Eh? Freedom to wear a Muslim veil isn’t a right? Shouldn’t they be defending the right for women to choose rather than the right to do either do what their husband, father, brother or the government tells them? Ok, I’ve ownly read the headline but the word ‘insists’ suggests that the minister is saying something silly.
I can see how they can be empowering in a manner not disimilar (though clearly very different) to excessive make-up though. I probably watch Snog, Marry or Avoid to much. I also have a major problem with people who wear sunglasses, especially at night or on cloudy days. They should be made to take them off – unless they are The Velvet Underground. Hiding their eyes like that. Weirdos.
So it’s OK to hide your identity! I take it men can also wear a burka if they chose.
Muggers and hoodies take note – don’t get caught on CCTV wear a burka.
Simples!
The DM chose the wrong Islam-related story for its front page. Far more interesting was that on p. 31: ‘Muslim bus drivers refuse to let guide dogs on board’ about blind passengers being ordered off buses because Muslim drivers or passengers object to their ‘unclean’ dogs. Jill Allen-King, NFB spokesperson said that this is a common problem and getting worse. If this doesn’t show that Islam is a horrible religion I don’t know what does. I would have thought that even the leftie pro-Islamist commenters on this site would draw the line at throwing a blind person off a bus. Though if previous posts from some of you are anything to go by…
And no guff please from anyone quoting that guy from the Muslim Council of Britain. It’s what people actually do on the streets, or on the buses in this case, that matters.
The comments are beautiful. “What about that English Girl that was arrested in Dubai and locked up in a prison for giving her boyfriend a PECK on the cheek? You have to abide by the rules and laws of whatever country you are in”, wrote some schmo who didn’t realise the ban wasn’t law when the incident happend, nor is it yet.
Bet they can’t wait to start ripping veils of young women.
Looking at ceiliog’s second link shows just how little evidence there is for the idea that either of the bus drivers in the ‘Muslim bus drivers’ story were actually Muslim.
“It’s what people actually do on the streets, or on the buses in this” Can we have an alcohol ban then? Because 98% of any trouble I’ve ever had on the streets or on the buses is from drunk people. Wow, just imagine if the muzzies got pissed – there would be beheadings on the number 9.
Quinn
July 19th, 2010 at 3:55 pm
“some people “on the streets, or on the buses” are intolerant or unreasonable. Some of those people are muslims, some aren’t”
Precisely.
The sort of people who read a tale in the tabloids and decide it’s an escalating problem “getting worse”…….on the basis of 2 incidents, 1 year and 2yrs ago?
Hardly the destruction of the British state and its replacement by a Muslim fundamentalist regime now, is it?
Much as it pains me to admit it, I (partly) agree with Neander here – chucking guide dogs off a bus because your religion doesn’t like them is simply not on.
After all, when the frumpy woman with the crucifix was getting grief from the NHS, we all supported the NHS and their secular rules, so maybe the buses should follow suit?
Except Stevie H, that was about a front-line nurse not wearing a necklace that could be grabbed by a patient. The necklace could have had a crucifix, a clown or her name hanging off it, it wouldn’t have mattered. It was their uniform rules, not their secular rules. The hospital tried to compromise re the crucifix; she was having none of it and turned it into a religious issue.
So, Jill Allen-King, spokesperson for the NFB, knows less about the situation than the rest of you eh? And when she says that the problem is common and ‘getting worse’ she’s just quoting from a few tabloid articles is she? And when she also says that she has repeatedly been left on the kerb by Muslim taxi drivers who refused to take her dog, she’s just making it up is she?
I can guess what most of you will say…’Muslim taxi drivers have the right not to pick up a blind person with a dog if it conflicts with their religion.’ Uh huh, so would an employer have the right not to hire a Muslim because he/she doesn’t like their religion? Why do you consider one form of discrimination acceptable and another not so?
Where the Mail fails, is that it promotes the whinge, but fails to support the passenger against the bus company.
At best the carrier is in breach of their operating license.
So why do they just moan instead of doing something to call the wrongdoers to account.
Before we hear what Neander guesses, thinks or reckons, here’s mine.
I think they’re afraid of receiving a do-gooder label.
the 7th circle of Mail hell is reserved for do-gooders.
From the original article in the Reading newspaper of June 2009 we can note that: –
1. The religion(s) of the bus drivers were not stated.
2. Some of the passengers who were on the bus may be of asian origin.
3. The woman who was in the hospital may be asian.
4. Some of the customers who were in the supermarket may be asian.
5. A bus driver saying, “Look mate, can’t you get off?” is not the same as chucking a person off a bus.
From the Daily Mail article we can deduce that there no hard evidence available to back any claim that the situation is getting worse.
From my personal experience, I find that a some people are intolerant self-centred bigots who should be banned from buses, taxis and public places. Some of the bigots are “blind” in two senses of the word.
Haven’t read the article, but how did the (presumably blind) NFB spokesperson know that the taxi drivers who passed her by were Muslim? Just wondering.
@Ceiliog…’A bus driver saying, ‘Look mate, can’t you get off?’ is not the same as chucking a person off a bus.’ Isn’t it? What if they say, ‘No, I won’t get off.’? And why no word of condemnation from you towards any bus driver who does confront a blind person in this manner? And I’m not quite sure what the last sentence of your post means, although I think it means that on occasion you’ve been inconvenienced by a blind person and think they shouldn’t have been allowed near you.
@John Seal…I presume that Ms Allen-King was at taxi ranks and was refused a place by Muslim taxi drivers, who refused to accept her guide dog on the grounds of their religion. I don’t know of adherents of any other religion who have ‘form’ on this issue.
@Ceiliog…I wasn’t thinking on your behalf, I was thinking about your comments, which struck me as very dodgy. And I notice that you don’t answer my point about what you meant by those curious last sentences of your post: ‘From my personal experience, I find that a some people are intolerant self-centred bigots who should be banned from buses, taxis and public places. Some of the bigots are “blind” in two senses of the word.’ To whom are you referring my dear Ceiliog? Blind in two senses of the word? What exactly are these two senses?
@Neander
I asked you not to do any thinking on my behalf.
In the last two sentences of my July 17 11:07pm posting, I was referriing to bigots.
Explore the metaphysical.
Learn how to sort wheat from chaff.
Turn over a new leaf.
Explain the ethos of the Daily Mail matrix.
I back you Neander. Racial discrimin ation should work both ways. It is time that the law they were rescinded and we returned to a more British attitude towards such things.
No I did mean edit! But I really should have anticipated such a reply.Anyone who disagrees with the P.C. brigade is always likely to be treated so(I haver edidited this one)
Sorry lady Bugler*, I thought maybe you realised you’d made a total booboo and for drunken reasons I imagined you were droping in some latin. Amused me at the time. Check the front page of the site, oh and read the last (or penultimate – can’t remember) chapter in Flat Earth News too. It’s very interesting, and you won’t even have to buy the whole thing.
”PC brigade’ Really? – now that was unfourtunate, because up until that point you hadn’t seemed like a clattering idiot, just clumsy and almost endearingly innocent.
*Intentional spelling. It’s my new words for a very feminine sort of fart. Not very PC, but there you go.
lady burglar: sorry, but you’re talking rubbish again.
If something is “inborn into you” it must be part of your genetic inheritance. I challenge you to point out any way of determining a person’s nationality from their DNA. Britishness (if you can define such a thing) is cultural; it is learnt. As a “good education” would teach you to think for yourself it wouldn’t instill any particular set of cultural values into you. That would be more akin to indoctrination.
Oh, and before you accuse me of being “indoctrinated” by Labour’s education policy, I’d like to point out that all of my education was under a Conservative administration.
O.K StevieH. I am probably going to be shot down in flames but hey let’s have a go.To have a British attitude is to not only care for one’s immediate family and circle of friends but to care for the community as a whole. To do one’s civic duty without seeking payment or aggrandizement.To help those that need help.Most importantly to have a pride in this country’s past and to instil in future generations that sense and patriotic duty.
“pride in this country’s past and to instil in future generations that sense and patriotic duty.” Does that sentance come with a free toothbrush moustache or must I visualise my own?
lady burglar: I won’t shoot you down because I generally agree with your attitudes there. I differ with you because, except for the last sentence, those are values all human beings should have, not just the British. The last sentence could apply to every nation on Earth.
BTW beware of patriotism; your country isn’t always in the right.
George Bernard Shaw defined it as “Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it.”
BTW2 beware of taking pride in a country’s past as well; every country has its dark history. Everyone quotes the Nazi era for the Germans, but what about the slave trade, various massacres to maintain the Empire, etc. These were atrocities perpetrated by the British.
Sure it’s rubbish. I’m always catching myself feeling proud about the likes of the Opium Wars and Boer concention camps when I thumb through British history.
I’d opt for a more balanced view of the past but I know what I know and I like it. Give me a list of kings and industrial achivements over so-called ‘history’ any day. Revisionist leftie nonsense that it is. Piddle and pish.
Well thankyou so much for agreeing. I doubt you will agre e with this, but I will hopefully be proven wrong. I really get so cross at so called historians airbrushing the achievements of this country. Why they do it I can only guess. My thoughts are that they wish to advance their career or sell their latest book.They will insist on applying 20/21st century thinking retrospectively.Before the Iraq war the English were welcomed everywhere for their benevolent attitude. The Empire brought education, health,and employment and kept down the tyrannical ways of the “leaders” of those countries incorporated into the Empire, in fact a force for good. As for slave trading, the Arabs went in and by force took Africans with the acceptancs of tribal leaders.Since the giving back of Independance in Africa I defy you to point out one part of that Continent that is better off now.How can a so called president, or whatever they like to call themselves, bathe themselves in luxury when their own people are so destitute?
Wow! I’m debating with a polemic who doesn’t like being agreed with! Ok, I’ll just disagree, then.
I’m not judging our ancestors by 21st Century thinking. I’m criticising my own contemporaries who pretend that our history is in some way one long glorious story, ‘airbrushing’ out things like the slave trade. Certainly the Arabs and the Africans were involved in the slave trade, but this doesn’t transform it into a proud part of our history.
Yes, the Empire brought education, health, and employment to the colonies, but that was just a way of imposing our own culture upon the indigenous population. Many of the colonised territories in Africa, Asia and America had perfectly functional societies, some of them quite advanced, before the Europeans moved in. For the American Indians, Australian aborigines and many African tribes the clash of cultures was disastrous, not beneficial.
As for stopping tyranny, judging by the number of massacres used to put down rebellions I would say the Empire (like all empires) was itself a tyranny, otherwise why did the rebellions occur?
The current state of Africa is largely a result of colonisation as it destroyed much of the original social systems. The tyrants simply took advantage of the mess. Another reason for poverty in the third world is the way the international trading system is rigged in favour of the industrial countries, but that’s another debate.
Sorry to come across aggressively, but I do get rather cross at the denegration of our history.Africa, as far as I can see, is back to where it was pre-Empire days.They have descended into internecine warfare which was rife prior to the Empire and probably accounted for a lot of ills.This country has been invaded and we assimilated their culture into ours and learned from it,which I think most other societies did.So iIask why hasn’t Africa?
Oh they kept some ideas in some of those African countries – like the nice military uniforms those so-called presidents wear and Charles George Gordon did do great things to demonstrate how guns can easily keep the locals in order. Many Africans seem to still quite like Catholicism too, which has greatly helped their population safe from disease.
“As far as I can see” – there was quite an informative series on African art and culture on TV the other month, and one a year or so ago about how Christianity had a foothold in east Africa before St Paul’s legacy had even got going. To say that the west did them a massive favour in moving in is to be that little bit patronising. As with so-called history in general, it’s not that simplistic. Africa hasn’t turned into Europe because… it’s just full of naughty children? White man’s burden, indeed. Makes me wonder why Ghandi, as westernised as he was, laid down in front of the horses.
Jswindle-you have demonstrated how history is being turned on it’s head for modern political reasons. If you read the actual documented archives Gordon was invited into Egyptian Sudan at the request of the Khedive in 1874.He was then sent to the Sudan again in 1884 to organize the withdrawal of troops.He held Khartoum for nearly 12 months before being killed.That to me is the real reading of just part of his achievements and certainly does not smack of oppression.
No I haven’t since what you wrote is on the basic wiki entry. I’m just also aware that Gordon had,previous to his defeat at Khartoum, ordered his men to shoot civilians and give the enemy no quarter. This was his way of putting down the problem. It wasn’t popular with the locals, but then they didn’t get to put in reports for the British newspapers at the time.
I’m certainly interested in British history, but as something I can actually be proud off? I’m not convinced that’s what history is for unless you are actually making political points – like pointing out British superiority. No wonder much of the world find us arrogant.
Er no what? I didn’t write that that’s where you knew such things from – I was pointing out that such facts are pretty much the basics i.e a wiki search gives them up no problem. Got any info on what the Sudanese rather that Egyptians thought of the show?
Still, if you want to take pride from the accomplishments of people from long ago then go ahead. It’s a bit weird, but go ahead. If you want to rely on old history books, then that’s fine too. I’ll stick to taking on board different information and taking pride in any of my actions and at a push, should I have had a few ales and be chatting with my mum, my own ancestors.
I suppose you believe everything Caeser wrote on campaign too. None of it could possibly have been bolstered to make his actions shine on those back in Rome. Nope, not at all – and it was his accounts that I was taught as fact at school from so-called history books.
Seems to me what made Britain were its plentiful natural resources, especially latterly coal, and the fact that it’s an island and so naturally defended. Oh, and the fact that it also gave birth to a race of superior beings destined to bring the world into order.
Er, hang on a minute. Post colonial Africa “descended into internecine warfare which was rife prior to the Empire”. Well maybe it did, but what about two world wars that resulted in the industrialised slaughter of millions of people and left numerous towns and cities across the world in ruins? Doesn’t that count as “internecine”. And they were the result of empire building.
JSwindle: of course Britain’s “a race of superior beings destined to bring the world into order”.
Look, it’s in the old song:
“When Britain first, at Heaven’s command
Arose from out the azure main;
This was the charter of the land,
And guardian angels sang this strain:
‘Rule, Britannia! rule the waves:
Britons never will be slaves.’”
Notice the word is “rule”, not “rules” as many people think; it’s not a statement it’s a divine command!
Ah, yes the Battle of Rorke’s Drift. A great British victory in which regrettably may fine brave men died.
What isn’t commonly known (I don’t think it’s mentioned in the film) is that the main action of the day was the earlier Battle of Isandlwana, a major British defeat.
Why do so few people realise this? Could it be that history was “being turned on it’s head for political reasons”?
I think the film starts carrion birds pecking at dead bodies in red jackets but I may be wrong – it’s certainly not gone into. Rorkes’ Drift was certainly used atthe time to take attention away from the previous massive, massive defeat. Zulu Dawn was about Isandlwana though. It came out 15 years later.
Now I can’t stop thinking of Nigel Green. What a legend.
I’m off to have a glass of fine Chablis from the cellar and peruse my family’s documented evidence stretching back to 1004.By the way the archives to access are to be found in the War office records, which also tell of Gordon’s freeing of slaves.Fine man!!
Dear Ms. Burglar,
According to our records, the book “Log of HMS Conqueror”, which you borrowed from the library, is 28 years overdue. I would be grateful if you could return the item within the next 7 days.
Your obedient servant,
H M Stanley.
War Orifice.
Yes, Britain was, I think, the main player in the abolition of slavery, beating the supposedly liberty-loving Americans by a generation. But again it’s difficult to proclaim it as a proud national achievement as the country also benefitted greatly from the trade prior to abolition. The Industrial Revolution (another British achievement) was financed by it.
Hope you enjoy your Chablis. (No, I mean it!)
Lady B – you are hilarious. . Freed slaves? Well sure, in a foreign country that had slavery. Seems the natives weren’t so happy to have foreigners coming in, telling them how to do things when Britain had only abolished slavery itself in 1833. The East India Company could keep some for a while longer of course. Got to consider the bottom line, and cities like Bristol wouldn’t have been quite a success without it. Alls well that ends well. Sham that the Sudanese were so miffed at such meddling that they did all that massacring.
If a British way of doing things is to be imperialist then that’s just wonderful for you. I’m sure the ghosts of a few million Chinese opium addicts are very grateful too.
So how does this way of doing things inform the problem of some people not liking dogs? Should we send in the fleet?
thanks Phil but i must admit it was more than one.I was under the belief that it was great men like Arkwright, Trevithick, and Stevenson et al that gave us the Industrial Revolution. My family played a small part in that and we didn’t have any connections with the slave trade.
JSwindle- I think you will find that China had an enormous problem with Opium addiction long before they opened their ports to the French Dutch and English.
LB – those men wouldn’t have done squat if Britain didn’t have loads of coal in the right places – the Industrial Revolution was more the product of geology than anything else – engines being first built to pump water from mines. And how does the fact that China had a problem affect anything when it should highlight even further why they didn’t want to trade in the stuff and how forcing them to was less than honourable. ‘I think you will find’ that your suggestion is on par with it being fair to sell booze to a drunk when the drunk has asked you not to.
Interestingly, had China had coal in the right places they’d have quite possibly revolutionised first. As it was they had to use wood instead – which is why the wok is designed as it is -so food can be cooked by using the least amount of wood.
Opium was not illegal in China and was traded in exchange for goods prized in the west.Opium was a good way for the ruling classes to keep the peasantry docile, and it wasn’t until it began to affect the heiracy ,notably the Emporer’s son dying of the addiction, that it was made illegal. China had coal and still has vast amounts of untapped sources, so that theory doesn’t hold water.It was the inventive minds of the men previously mentioned that harnessed the power of steam that was the impetus of the Iindustrial Revolution.
Agan – What? Sure they had coal – in the WRONG places. As I mentioned up there in text for you to read. It’s a big country you know, and so only areas linked by the yellow river could really share resources. Now that China is tapping its vast resourses of coal and whatever what has happened to its economy?
Those ‘inventive minds’ would have had little to ponder if they had China’s situation. Necessity is the mother of invention and it was necessary to get water out of mines.
Opium: I don’t get your point “that it was made illegal.” Cocaine used to be legal here too and found in health tonics – should we allow people to sell it now because it used to be legal?
Forcing someone to buy your goods at gunpoint is not very sporting and I thought being British was all about fair play – but then again I’m not looking at the 1800’s and empire as an example of where we should be heading.
I really don’t get how name checking a few people who took advantage of situations helps make whatever point about Britishness you were making.
“I was under the belief that it was great men like Arkwright, Trevithick, and Stevenson et al that gave us the Industrial Revolution.” Are you now saying that no-one has any right to be “proud to be British” as all British achievements were just a small number of individuals taking advantage? In fact they couldn’t have achieved anything without the co-operation of a large number of other people.
“My family played a small part in that and we didn’t have any connections with the slave trade.” How do you know. There were so many people involved in that trade and we all have a lot of ancestors all with family relations. Chances are all our families were involved in some way.
Now you are both being perverse.I did put the words “et al” acknowledging other people achievements, and I must correct the spelling mistake I made to Stephenson. My family’s history is well documented and that is why I am so sure of my side.
Back to China. Geological luck played no part in it otherwise why did England cut canals and waterways if not to transport both goods and coal to cities, towns and regions away from coal mining areas? China fell behind,not through lack of resources and certainly not lack of manpower but purely because of their closed door mentality.
And, may I ask at who’s knee did you learn your twisted sense of history from? I feel quite sorry for the fact that you seem to have no sense of National identy or pride in this country’s past, while accepting that other countries have placed no foot wrong!
This gets tiring. Right, to not point out a countries problematic aspects when discussing another aspect is not to support them fully in all aspects. That’s poor argumentative skills on your part.
Cutting canals through Britain, a country perfectly placed for sea fairing and naturally defended, is different proposition than to do it across one that’s gigantic and feudal. Especially when you can’t can get the Irish to do it so efficiently. You may also note that canals are not very good at going up and down hills.
Please don’t feel sorry for me being able to handle the idea that many factors lead to the British being so successful and not just anything as woefully simplistic as being down to innate superiority. I’m sure you want if not need to believe this. You may ask yourself why.
“My family’s history is well documented” this proves nothing about anything other than your family. It’s irrelevant to how Britain was in a position to be successful. My family fought on both sides on the last battle on British soil – I’m not proud or ashamed of that. It’s just interesting for me – which side should I be proud off exactly? I know my identity via my ancestry, but to use it to fluff my own feathers today is just pathetic. I do like the was a great cousin helped Charles Stewart escape though. I can get romantic too.
So, dear lady B, to get back to the point: you said that a British way of doing things. Care to explain without trumping out the family album? It didn’t really make any sense.
“closed door mentality.” Now that is ironic, considering.
I wouldn’t pretend to know why China lost so much ground against the West over the past few centuries, but I suspect it may have something to do with having a more hierarchical society.
As for having “no sense of National identity”, when I’m abroad I am very aware that I am British, I make no apology for this, but also expect no special privileges because of it.
To repeat the words of George Bernard Shaw “Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it.” In other words, patriotism is a form of personal vanity – nothing to do with the nation really – and I think it’s good if we all maintain a certain level of humility.
I’m bored now, so I think we wil have to agree to disagree,but just as a rejoinder have you never heard of Foxton Locks? Coincidently my husband’s ancestor helped Charles 2nd to escape dressed as her manservant. Would this be your ancestor too? If so we might just be “kissing cousins!!!!
I guess I should have written Charles ‘Edward’ Stewart or Bonnie Prince Charley up there. The escape was after the Battle of Culloden 1746. Quite a nasty thing, but without it I’d warrant that British expansion elsewhere would have been trickier. One of my ancestors killed on the Jacobite side was 14 years old. Sigh.
Ok Lady B, nice debating with you. No doubt you’ll be contributing again soon. One thing that didn’t get mentioned here: we probably couldn’t have held this debate in China so yes, in many ways modern Britain is a better country to live in than some.
Oh dear, a Tory says people have the right to wear what they want… how very dare she….
Neander was right, the inevitable Islamaification of England has begun! Panic!
Yes even the mail is supporting the people of the tents.
(At least that’s what I think they’re saying.
It must be good if those nice tories say so, eh readers!
)
Does this mean the Mail’s given up on burkha-bashing for the time being? Now if Maggie were still in charge… ah, the good old days.
Eh? Freedom to wear a Muslim veil isn’t a right? Shouldn’t they be defending the right for women to choose rather than the right to do either do what their husband, father, brother or the government tells them? Ok, I’ve ownly read the headline but the word ‘insists’ suggests that the minister is saying something silly.
I can see how they can be empowering in a manner not disimilar (though clearly very different) to excessive make-up though. I probably watch Snog, Marry or Avoid to much. I also have a major problem with people who wear sunglasses, especially at night or on cloudy days. They should be made to take them off – unless they are The Velvet Underground. Hiding their eyes like that. Weirdos.
Ignorant comment of the day:
“your not wrong when its ok for muslim women to wear burkhas but not ok for christian women to wear a cross on a chain” – karen, gillingham uk
I would like to ask karen (sic) to define “ok” (sic) but I wouldn’t want to confuse her.
So it’s OK to hide your identity! I take it men can also wear a burka if they chose.
Muggers and hoodies take note – don’t get caught on CCTV wear a burka.
Simples!
I think you were too quick with your ignorant comment on the day. Seems they deliver these days.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by The Daily Quail, mailwatch. mailwatch said: Front Page: Mail: http://bit.ly/aeFmpb #media #dailymail [...]
The DM chose the wrong Islam-related story for its front page. Far more interesting was that on p. 31: ‘Muslim bus drivers refuse to let guide dogs on board’ about blind passengers being ordered off buses because Muslim drivers or passengers object to their ‘unclean’ dogs. Jill Allen-King, NFB spokesperson said that this is a common problem and getting worse. If this doesn’t show that Islam is a horrible religion I don’t know what does. I would have thought that even the leftie pro-Islamist commenters on this site would draw the line at throwing a blind person off a bus. Though if previous posts from some of you are anything to go by…
And no guff please from anyone quoting that guy from the Muslim Council of Britain. It’s what people actually do on the streets, or on the buses in this case, that matters.
Muslim bashing on another article today.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1295749/Muslim-bus-drivers-refuse-let-guide-dogs-board.html
The original article on http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2051804_blind_passenger_hounded_off_bus_because_of_his_dog reveals that the alleged incident took place on 20 May 2009 with a previous alleged incident in the summer of 2008.
Yep, Cynophobia – that uniquely Islamic phobia. Still, keep making the news fit your own narrative Neander.
This one’s even more interesting:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1279349/Burqa-rage-female-lawyer-rips-veil-Muslim-woman-French-clothes-store.html
The comments are beautiful. “What about that English Girl that was arrested in Dubai and locked up in a prison for giving her boyfriend a PECK on the cheek? You have to abide by the rules and laws of whatever country you are in”, wrote some schmo who didn’t realise the ban wasn’t law when the incident happend, nor is it yet.
Bet they can’t wait to start ripping veils of young women.
@Neander
What happens is that some people “on the streets, or on the buses” are intolerant or unreasonable. Some of those people are muslims, some aren’t.
Next!
“leftie pro-Islamist commenters on this site” And once again for the Neanders at the back – to not be against something does not mean you are for it.
If things are indeed getting worse then I’d hazard a guess that your brand of them and us mindspunk is very much part of the wedge.
Fear has led to this ban, not rationalism. And now that fear has been state sanctioned by the French. Voltaire, where are you when we need you.
Looking at ceiliog’s second link shows just how little evidence there is for the idea that either of the bus drivers in the ‘Muslim bus drivers’ story were actually Muslim.
“It’s what people actually do on the streets, or on the buses in this” Can we have an alcohol ban then? Because 98% of any trouble I’ve ever had on the streets or on the buses is from drunk people. Wow, just imagine if the muzzies got pissed – there would be beheadings on the number 9.
Neander
July 19th, 2010 at 2:47 pm
“this is a common problem and getting worse”
Ceiliog
July 19th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
The original article on http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2051804_blind_passenger_hounded_off_bus_because_of_his_dog reveals that the alleged incident took place on 20 May 2009 with a previous alleged incident in the summer of 2008.
Quinn
July 19th, 2010 at 3:55 pm
“some people “on the streets, or on the buses” are intolerant or unreasonable. Some of those people are muslims, some aren’t”
Precisely.
The sort of people who read a tale in the tabloids and decide it’s an escalating problem “getting worse”…….on the basis of 2 incidents, 1 year and 2yrs ago?
Hardly the destruction of the British state and its replacement by a Muslim fundamentalist regime now, is it?
First they came for our guide dogs, and I did nothing…
Much as it pains me to admit it, I (partly) agree with Neander here – chucking guide dogs off a bus because your religion doesn’t like them is simply not on.
After all, when the frumpy woman with the crucifix was getting grief from the NHS, we all supported the NHS and their secular rules, so maybe the buses should follow suit?
Except Stevie H, that was about a front-line nurse not wearing a necklace that could be grabbed by a patient. The necklace could have had a crucifix, a clown or her name hanging off it, it wouldn’t have mattered. It was their uniform rules, not their secular rules. The hospital tried to compromise re the crucifix; she was having none of it and turned it into a religious issue.
So, Jill Allen-King, spokesperson for the NFB, knows less about the situation than the rest of you eh? And when she says that the problem is common and ‘getting worse’ she’s just quoting from a few tabloid articles is she? And when she also says that she has repeatedly been left on the kerb by Muslim taxi drivers who refused to take her dog, she’s just making it up is she?
I can guess what most of you will say…’Muslim taxi drivers have the right not to pick up a blind person with a dog if it conflicts with their religion.’ Uh huh, so would an employer have the right not to hire a Muslim because he/she doesn’t like their religion? Why do you consider one form of discrimination acceptable and another not so?
Where the Mail fails, is that it promotes the whinge, but fails to support the passenger against the bus company.
At best the carrier is in breach of their operating license.
So why do they just moan instead of doing something to call the wrongdoers to account.
Before we hear what Neander guesses, thinks or reckons, here’s mine.
I think they’re afraid of receiving a do-gooder label.
the 7th circle of Mail hell is reserved for do-gooders.
From the original article in the Reading newspaper of June 2009 we can note that: –
1. The religion(s) of the bus drivers were not stated.
2. Some of the passengers who were on the bus may be of asian origin.
3. The woman who was in the hospital may be asian.
4. Some of the customers who were in the supermarket may be asian.
5. A bus driver saying, “Look mate, can’t you get off?” is not the same as chucking a person off a bus.
From the Daily Mail article we can deduce that there no hard evidence available to back any claim that the situation is getting worse.
From my personal experience, I find that a some people are intolerant self-centred bigots who should be banned from buses, taxis and public places. Some of the bigots are “blind” in two senses of the word.
Haven’t read the article, but how did the (presumably blind) NFB spokesperson know that the taxi drivers who passed her by were Muslim? Just wondering.
@Ceiliog…’A bus driver saying, ‘Look mate, can’t you get off?’ is not the same as chucking a person off a bus.’ Isn’t it? What if they say, ‘No, I won’t get off.’? And why no word of condemnation from you towards any bus driver who does confront a blind person in this manner? And I’m not quite sure what the last sentence of your post means, although I think it means that on occasion you’ve been inconvenienced by a blind person and think they shouldn’t have been allowed near you.
@John Seal…I presume that Ms Allen-King was at taxi ranks and was refused a place by Muslim taxi drivers, who refused to accept her guide dog on the grounds of their religion. I don’t know of adherents of any other religion who have ‘form’ on this issue.
@Neander
I leave condemnation, without all the evidence, to you as you’re so good at it.
Don’t do any thinking on by behalf.
@Ceiliog…I wasn’t thinking on your behalf, I was thinking about your comments, which struck me as very dodgy. And I notice that you don’t answer my point about what you meant by those curious last sentences of your post: ‘From my personal experience, I find that a some people are intolerant self-centred bigots who should be banned from buses, taxis and public places. Some of the bigots are “blind” in two senses of the word.’ To whom are you referring my dear Ceiliog? Blind in two senses of the word? What exactly are these two senses?
Wow. That’s not what the last sentence meant at all.
@Neander
I asked you not to do any thinking on my behalf.
In the last two sentences of my July 17 11:07pm posting, I was referriing to bigots.
Explore the metaphysical.
Learn how to sort wheat from chaff.
Turn over a new leaf.
Explain the ethos of the Daily Mail matrix.
I back you Neander. Racial discrimin ation should work both ways. It is time that the law they were rescinded and we returned to a more British attitude towards such things.
Just read my last post-sorry should edit it first before pressing the button
Er… Bus drivers are not allowed to throw blind people and their guide dogs off buses.
By edit did you mean delete?
No I did mean edit! But I really should have anticipated such a reply.Anyone who disagrees with the P.C. brigade is always likely to be treated so(I haver edidited this one)
@ lady burglar:
“more British attitude towards such things”
Please expand?
Sorry lady Bugler*, I thought maybe you realised you’d made a total booboo and for drunken reasons I imagined you were droping in some latin. Amused me at the time. Check the front page of the site, oh and read the last (or penultimate – can’t remember) chapter in Flat Earth News too. It’s very interesting, and you won’t even have to buy the whole thing.
”PC brigade’ Really? – now that was unfourtunate, because up until that point you hadn’t seemed like a clattering idiot, just clumsy and almost endearingly innocent.
*Intentional spelling. It’s my new words for a very feminine sort of fart. Not very PC, but there you go.
JS-really shouldn’t have to explain “Britishness” to you. It should be inborn into you and re-inforced by a good education.
lady burglar: sorry, but you’re talking rubbish again.
If something is “inborn into you” it must be part of your genetic inheritance. I challenge you to point out any way of determining a person’s nationality from their DNA. Britishness (if you can define such a thing) is cultural; it is learnt. As a “good education” would teach you to think for yourself it wouldn’t instill any particular set of cultural values into you. That would be more akin to indoctrination.
Seems to me that indoctrination passed me by but has certainly ensnared a lot of you over the Labour years
@ lady burglar
You would make a good politician! You refuse to answer the question. I shall repeat it, a la Paxman:
“more British attitude towards such things”
Please expand?
@ lady burglar
Oh, and before you accuse me of being “indoctrinated” by Labour’s education policy, I’d like to point out that all of my education was under a Conservative administration.
Stevie H-Ah Ha so thats is the reason why you are so erudite!
Thanks for the flattery, now will you answer the question?
O.K StevieH. I am probably going to be shot down in flames but hey let’s have a go.To have a British attitude is to not only care for one’s immediate family and circle of friends but to care for the community as a whole. To do one’s civic duty without seeking payment or aggrandizement.To help those that need help.Most importantly to have a pride in this country’s past and to instil in future generations that sense and patriotic duty.
Unfortunately, from what I see, many British* people don’t share those values.
* In a Daily Mail sense, i.e. white and born here.
“pride in this country’s past and to instil in future generations that sense and patriotic duty.” Does that sentance come with a free toothbrush moustache or must I visualise my own?
lady burglar: I won’t shoot you down because I generally agree with your attitudes there. I differ with you because, except for the last sentence, those are values all human beings should have, not just the British. The last sentence could apply to every nation on Earth.
BTW beware of patriotism; your country isn’t always in the right.
George Bernard Shaw defined it as “Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it.”
BTW2 beware of taking pride in a country’s past as well; every country has its dark history. Everyone quotes the Nazi era for the Germans, but what about the slave trade, various massacres to maintain the Empire, etc. These were atrocities perpetrated by the British.
Phil-rubbish
Sure it’s rubbish. I’m always catching myself feeling proud about the likes of the Opium Wars and Boer concention camps when I thumb through British history.
I’d opt for a more balanced view of the past but I know what I know and I like it. Give me a list of kings and industrial achivements over so-called ‘history’ any day. Revisionist leftie nonsense that it is. Piddle and pish.
lady burglar: which bit is rubbish? Remember: I agreed with most of what you said.
Well thankyou so much for agreeing. I doubt you will agre e with this, but I will hopefully be proven wrong. I really get so cross at so called historians airbrushing the achievements of this country. Why they do it I can only guess. My thoughts are that they wish to advance their career or sell their latest book.They will insist on applying 20/21st century thinking retrospectively.Before the Iraq war the English were welcomed everywhere for their benevolent attitude. The Empire brought education, health,and employment and kept down the tyrannical ways of the “leaders” of those countries incorporated into the Empire, in fact a force for good. As for slave trading, the Arabs went in and by force took Africans with the acceptancs of tribal leaders.Since the giving back of Independance in Africa I defy you to point out one part of that Continent that is better off now.How can a so called president, or whatever they like to call themselves, bathe themselves in luxury when their own people are so destitute?
Wow! I’m debating with a polemic who doesn’t like being agreed with! Ok, I’ll just disagree, then.
I’m not judging our ancestors by 21st Century thinking. I’m criticising my own contemporaries who pretend that our history is in some way one long glorious story, ‘airbrushing’ out things like the slave trade. Certainly the Arabs and the Africans were involved in the slave trade, but this doesn’t transform it into a proud part of our history.
Yes, the Empire brought education, health, and employment to the colonies, but that was just a way of imposing our own culture upon the indigenous population. Many of the colonised territories in Africa, Asia and America had perfectly functional societies, some of them quite advanced, before the Europeans moved in. For the American Indians, Australian aborigines and many African tribes the clash of cultures was disastrous, not beneficial.
As for stopping tyranny, judging by the number of massacres used to put down rebellions I would say the Empire (like all empires) was itself a tyranny, otherwise why did the rebellions occur?
The current state of Africa is largely a result of colonisation as it destroyed much of the original social systems. The tyrants simply took advantage of the mess. Another reason for poverty in the third world is the way the international trading system is rigged in favour of the industrial countries, but that’s another debate.
Sorry to come across aggressively, but I do get rather cross at the denegration of our history.Africa, as far as I can see, is back to where it was pre-Empire days.They have descended into internecine warfare which was rife prior to the Empire and probably accounted for a lot of ills.This country has been invaded and we assimilated their culture into ours and learned from it,which I think most other societies did.So iIask why hasn’t Africa?
Oh they kept some ideas in some of those African countries – like the nice military uniforms those so-called presidents wear and Charles George Gordon did do great things to demonstrate how guns can easily keep the locals in order. Many Africans seem to still quite like Catholicism too, which has greatly helped their population safe from disease.
“As far as I can see” – there was quite an informative series on African art and culture on TV the other month, and one a year or so ago about how Christianity had a foothold in east Africa before St Paul’s legacy had even got going. To say that the west did them a massive favour in moving in is to be that little bit patronising. As with so-called history in general, it’s not that simplistic. Africa hasn’t turned into Europe because… it’s just full of naughty children? White man’s burden, indeed. Makes me wonder why Ghandi, as westernised as he was, laid down in front of the horses.
Jswindle-you have demonstrated how history is being turned on it’s head for modern political reasons. If you read the actual documented archives Gordon was invited into Egyptian Sudan at the request of the Khedive in 1874.He was then sent to the Sudan again in 1884 to organize the withdrawal of troops.He held Khartoum for nearly 12 months before being killed.That to me is the real reading of just part of his achievements and certainly does not smack of oppression.
No I haven’t since what you wrote is on the basic wiki entry. I’m just also aware that Gordon had,previous to his defeat at Khartoum, ordered his men to shoot civilians and give the enemy no quarter. This was his way of putting down the problem. It wasn’t popular with the locals, but then they didn’t get to put in reports for the British newspapers at the time.
I’m certainly interested in British history, but as something I can actually be proud off? I’m not convinced that’s what history is for unless you are actually making political points – like pointing out British superiority. No wonder much of the world find us arrogant.
Ok, so it was Kitchener who did the real nasty stuff in revenge of Gordon, but the overall point remains.
Err no! I got it from a much older and more reliable source than Wikipedia.
Er no what? I didn’t write that that’s where you knew such things from – I was pointing out that such facts are pretty much the basics i.e a wiki search gives them up no problem. Got any info on what the Sudanese rather that Egyptians thought of the show?
Still, if you want to take pride from the accomplishments of people from long ago then go ahead. It’s a bit weird, but go ahead. If you want to rely on old history books, then that’s fine too. I’ll stick to taking on board different information and taking pride in any of my actions and at a push, should I have had a few ales and be chatting with my mum, my own ancestors.
I suppose you believe everything Caeser wrote on campaign too. None of it could possibly have been bolstered to make his actions shine on those back in Rome. Nope, not at all – and it was his accounts that I was taught as fact at school from so-called history books.
Seems to me what made Britain were its plentiful natural resources, especially latterly coal, and the fact that it’s an island and so naturally defended. Oh, and the fact that it also gave birth to a race of superior beings destined to bring the world into order.
Er, hang on a minute. Post colonial Africa “descended into internecine warfare which was rife prior to the Empire”. Well maybe it did, but what about two world wars that resulted in the industrialised slaughter of millions of people and left numerous towns and cities across the world in ruins? Doesn’t that count as “internecine”. And they were the result of empire building.
JSwindle: of course Britain’s “a race of superior beings destined to bring the world into order”.
Look, it’s in the old song:
“When Britain first, at Heaven’s command
Arose from out the azure main;
This was the charter of the land,
And guardian angels sang this strain:
‘Rule, Britannia! rule the waves:
Britons never will be slaves.’”
Notice the word is “rule”, not “rules” as many people think; it’s not a statement it’s a divine command!
Sure, but that sort of warfare had startched collars.
Phil – I get it. I finally get it! Hallelujah, praise The Lord and pass the ammunition!
Right, now to get some tissues ready and go watch the DVD special edition of Zulu.
Ah, yes the Battle of Rorke’s Drift. A great British victory in which regrettably may fine brave men died.
What isn’t commonly known (I don’t think it’s mentioned in the film) is that the main action of the day was the earlier Battle of Isandlwana, a major British defeat.
Why do so few people realise this? Could it be that history was “being turned on it’s head for political reasons”?
I think the film starts carrion birds pecking at dead bodies in red jackets but I may be wrong – it’s certainly not gone into. Rorkes’ Drift was certainly used atthe time to take attention away from the previous massive, massive defeat. Zulu Dawn was about Isandlwana though. It came out 15 years later.
Now I can’t stop thinking of Nigel Green. What a legend.
I’m off to have a glass of fine Chablis from the cellar and peruse my family’s documented evidence stretching back to 1004.By the way the archives to access are to be found in the War office records, which also tell of Gordon’s freeing of slaves.Fine man!!
Dear Ms. Burglar,
According to our records, the book “Log of HMS Conqueror”, which you borrowed from the library, is 28 years overdue. I would be grateful if you could return the item within the next 7 days.
Your obedient servant,
H M Stanley.
War Orifice.
Yes, Britain was, I think, the main player in the abolition of slavery, beating the supposedly liberty-loving Americans by a generation. But again it’s difficult to proclaim it as a proud national achievement as the country also benefitted greatly from the trade prior to abolition. The Industrial Revolution (another British achievement) was financed by it.
Hope you enjoy your Chablis. (No, I mean it!)
Lady B – you are hilarious. . Freed slaves? Well sure, in a foreign country that had slavery. Seems the natives weren’t so happy to have foreigners coming in, telling them how to do things when Britain had only abolished slavery itself in 1833. The East India Company could keep some for a while longer of course. Got to consider the bottom line, and cities like Bristol wouldn’t have been quite a success without it. Alls well that ends well. Sham that the Sudanese were so miffed at such meddling that they did all that massacring.
If a British way of doing things is to be imperialist then that’s just wonderful for you. I’m sure the ghosts of a few million Chinese opium addicts are very grateful too.
So how does this way of doing things inform the problem of some people not liking dogs? Should we send in the fleet?
thanks Phil but i must admit it was more than one.I was under the belief that it was great men like Arkwright, Trevithick, and Stevenson et al that gave us the Industrial Revolution. My family played a small part in that and we didn’t have any connections with the slave trade.
JSwindle- I think you will find that China had an enormous problem with Opium addiction long before they opened their ports to the French Dutch and English.
LB – those men wouldn’t have done squat if Britain didn’t have loads of coal in the right places – the Industrial Revolution was more the product of geology than anything else – engines being first built to pump water from mines. And how does the fact that China had a problem affect anything when it should highlight even further why they didn’t want to trade in the stuff and how forcing them to was less than honourable. ‘I think you will find’ that your suggestion is on par with it being fair to sell booze to a drunk when the drunk has asked you not to.
Interestingly, had China had coal in the right places they’d have quite possibly revolutionised first. As it was they had to use wood instead – which is why the wok is designed as it is -so food can be cooked by using the least amount of wood.
Opium was not illegal in China and was traded in exchange for goods prized in the west.Opium was a good way for the ruling classes to keep the peasantry docile, and it wasn’t until it began to affect the heiracy ,notably the Emporer’s son dying of the addiction, that it was made illegal. China had coal and still has vast amounts of untapped sources, so that theory doesn’t hold water.It was the inventive minds of the men previously mentioned that harnessed the power of steam that was the impetus of the Iindustrial Revolution.
Agan – What? Sure they had coal – in the WRONG places. As I mentioned up there in text for you to read. It’s a big country you know, and so only areas linked by the yellow river could really share resources. Now that China is tapping its vast resourses of coal and whatever what has happened to its economy?
Those ‘inventive minds’ would have had little to ponder if they had China’s situation. Necessity is the mother of invention and it was necessary to get water out of mines.
Opium: I don’t get your point “that it was made illegal.” Cocaine used to be legal here too and found in health tonics – should we allow people to sell it now because it used to be legal?
Forcing someone to buy your goods at gunpoint is not very sporting and I thought being British was all about fair play – but then again I’m not looking at the 1800’s and empire as an example of where we should be heading.
I really don’t get how name checking a few people who took advantage of situations helps make whatever point about Britishness you were making.
“I was under the belief that it was great men like Arkwright, Trevithick, and Stevenson et al that gave us the Industrial Revolution.” Are you now saying that no-one has any right to be “proud to be British” as all British achievements were just a small number of individuals taking advantage? In fact they couldn’t have achieved anything without the co-operation of a large number of other people.
“My family played a small part in that and we didn’t have any connections with the slave trade.” How do you know. There were so many people involved in that trade and we all have a lot of ancestors all with family relations. Chances are all our families were involved in some way.
Now you are both being perverse.I did put the words “et al” acknowledging other people achievements, and I must correct the spelling mistake I made to Stephenson. My family’s history is well documented and that is why I am so sure of my side.
Back to China. Geological luck played no part in it otherwise why did England cut canals and waterways if not to transport both goods and coal to cities, towns and regions away from coal mining areas? China fell behind,not through lack of resources and certainly not lack of manpower but purely because of their closed door mentality.
And, may I ask at who’s knee did you learn your twisted sense of history from? I feel quite sorry for the fact that you seem to have no sense of National identy or pride in this country’s past, while accepting that other countries have placed no foot wrong!
This gets tiring. Right, to not point out a countries problematic aspects when discussing another aspect is not to support them fully in all aspects. That’s poor argumentative skills on your part.
Cutting canals through Britain, a country perfectly placed for sea fairing and naturally defended, is different proposition than to do it across one that’s gigantic and feudal. Especially when you can’t can get the Irish to do it so efficiently. You may also note that canals are not very good at going up and down hills.
Please don’t feel sorry for me being able to handle the idea that many factors lead to the British being so successful and not just anything as woefully simplistic as being down to innate superiority. I’m sure you want if not need to believe this. You may ask yourself why.
“My family’s history is well documented” this proves nothing about anything other than your family. It’s irrelevant to how Britain was in a position to be successful. My family fought on both sides on the last battle on British soil – I’m not proud or ashamed of that. It’s just interesting for me – which side should I be proud off exactly? I know my identity via my ancestry, but to use it to fluff my own feathers today is just pathetic. I do like the was a great cousin helped Charles Stewart escape though. I can get romantic too.
So, dear lady B, to get back to the point: you said that a British way of doing things. Care to explain without trumping out the family album? It didn’t really make any sense.
“closed door mentality.” Now that is ironic, considering.
I wouldn’t pretend to know why China lost so much ground against the West over the past few centuries, but I suspect it may have something to do with having a more hierarchical society.
As for having “no sense of National identity”, when I’m abroad I am very aware that I am British, I make no apology for this, but also expect no special privileges because of it.
To repeat the words of George Bernard Shaw “Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it.” In other words, patriotism is a form of personal vanity – nothing to do with the nation really – and I think it’s good if we all maintain a certain level of humility.
Pretty much exactly.
I’m bored now, so I think we wil have to agree to disagree,but just as a rejoinder have you never heard of Foxton Locks? Coincidently my husband’s ancestor helped Charles 2nd to escape dressed as her manservant. Would this be your ancestor too? If so we might just be “kissing cousins!!!!
Well we may as well end on a cordial note.
I guess I should have written Charles ‘Edward’ Stewart or Bonnie Prince Charley up there. The escape was after the Battle of Culloden 1746. Quite a nasty thing, but without it I’d warrant that British expansion elsewhere would have been trickier. One of my ancestors killed on the Jacobite side was 14 years old. Sigh.
Ok Lady B, nice debating with you. No doubt you’ll be contributing again soon. One thing that didn’t get mentioned here: we probably couldn’t have held this debate in China so yes, in many ways modern Britain is a better country to live in than some.
It’s just not as good as it used to be.
thanks boys see you soon x