticking their necks out to say that England isn't quite dead yet. That some of us still love our country. From a hundred dingy flats and smoke-filled squats the Cowley Club cavaliers will emerge trailing cannabis clouds and copies of the Socialist Worker. They'll be joined by posh women with plummy accents, Guardian readers and feminists, and all the other card-carry members of the right-on brigade. The Battle of Cable street! Fight fascism! In any normal country the national day would be celebrated in every town and city. In Brighton it's seen as a controversial and racist act, proving that this town really has lost its head. The joke is, the more they stigmatise English patriotism and identity the more they fuel anger and extremism. If St George's Day was celebrated as something positive as it is in many other places there would be no issue in Brighton. Ricayboy
  • Score: 3

2:00am Sat 26 Apr 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

mimseycal wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
Mr chock wrote:
Andy R wrote:
hoveguyactually wrote:
Rather them than Sharia Law any day.
Oh dear. Has your local stopped selling pork scratchings?
i dont like the halal produced marshmallows that my local shop now stocks .. why is it that the food we eat is now even something islam and other religions get involved with... i know marshmallows contain gelatine but REALLy do many muslims like to see the animals suffer with their necks cut and the poor animal bled to death slow and must be more distressing than the traditional english way..
If gelatin is involved in the manufacture of marshmellows then they are not suitable for vegetarians either. Does this mean that our laws are all conformable to vegans?

Like Beth Dins, Sharia Courts are 'opt ins' where both parties to a case have to accept that the matter be considered by either the Beth Din or the Sharia Court.
In addition, both the Beth Din and the Sharia Courts cannot enforce a judgement that runs contrary to the primary Rule of Law which here in England is the the English rule of law..

So all this getting hot under the collar is just huffing and puffing. People need to find justification for their fear of the 'other' and it seems that in their stormy teacup ... the spectre of Sharia Law will do.
You forget that 'sharia' governs everything a muslim ever does.
Wrong! The only one who governs what a Muslim does is just the same as for anyone else. It is the individual him or herself that will determine what they do.
No, sharia governs every muslim, sorry.
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr chock[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hoveguyactually[/bold] wrote: Rather them than Sharia Law any day.[/p][/quote]Oh dear. Has your local stopped selling pork scratchings?[/p][/quote]i dont like the halal produced marshmallows that my local shop now stocks .. why is it that the food we eat is now even something islam and other religions get involved with... i know marshmallows contain gelatine but REALLy do many muslims like to see the animals suffer with their necks cut and the poor animal bled to death slow and must be more distressing than the traditional english way..[/p][/quote]If gelatin is involved in the manufacture of marshmellows then they are not suitable for vegetarians either. Does this mean that our laws are all conformable to vegans? Like Beth Dins, Sharia Courts are 'opt ins' where both parties to a case have to accept that the matter be considered by either the Beth Din or the Sharia Court. In addition, both the Beth Din and the Sharia Courts cannot enforce a judgement that runs contrary to the primary Rule of Law which here in England is the the English rule of law.. So all this getting hot under the collar is just huffing and puffing. People need to find justification for their fear of the 'other' and it seems that in their stormy teacup ... the spectre of Sharia Law will do.[/p][/quote]You forget that 'sharia' governs everything a muslim ever does.[/p][/quote]Wrong! The only one who governs what a Muslim does is just the same as for anyone else. It is the individual him or herself that will determine what they do.[/p][/quote]No, sharia governs every muslim, sorry. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 1

3:35am Sat 26 Apr 14

mimseycal says...

@ ZeeGee, ffs 2:00am Sat 26 Apr 14

If there is one thing I never do, aside from trying to empty the sea with a sieve, it is to argue with a fool.

Suffice to say that so far you have succeeded in making points in favour of my stance with every post you've made.
@ ZeeGee, ffs 2:00am Sat 26 Apr 14 If there is one thing I never do, aside from trying to empty the sea with a sieve, it is to argue with a fool. Suffice to say that so far you have succeeded in making points in favour of my stance with every post you've made. mimseycal
  • Score: 0

9:43am Sat 26 Apr 14

Godabove09 says...

UAF...use Arab funds? UAF...useless at fighting (unless they are 5 on 1)? UAF...united against freedom? The truth is they are all of this and more...pathetic, appeasing filth. Ah...UAF...ugly appeasing filth? Show your faces this year commies, lets see how brave you are.
UAF...use Arab funds? UAF...useless at fighting (unless they are 5 on 1)? UAF...united against freedom? The truth is they are all of this and more...pathetic, appeasing filth. Ah...UAF...ugly appeasing filth? Show your faces this year commies, lets see how brave you are. Godabove09
  • Score: 0

9:57am Sat 26 Apr 14

mimseycal says...

Godabove09 wrote:
UAF...use Arab funds? UAF...useless at fighting (unless they are 5 on 1)? UAF...united against freedom? The truth is they are all of this and more...pathetic, appeasing filth. Ah...UAF...ugly appeasing filth? Show your faces this year commies, lets see how brave you are.
Good grief ... the eternal cry of the cerebrally challenged.
[quote][p][bold]Godabove09[/bold] wrote: UAF...use Arab funds? UAF...useless at fighting (unless they are 5 on 1)? UAF...united against freedom? The truth is they are all of this and more...pathetic, appeasing filth. Ah...UAF...ugly appeasing filth? Show your faces this year commies, lets see how brave you are.[/p][/quote]Good grief ... the eternal cry of the cerebrally challenged. mimseycal
  • Score: 0

3:05pm Sat 26 Apr 14

PorkyChopper says...

Mark63 wrote:
WHY WHY WHY are we letting them do this? We don't want their thuggish attituide and anti-everyone-that-i

sn't-like-them opinions!
OK, so you've given your opinion on the UAF, but what about the MfE?
[quote][p][bold]Mark63[/bold] wrote: WHY WHY WHY are we letting them do this? We don't want their thuggish attituide and anti-everyone-that-i sn't-like-them opinions![/p][/quote]OK, so you've given your opinion on the UAF, but what about the MfE? PorkyChopper
  • Score: 1

3:21pm Sat 26 Apr 14

PorkyChopper says...

"Opposition protesters have labelled it as an excuse for racism and violence. "
Yes, we're well aware of the reasons that the UAF turn up, thank you.
"Opposition protesters have labelled it as an excuse for racism and violence. " Yes, we're well aware of the reasons that the UAF turn up, thank you. PorkyChopper
  • Score: 1

3:27pm Sat 26 Apr 14

mimseycal says...

PorkyChopper wrote:
Mark63 wrote:
WHY WHY WHY are we letting them do this? We don't want their thuggish attituide and anti-everyone-that-i


sn't-like-them opinions!
OK, so you've given your opinion on the UAF, but what about the MfE?
Two sides of the same coin really ... but you knew that didn't you ;-)
[quote][p][bold]PorkyChopper[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mark63[/bold] wrote: WHY WHY WHY are we letting them do this? We don't want their thuggish attituide and anti-everyone-that-i sn't-like-them opinions![/p][/quote]OK, so you've given your opinion on the UAF, but what about the MfE?[/p][/quote]Two sides of the same coin really ... but you knew that didn't you ;-) mimseycal
  • Score: 2

7:55pm Sat 26 Apr 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

mimseycal wrote:
@ ZeeGee, ffs 2:00am Sat 26 Apr 14

If there is one thing I never do, aside from trying to empty the sea with a sieve, it is to argue with a fool.

Suffice to say that so far you have succeeded in making points in favour of my stance with every post you've made.
So you're in favour of patriotism, the right to have the MFE, and you're concerned about the advance of sharia in the UK.

Good for you!
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: @ ZeeGee, ffs 2:00am Sat 26 Apr 14 If there is one thing I never do, aside from trying to empty the sea with a sieve, it is to argue with a fool. Suffice to say that so far you have succeeded in making points in favour of my stance with every post you've made.[/p][/quote]So you're in favour of patriotism, the right to have the MFE, and you're concerned about the advance of sharia in the UK. Good for you! ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: -1

7:57pm Sat 26 Apr 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

Arrggh wrote:
zeegee ffs - You forget that 'sharia' governs everything a muslim ever does.
Really? Because that would mean no muslim has ever served me booze in an off-licence. Most Muslims would disagree but I'm sure you know more about their faith than they do.
There is nothing in the koran to stop muslims selling alcohol to anyone.

Your desperation is getting funnier!
[quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: zeegee ffs - You forget that 'sharia' governs everything a muslim ever does. Really? Because that would mean no muslim has ever served me booze in an off-licence. Most Muslims would disagree but I'm sure you know more about their faith than they do.[/p][/quote]There is nothing in the koran to stop muslims selling alcohol to anyone. Your desperation is getting funnier! ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: -2

7:58pm Sat 26 Apr 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

mimseycal wrote:
Mr chock wrote:
Andy R wrote:
hoveguyactually wrote:
Rather them than Sharia Law any day.
Oh dear. Has your local stopped selling pork scratchings?
i dont like the halal produced marshmallows that my local shop now stocks .. why is it that the food we eat is now even something islam and other religions get involved with... i know marshmallows contain gelatine but REALLy do many muslims like to see the animals suffer with their necks cut and the poor animal bled to death slow and must be more distressing than the traditional english way..
If gelatin is involved in the manufacture of marshmellows then they are not suitable for vegetarians either. Does this mean that our laws are all conformable to vegans?

Like Beth Dins, Sharia Courts are 'opt ins' where both parties to a case have to accept that the matter be considered by either the Beth Din or the Sharia Court.
In addition, both the Beth Din and the Sharia Courts cannot enforce a judgement that runs contrary to the primary Rule of Law which here in England is the the English rule of law..

So all this getting hot under the collar is just huffing and puffing. People need to find justification for their fear of the 'other' and it seems that in their stormy teacup ... the spectre of Sharia Law will do.
You seem to be unaware that 'sharia' applies to everything a muslim ever does. The law aspect arises when used in a legal system, but the code of sharia is applied constantly.

HTH
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr chock[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hoveguyactually[/bold] wrote: Rather them than Sharia Law any day.[/p][/quote]Oh dear. Has your local stopped selling pork scratchings?[/p][/quote]i dont like the halal produced marshmallows that my local shop now stocks .. why is it that the food we eat is now even something islam and other religions get involved with... i know marshmallows contain gelatine but REALLy do many muslims like to see the animals suffer with their necks cut and the poor animal bled to death slow and must be more distressing than the traditional english way..[/p][/quote]If gelatin is involved in the manufacture of marshmellows then they are not suitable for vegetarians either. Does this mean that our laws are all conformable to vegans? Like Beth Dins, Sharia Courts are 'opt ins' where both parties to a case have to accept that the matter be considered by either the Beth Din or the Sharia Court. In addition, both the Beth Din and the Sharia Courts cannot enforce a judgement that runs contrary to the primary Rule of Law which here in England is the the English rule of law.. So all this getting hot under the collar is just huffing and puffing. People need to find justification for their fear of the 'other' and it seems that in their stormy teacup ... the spectre of Sharia Law will do.[/p][/quote]You seem to be unaware that 'sharia' applies to everything a muslim ever does. The law aspect arises when used in a legal system, but the code of sharia is applied constantly. HTH ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: -1

8:06pm Sat 26 Apr 14

mimseycal says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
Mr chock wrote:
Andy R wrote:
hoveguyactually wrote:
Rather them than Sharia Law any day.
Oh dear. Has your local stopped selling pork scratchings?
i dont like the halal produced marshmallows that my local shop now stocks .. why is it that the food we eat is now even something islam and other religions get involved with... i know marshmallows contain gelatine but REALLy do many muslims like to see the animals suffer with their necks cut and the poor animal bled to death slow and must be more distressing than the traditional english way..
If gelatin is involved in the manufacture of marshmellows then they are not suitable for vegetarians either. Does this mean that our laws are all conformable to vegans?

Like Beth Dins, Sharia Courts are 'opt ins' where both parties to a case have to accept that the matter be considered by either the Beth Din or the Sharia Court.
In addition, both the Beth Din and the Sharia Courts cannot enforce a judgement that runs contrary to the primary Rule of Law which here in England is the the English rule of law..

So all this getting hot under the collar is just huffing and puffing. People need to find justification for their fear of the 'other' and it seems that in their stormy teacup ... the spectre of Sharia Law will do.
You seem to be unaware that 'sharia' applies to everything a muslim ever does. The law aspect arises when used in a legal system, but the code of sharia is applied constantly.

HTH
Repeating a misconception does not suddenly make it true. It is as much a misconception on the hundredth repeat.

About the only thing it does show is how fearful some people are of accepting that there is more to life then their personal prejudices.
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr chock[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hoveguyactually[/bold] wrote: Rather them than Sharia Law any day.[/p][/quote]Oh dear. Has your local stopped selling pork scratchings?[/p][/quote]i dont like the halal produced marshmallows that my local shop now stocks .. why is it that the food we eat is now even something islam and other religions get involved with... i know marshmallows contain gelatine but REALLy do many muslims like to see the animals suffer with their necks cut and the poor animal bled to death slow and must be more distressing than the traditional english way..[/p][/quote]If gelatin is involved in the manufacture of marshmellows then they are not suitable for vegetarians either. Does this mean that our laws are all conformable to vegans? Like Beth Dins, Sharia Courts are 'opt ins' where both parties to a case have to accept that the matter be considered by either the Beth Din or the Sharia Court. In addition, both the Beth Din and the Sharia Courts cannot enforce a judgement that runs contrary to the primary Rule of Law which here in England is the the English rule of law.. So all this getting hot under the collar is just huffing and puffing. People need to find justification for their fear of the 'other' and it seems that in their stormy teacup ... the spectre of Sharia Law will do.[/p][/quote]You seem to be unaware that 'sharia' applies to everything a muslim ever does. The law aspect arises when used in a legal system, but the code of sharia is applied constantly. HTH[/p][/quote]Repeating a misconception does not suddenly make it true. It is as much a misconception on the hundredth repeat. About the only thing it does show is how fearful some people are of accepting that there is more to life then their personal prejudices. mimseycal
  • Score: 1

8:20pm Sat 26 Apr 14

mimseycal says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
@ ZeeGee, ffs 2:00am Sat 26 Apr 14

If there is one thing I never do, aside from trying to empty the sea with a sieve, it is to argue with a fool.

Suffice to say that so far you have succeeded in making points in favour of my stance with every post you've made.
So you're in favour of patriotism, the right to have the MFE, and you're concerned about the advance of sharia in the UK.

Good for you!
Nothing wrong with being an eejit but an eejit convinced of his own superiority is really sad. I'd give up if I were you. You haven't the linguistic adroitness necessary for the type of verbal badinage you are straining to affect.
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: @ ZeeGee, ffs 2:00am Sat 26 Apr 14 If there is one thing I never do, aside from trying to empty the sea with a sieve, it is to argue with a fool. Suffice to say that so far you have succeeded in making points in favour of my stance with every post you've made.[/p][/quote]So you're in favour of patriotism, the right to have the MFE, and you're concerned about the advance of sharia in the UK. Good for you![/p][/quote]Nothing wrong with being an eejit but an eejit convinced of his own superiority is really sad. I'd give up if I were you. You haven't the linguistic adroitness necessary for the type of verbal badinage you are straining to affect. mimseycal
  • Score: 1

8:35pm Sat 26 Apr 14

PorkyChopper says...

mimseycal wrote:
PorkyChopper wrote:
Mark63 wrote:
WHY WHY WHY are we letting them do this? We don't want their thuggish attituide and anti-everyone-that-i



sn't-like-them opinions!
OK, so you've given your opinion on the UAF, but what about the MfE?
Two sides of the same coin really ... but you knew that didn't you ;-)
I am from Barcelona.
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PorkyChopper[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mark63[/bold] wrote: WHY WHY WHY are we letting them do this? We don't want their thuggish attituide and anti-everyone-that-i sn't-like-them opinions![/p][/quote]OK, so you've given your opinion on the UAF, but what about the MfE?[/p][/quote]Two sides of the same coin really ... but you knew that didn't you ;-)[/p][/quote]I am from Barcelona. PorkyChopper
  • Score: -1

8:39pm Sat 26 Apr 14

mimseycal says...

PorkyChopper wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
PorkyChopper wrote:
Mark63 wrote:
WHY WHY WHY are we letting them do this? We don't want their thuggish attituide and anti-everyone-that-i




sn't-like-them opinions!
OK, so you've given your opinion on the UAF, but what about the MfE?
Two sides of the same coin really ... but you knew that didn't you ;-)
I am from Barcelona.
I am originally a Londoner. But we all have our cross to bear ... even this Jewish girl ;-)
[quote][p][bold]PorkyChopper[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PorkyChopper[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mark63[/bold] wrote: WHY WHY WHY are we letting them do this? We don't want their thuggish attituide and anti-everyone-that-i sn't-like-them opinions![/p][/quote]OK, so you've given your opinion on the UAF, but what about the MfE?[/p][/quote]Two sides of the same coin really ... but you knew that didn't you ;-)[/p][/quote]I am from Barcelona.[/p][/quote]I am originally a Londoner. But we all have our cross to bear ... even this Jewish girl ;-) mimseycal
  • Score: 1

1:00am Sun 27 Apr 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

mimseycal wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
@ ZeeGee, ffs 2:00am Sat 26 Apr 14

If there is one thing I never do, aside from trying to empty the sea with a sieve, it is to argue with a fool.

Suffice to say that so far you have succeeded in making points in favour of my stance with every post you've made.
So you're in favour of patriotism, the right to have the MFE, and you're concerned about the advance of sharia in the UK.

Good for you!
Nothing wrong with being an eejit but an eejit convinced of his own superiority is really sad. I'd give up if I were you. You haven't the linguistic adroitness necessary for the type of verbal badinage you are straining to affect.
So explain in your own words why you feel you aren't intellectually equipped to discuss the issues relating to an Englishman's desire to celebrate his country's patron saint.
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: @ ZeeGee, ffs 2:00am Sat 26 Apr 14 If there is one thing I never do, aside from trying to empty the sea with a sieve, it is to argue with a fool. Suffice to say that so far you have succeeded in making points in favour of my stance with every post you've made.[/p][/quote]So you're in favour of patriotism, the right to have the MFE, and you're concerned about the advance of sharia in the UK. Good for you![/p][/quote]Nothing wrong with being an eejit but an eejit convinced of his own superiority is really sad. I'd give up if I were you. You haven't the linguistic adroitness necessary for the type of verbal badinage you are straining to affect.[/p][/quote]So explain in your own words why you feel you aren't intellectually equipped to discuss the issues relating to an Englishman's desire to celebrate his country's patron saint. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: -1

1:01am Sun 27 Apr 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

mimseycal wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
Mr chock wrote:
Andy R wrote:
hoveguyactually wrote:
Rather them than Sharia Law any day.
Oh dear. Has your local stopped selling pork scratchings?
i dont like the halal produced marshmallows that my local shop now stocks .. why is it that the food we eat is now even something islam and other religions get involved with... i know marshmallows contain gelatine but REALLy do many muslims like to see the animals suffer with their necks cut and the poor animal bled to death slow and must be more distressing than the traditional english way..
If gelatin is involved in the manufacture of marshmellows then they are not suitable for vegetarians either. Does this mean that our laws are all conformable to vegans?

Like Beth Dins, Sharia Courts are 'opt ins' where both parties to a case have to accept that the matter be considered by either the Beth Din or the Sharia Court.
In addition, both the Beth Din and the Sharia Courts cannot enforce a judgement that runs contrary to the primary Rule of Law which here in England is the the English rule of law..

So all this getting hot under the collar is just huffing and puffing. People need to find justification for their fear of the 'other' and it seems that in their stormy teacup ... the spectre of Sharia Law will do.
You seem to be unaware that 'sharia' applies to everything a muslim ever does. The law aspect arises when used in a legal system, but the code of sharia is applied constantly.

HTH
Repeating a misconception does not suddenly make it true. It is as much a misconception on the hundredth repeat.

About the only thing it does show is how fearful some people are of accepting that there is more to life then their personal prejudices.
And how does that discuss sharia's hold over everything a muslim does?
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr chock[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hoveguyactually[/bold] wrote: Rather them than Sharia Law any day.[/p][/quote]Oh dear. Has your local stopped selling pork scratchings?[/p][/quote]i dont like the halal produced marshmallows that my local shop now stocks .. why is it that the food we eat is now even something islam and other religions get involved with... i know marshmallows contain gelatine but REALLy do many muslims like to see the animals suffer with their necks cut and the poor animal bled to death slow and must be more distressing than the traditional english way..[/p][/quote]If gelatin is involved in the manufacture of marshmellows then they are not suitable for vegetarians either. Does this mean that our laws are all conformable to vegans? Like Beth Dins, Sharia Courts are 'opt ins' where both parties to a case have to accept that the matter be considered by either the Beth Din or the Sharia Court. In addition, both the Beth Din and the Sharia Courts cannot enforce a judgement that runs contrary to the primary Rule of Law which here in England is the the English rule of law.. So all this getting hot under the collar is just huffing and puffing. People need to find justification for their fear of the 'other' and it seems that in their stormy teacup ... the spectre of Sharia Law will do.[/p][/quote]You seem to be unaware that 'sharia' applies to everything a muslim ever does. The law aspect arises when used in a legal system, but the code of sharia is applied constantly. HTH[/p][/quote]Repeating a misconception does not suddenly make it true. It is as much a misconception on the hundredth repeat. About the only thing it does show is how fearful some people are of accepting that there is more to life then their personal prejudices.[/p][/quote]And how does that discuss sharia's hold over everything a muslim does? ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: -1

11:24am Sun 27 Apr 14

Arrggh says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
zeegee ffs - You forget that 'sharia' governs everything a muslim ever does.
Really? Because that would mean no muslim has ever served me booze in an off-licence. Most Muslims would disagree but I'm sure you know more about their faith than they do.
There is nothing in the koran to stop muslims selling alcohol to anyone.

Your desperation is getting funnier!
Didn't say the Quran but Sharia and there is but you will never let facts interfere with prejudice. It is considered haram, forbidden, to consume or profit from the consumption of alcohol, which is ironic because the English word derives from the Arabic- al-ghawl.
HTH
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: zeegee ffs - You forget that 'sharia' governs everything a muslim ever does. Really? Because that would mean no muslim has ever served me booze in an off-licence. Most Muslims would disagree but I'm sure you know more about their faith than they do.[/p][/quote]There is nothing in the koran to stop muslims selling alcohol to anyone. Your desperation is getting funnier![/p][/quote]Didn't say the Quran but Sharia and there is but you will never let facts interfere with prejudice. It is considered haram, forbidden, to consume or profit from the consumption of alcohol, which is ironic because the English word derives from the Arabic- al-ghawl. HTH Arrggh
  • Score: 0

11:52am Sun 27 Apr 14

pachallis says...

@ZeeGee, ffs @Arrggh and @mimseycal - I must be missing something obvious, but WTF has your discussion got to do 'March for England told to expect frosty reception'?
@ZeeGee, ffs @Arrggh and @mimseycal - I must be missing something obvious, but WTF has your discussion got to do 'March for England told to expect frosty reception'? pachallis
  • Score: 2

1:16pm Sun 27 Apr 14

Arrggh says...

pachallis wrote:
@ZeeGee, ffs @Arrggh and @mimseycal - I must be missing something obvious, but WTF has your discussion got to do 'March for England told to expect frosty reception'?
Apparently that's why they're here according to zeegee ffs- not relevant I agree but felt the need to point out his ignorance anyway.
[quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: @ZeeGee, ffs @Arrggh and @mimseycal - I must be missing something obvious, but WTF has your discussion got to do 'March for England told to expect frosty reception'?[/p][/quote]Apparently that's why they're here according to zeegee ffs- not relevant I agree but felt the need to point out his ignorance anyway. Arrggh
  • Score: 1

1:24pm Sun 27 Apr 14

mimseycal says...

pachallis wrote:
@ZeeGee, ffs @Arrggh and @mimseycal - I must be missing something obvious, but WTF has your discussion got to do 'March for England told to expect frosty reception'?
Very little I agree. However this insistance that the English Rule of Law is subservient to Sharia on the basis of Sharia Courts operating here, only by consent and subject to English Law, is seemingly the reason behind this ludicrous march of the desperate.
[quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: @ZeeGee, ffs @Arrggh and @mimseycal - I must be missing something obvious, but WTF has your discussion got to do 'March for England told to expect frosty reception'?[/p][/quote]Very little I agree. However this insistance that the English Rule of Law is subservient to Sharia on the basis of Sharia Courts operating here, only by consent and subject to English Law, is seemingly the reason behind this ludicrous march of the desperate. mimseycal
  • Score: 1

8:00pm Sun 27 Apr 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

Arrggh wrote:
pachallis wrote:
@ZeeGee, ffs @Arrggh and @mimseycal - I must be missing something obvious, but WTF has your discussion got to do 'March for England told to expect frosty reception'?
Apparently that's why they're here according to zeegee ffs- not relevant I agree but felt the need to point out his ignorance anyway.
Arrgh is caught lying again.

The march is to celebrate Englishness.
[quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pachallis[/bold] wrote: @ZeeGee, ffs @Arrggh and @mimseycal - I must be missing something obvious, but WTF has your discussion got to do 'March for England told to expect frosty reception'?[/p][/quote]Apparently that's why they're here according to zeegee ffs- not relevant I agree but felt the need to point out his ignorance anyway.[/p][/quote]Arrgh is caught lying again. The march is to celebrate Englishness. ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 0

8:01pm Sun 27 Apr 14

ZeeGee, ffs says...

Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
zeegee ffs - You forget that 'sharia' governs everything a muslim ever does.
Really? Because that would mean no muslim has ever served me booze in an off-licence. Most Muslims would disagree but I'm sure you know more about their faith than they do.
There is nothing in the koran to stop muslims selling alcohol to anyone.

Your desperation is getting funnier!
Didn't say the Quran but Sharia and there is but you will never let facts interfere with prejudice. It is considered haram, forbidden, to consume or profit from the consumption of alcohol, which is ironic because the English word derives from the Arabic- al-ghawl.
HTH
So why does the koran promise rivers of wine for the deceased muslims?
[quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: zeegee ffs - You forget that 'sharia' governs everything a muslim ever does. Really? Because that would mean no muslim has ever served me booze in an off-licence. Most Muslims would disagree but I'm sure you know more about their faith than they do.[/p][/quote]There is nothing in the koran to stop muslims selling alcohol to anyone. Your desperation is getting funnier![/p][/quote]Didn't say the Quran but Sharia and there is but you will never let facts interfere with prejudice. It is considered haram, forbidden, to consume or profit from the consumption of alcohol, which is ironic because the English word derives from the Arabic- al-ghawl. HTH[/p][/quote]So why does the koran promise rivers of wine for the deceased muslims? ZeeGee, ffs
  • Score: 0

10:34am Mon 28 Apr 14

PorkyChopper says...

ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
ZeeGee, ffs wrote:
Arrggh wrote:
zeegee ffs - You forget that 'sharia' governs everything a muslim ever does.
Really? Because that would mean no muslim has ever served me booze in an off-licence. Most Muslims would disagree but I'm sure you know more about their faith than they do.
There is nothing in the koran to stop muslims selling alcohol to anyone.

Your desperation is getting funnier!
Didn't say the Quran but Sharia and there is but you will never let facts interfere with prejudice. It is considered haram, forbidden, to consume or profit from the consumption of alcohol, which is ironic because the English word derives from the Arabic- al-ghawl.
HTH
So why does the koran promise rivers of wine for the deceased muslims?
Because they are deceased and it's their reward for abstaining from alcohol all their life? I've also been told 72 virgins is a mistranslation, and it's actually 72 raisins. WTF? Adhere strictly to a horrendously intolerant religion all your life and you get rewarded with RAISINS? Nein danke.

I find this cartoon highly amusing. http://youoffendmeyo
uoffendmyfamily.com/
wordpress/wp-content
/uploads/2010/01/72-
virgins-family-guy.j
pg
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arrggh[/bold] wrote: zeegee ffs - You forget that 'sharia' governs everything a muslim ever does. Really? Because that would mean no muslim has ever served me booze in an off-licence. Most Muslims would disagree but I'm sure you know more about their faith than they do.[/p][/quote]There is nothing in the koran to stop muslims selling alcohol to anyone. Your desperation is getting funnier![/p][/quote]Didn't say the Quran but Sharia and there is but you will never let facts interfere with prejudice. It is considered haram, forbidden, to consume or profit from the consumption of alcohol, which is ironic because the English word derives from the Arabic- al-ghawl. HTH[/p][/quote]So why does the koran promise rivers of wine for the deceased muslims?[/p][/quote]Because they are deceased and it's their reward for abstaining from alcohol all their life? I've also been told 72 virgins is a mistranslation, and it's actually 72 raisins. WTF? Adhere strictly to a horrendously intolerant religion all your life and you get rewarded with RAISINS? Nein danke. I find this cartoon highly amusing. http://youoffendmeyo uoffendmyfamily.com/ wordpress/wp-content /uploads/2010/01/72- virgins-family-guy.j pg PorkyChopper
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree