Notanumber
A Free Man
If Khan gets his way, there will not be videos like that for me to post.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
British Values
- Thread starter Notanumber
- Start date
If Khan gets his way, there will not be videos like that for me to post.
Loviatar
Red Tory/SpongeBob Conservative
To be honest, this sounds like you're a mean-spirited bully.
I see no reason to mock people for expressing religious beliefs that harm nobody else. And bear in mind, a conservative Quaker in plaindress is "acting differently from the rest of society" too, doubly so since they'll also talk in Shakespearean English. Thees, thines, etc.
Some people certainly do advocate hate speech laws, but from what I recall, Sadiq Khan advocated the government sitting down and asking private business to contain hateful comments on their platforms more stringently. Akin to Merkel's comments to Zuckerberg, basically. Much as I dislike Khan, that's not a ban on speech like the video you linked.
Last edited:
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
And IF a frog had wings...
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Well said.
Of course, should Mr Number here ever find himself a minority in any given society, I'm sure he'd take being pointed and laughed at with nothing but good grace
I don't think you're actually meant to apply rational thinking to this stuff, certainly not do any deeper research or fact checking. Just take the most oblique and loaded claims at their base face value, build up a good head of sanctimonious indignant rage, and go blame the nearest minority for all your problems. It doesn't work if you insist on putting facts in the story!
Altfish
Veteran Member
I'm not a fan of Corbyn but at least he sticks to his principals and doesn't shaft his mates like Boris did to Cameron. I've no opinion on Khan he's not got stuck on a zip wire yet or fraudulently wasted money of a London bridge.
What is taken away - you are scaremongering. He has the perfect right to say what he did. And people have the right the criticise him and argue with him.
Yes I struggle with the fact that pompous Etonians and other private school buffoons of a certain political ideology are given special privileges over the rest of the population. We can agree on that.
Were you really the person who was crying, "We are losing our freedom of speech" - but are happy for the comedy blimp to be banned. Make your mind up.
What's the zip wire thing about?
Altfish
Veteran Member
I feel more unsettled by feral youths in hoodies, can't say the burka in general unsettles me. Although I do not think it is appropriate for public facing roles, a hijab could then be worn.
Altfish
Veteran Member
Altfish
Veteran Member
To be fair, he's good at publicity in a clown like way.Bloody hell, how newsworthy
His cock-ups when Mayor of London go on and on. Cutting police numbers despite rising crime (Then blaming Khan) , buying water cannons that were not required on wanted; bendy buses that were demonised by him as cyclist killers (No one was killed) ordering buses without air-con (great for the weather we are currently having);
Claiming credit for the Olympics that his predecessor did all the work for...you could go on.
Can't say I'd vote for him.
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
It's not fair if you go around REMEMBERING stuff like that. Anyway, obviously OUR freedom of speech is sacrosanct. THEIR freedom of speech is disposable.
Loviatar
Red Tory/SpongeBob Conservative
I think Khan's obliviousness has made London's crime rate worse, but yes, Johnson's record on it is bad too. He's also a very out of touch person who's essentially owned by the London financial sector, and has a tendency towards sleaziness and pandering to bigotry.
I'm not a British citizen, just a Finnish poli-sci major living in America who finds British politics entertaining, but if I were I might vote for him over Corbyn since the latter's so far out in left field and has what I consider some dangerous foreign policy positions. However, Johnson seems like he'd be a very poor Tory leader, and a signal of Trumpian decline in the party. He's one of the worst choices they could make.
I'm not a British citizen, just a Finnish poli-sci major living in America who finds British politics entertaining, but if I were I might vote for him over Corbyn since the latter's so far out in left field and has what I consider some dangerous foreign policy positions. However, Johnson seems like he'd be a very poor Tory leader, and a signal of Trumpian decline in the party. He's one of the worst choices they could make.
Notanumber
A Free Man
At last, a sensible conversation -
Altfish
Veteran Member
"An error occurred, please try later"
As is standard for the snowflake (and gammon) that you are, you totally ignore the previous posts and set the conversation off in another direction - anyway, I couldn't play the video.
OtherSheep
<--@ Titangel
Thank you! When in Rome... used to be the yardstick. Now, people from other countries think they have a right to change other countries into their own. I'd tell them to go where that behavior is accepted, if they don't like the land they're currently overrunning. They're just as irritating as people who whine about their jobs and make everybody else go look for another job. These days, there is no place left for us to go... we have to stand and fight.
Loviatar
Red Tory/SpongeBob Conservative
We're talking about people who have legal residence in the UK, most of whom are legal citizens whether by birth or naturalization. Should citizens or approved residents of a nation have the right to express religious convictions, whatever they may be, when they harm nobody else? I think the answer to that question is always "yes."
If the answer is "no" then you're either proposing a removal of the generally agreed upon right to religious expression, or proposing adding religious criteria to residence or citizenship decision-making. The former is a pretty radical revision of the customs the West has established post-WWII, and likely to be very destabilizing as minority faiths riot and businesses divest from an authoritarian-seeming Britain.
The latter is, to be fair, a country's right as a sovereign state; I frankly can sympathize with an anti-extremism test of some kind designed to block Wahhabis, since I don't believe they're assimilable into basic British cultural values. Anything further than a simple security-focused test for extremism, though, would also be a sharp break with the general standard of inclusivity that's guided policy since the post-war era. I don't think it'd produce as sharp a backlash as outright abrogating the right to religious expression, but it would make people look warily at Britain. As a key plank of BNP-style far-right radicalism, it would also probably embolden them, probably in the form of an increasingly radicalized PJW-ified UKIP.
If the answer is "no" then you're either proposing a removal of the generally agreed upon right to religious expression, or proposing adding religious criteria to residence or citizenship decision-making. The former is a pretty radical revision of the customs the West has established post-WWII, and likely to be very destabilizing as minority faiths riot and businesses divest from an authoritarian-seeming Britain.
The latter is, to be fair, a country's right as a sovereign state; I frankly can sympathize with an anti-extremism test of some kind designed to block Wahhabis, since I don't believe they're assimilable into basic British cultural values. Anything further than a simple security-focused test for extremism, though, would also be a sharp break with the general standard of inclusivity that's guided policy since the post-war era. I don't think it'd produce as sharp a backlash as outright abrogating the right to religious expression, but it would make people look warily at Britain. As a key plank of BNP-style far-right radicalism, it would also probably embolden them, probably in the form of an increasingly radicalized PJW-ified UKIP.
Last edited:
OtherSheep
<--@ Titangel
And here's why the values have changed...
The land as it was given to the Cymry Japhethites.
"II. The three benevolent tribes of the Island of Britain.
"The first were the stock of the Cymry; who came, with Hu Gadarn, into the Island of Britam: for He would not have lands by fighting and contention, but of Equity, and in peace.
The second were the race of the Lolegrwys, who came from the land of Gwas-gwyn, and were sprung from the primitive stock of the Cymry.
The third were the Britons. They came from the land of Llydaw, and were also sprung from the primordial line of the Cymry.
"[And they are called the three peaceful tribes, because they came by mutual consent and permission, in peace and tranquillity. — The three tribes descended from the primitive race of the Cymry, and the three were of one language and one speech.]
By Consent and Permission of the Nation of the Cymry.
"III. Three tribes came, under protection, into the Island of Britain, and by the consent and permission of the nation of the Cymry, without weapon, without assault.
"The first was the tribe of the Caledonians, in the North.
The second was the Gwyddelian Race, which are now in Alban (Scotland.)
The third were the men of Galedin, who came in the naked ships (Canoes ?) into the Isle of Wight, when their country was drowned, and had lands assigned them by the Race of the Cymry.
"[And they had neither privilege nor claim in the Island of Britain, but the land and protection that were granted, under specified limits. And it was decreed, That they should not enjoy the immunities of the native Cymry, before the ninth generation.]
What it Pretends to Be Today.
"IV. Three usurping tribes came into the Island of Britain, and never departed out of it.
"The first were the Coranied, who came from the land of the Pwyl.
The second were the Gwyddelian Fichti, who came into Alban, over the sea of Llychlyn (Denmark.)
The third were the Saxons.
"[The Coranied are about the river Humber, and on the shore of Mowr Tawch, and the Gwyddelian Fichti are in Alban, on the shore of the sea of Llychlyn. — The Coranied united with the Saxons; and being partly incorporated with them, deprived the Lloegrwys of their government, by wrong and oppression: and afterwards, they deprived the Race of the Cymry of their crown and sovereignty. All the Lloegrwys became Saxons, except those who are found in Cornwall, and in the Commot of Carnohan, in Deira and Bernicia,
"The primitive Race of the Cymry have kept their land and their language; but they have lost their sovereignty of the Island of Britain, through the treachery of the protected tribes, and the violence of the three usurping tribes.]"
-- Davies, Celtic Researches, p. 155-156
____________________________
People say that whoever owns the land is the guy who owns the banks and/or the weapons.
That's not true. The Japhethite Cymry own Britain. Period. And that's where British Values began.
Last edited:
Altfish
Veteran Member
And, is there a scrap of evidence that any of this medieval mythology is true?