Of chalk and cheese

People often look to make comparisons to make a point and often choose the most ludicrous examples, the classic amongst which is comparing the Palestinian treatment by Israel to the holocaust or apartheid, when a quick examination proves that they are no such thing which is not to minimise the issues, but simply make the point that exaggeration does nothing for your cause except make you look silly to an outside observer.
Telegraph.

Church leaders renewed their stand-off with the Coalition over hunger in Britain using Easter sermons to speak of poverty and destitution, as one bishop claimed Government cuts were having “sinful consequences”.
The Archbishop of Canterbury the Most Rev Justin Welby singled out the experiences of people turning to food banks in the UK as an example of suffering in the world, alongside the crises in Syria and Ukraine.
He also said those who quietly man food banks were making a more powerful statement of the Christian message than figures such as himself who “shout” about religion on a national stage.
In his sermon, he spoke about sorrow and listed examples of people around the world shedding tears including bereaved mothers in Syria and people in Ukraine and Rwanda. He added: “In this country, even as the economy improves there is weeping in broken families, in people ashamed to seek help from food banks, or frightened by debt.
“Asylum seekers weep with loneliness and missing far away families.”

I'm sorry, but telling us the tears of families seeking help from foodbanks pale into comparison with what happened in Rwanda and what's happening in Syria. I'm also pretty sure that what's going on in the Ukraine doesn't really compare either.
The real trick about using comparison for effect is that you do not try and make yourself sound utterly ridiculous when you do it. The end result is to water down your point in a similar way the left watered down the terms fascist and racist to accuse anyone who didn't think like they did. By shutting down debate, they ensured that the problems got worse and people started to think about more extreme solutions.
Not that I think the Arch-Druid will shut down debate, just that he minimises the impact of his sermon by comparing chalk with cheese, I rather doubt anyone whose hobbyhorse isn't opposing benefits reform will take what he has to say seriously... assuming they even notice what he says anyway.
Telling us that those who shed tears of pride for using foodbanks in comparison to those who are losing or have lost their lives in Syria and Rwanda does himself and his cause no favours whatsoever...

Telling it like it is

It's often grimly amusing when the MSM discover what's actually going on with islamic extremism and seeks to present it as extreme rather than something that the quran actually advocates. The current 'Trojan Horse' scandal in Birmingham (and elsewhere) schools being a case in point where non-islamics are being forced out of majority muslim schools to make way for what the MSM and Ofsted call extremists or in my view actual muslims who believe what their paedophile prophet actually preached...
Mail.

A Muslim hardliner who says adulterers should be stoned to death and that gay men and fornicators should be lashed 100 times has set up an Islamic school that has received almost £1million of taxpayers’ money.
Ibrahim Hewitt, one of Britain’s most prominent Islamic firebrands – who also heads a charity branded a ‘terrorist’ organisation by the US – is the founder and chairman of trustees of the Al-Aqsa school in Leicester, which teaches 250 boys and girls aged between three and 11.
He has vilified homosexuals as paedophiles and said a man can take on a second wife if his first fails to satisfy him sexually. Mr Hewitt has published his views in a book on Islam, which he claims has sold more than 50,000 copies in Britain.
The preacher is the author of a book called What Does Islam Say?, which spells out his vision of ‘true Islam’. In it he advocates the killing of adulterers by stoning. The book says: ‘Any act that destabilises marriage will also destabilise society. Hence the Islamic punishments for such acts are severe… Married men and women found guilty of adultery are to be stoned to death.’
The book also advocates 100 lashes for fornication and sodomy with both men and women, and condemns homosexuality as a ‘grave sin’.
Mr Hewitt says in the book: ‘Islam, like most other major faiths of the world, categorically forbids homosexual practices (sexual relations between two men or between two women), regarding them as a great sin. In a society under Islamic law, such would be severely punished.’
He then compares homosexuals to paedophiles or those who commit incest. The book says: ‘If people have such desires [homosexuality], they should keep them to themselves, and control their desires to avoid forbidden practices.
‘The advice would be the same as, say, to someone who had sexual desires for minors or for close family: that having the desires does not legitimise realising them.’
The book also argues that men and women are not equal, and men have a right to assume leadership over women. ‘Islam recognises the leadership of men over women, but it does not recognise the domination of one over the other.’
He adds: ‘If a woman is unable to satisfy the sexual or other needs of her husband he may consider taking another wife, rather than the common Western practice of secretly taking a mistress.’
Mr Hewitt has in the past said that ‘political Zionism is a threat to world peace’ and has objected to the setting up of Holocaust Memorial Day.

Thing is, he's absolutely correct in his book about what islam actually says, same as the barbarians who butchered Lee Rigby were doing exactly what islam said.
That is the problem we face with the powers that be in this country and their leftard enablers in local government and public services. They simply do not believe what islam say, you saw it with Cameron and his pronouncement that what the butchers of Lee Rigby did wasn't real islam when it bloody well was!
So what we have is a concerted attempt by islamists to infiltrate and take over certain schools and start teaching what the quran actually says and promote what the hadith's (interpretations of the quran) permit such as segregation, paedophilia, misogyny, murder, homophobia and hatred of Jews.
This isn't just in Birmingham though, it's anywhere in the UK we've allowed the blight of islam to thrive and multiply. Essentially we've allowed an intolerant, political, mind control, supremacist, expansionist, thugocracy masquerading as a religion to take root in towns and cities all over England and dictate to us via the morons in power how they are going to behave and only now do the morons in charge realise the problem they have on their hands even whilst trying to deny its there.
Thing is, we don't know what's being said in mosques, we don't know what's being said in schools they control, but we do know the results of seeing what happens to countries they control and people they don't like once they get into a majority.
There is no place for islam in a civilised country...

Pandering

There's a guy I work with, he's fairly new to the company and a really nice guy. However one of the jobs he has to do is erect ancillary equipment on scaffolding and this means working at heights. When he first started he said he had no problem with heights and appeared to get on fine doing the job. There have now been two incidents however in which he has run into problems working at exposed heights, even with the harness system we use for protection.
Disciplinary proceedings (of a sort) are now ongoing and despite being counselled over the first incident, it rather looks like the guy will lose his job due to his unwillingness (or fear) to carry out his duties.
It's a shame, he's a nice guy, but the company isn't willing to employ someone who can't or won't do the job they are employed for.
You'd think this would be the same in most businesses, well you'd be wrong, particularly if you're dealing with a member of the religion of perpetual offence...
Telegraph.

Muslim staff working for Marks & Spencer have been given permission to refuse to serve customers buying alcohol or pork products
Its policy decision has highlighted a split among the big food retailers over whether religious staff should be excused certain jobs.
In contrast to M&S, Sainsbury’s said it had issued official guidelines that stated there was no reason why staff who did not drink alcohol or eat pork for religious reasons could not handle the goods.
The advice followed consultations with religious groups, said a spokesman.
Tesco said it treated each case on its merits, but said it “made no sense” to employ staff on a till who refused to touch certain items for religious reasons.
At M&S, Muslim staff who do not wish to handle alcohol or pork have been told they can politely request that customers choose another till at which to pay.

Now I have no problem with the muslims having difficulty handling glass and plastic for after all it's not like they will actually come into contact with the articles their silly god has said they can't touch. The problem I have is stores employing people who cannot or will not do their jobs and cite religious reasons for doing so. If the job requirement is for you to work at a checkout and deal with the good sold in the store, then that's what you do. If there's a problem handling said goods for you personally, then you really shouldn't be working there, nor forcing your religious driven phobias on other people who are actually paying your bloody wages!
Pandering to religions, not just the islamic one is simply not a path to be going down. Yet Marks and Spencer are doing just that by pandering to certain staff, rather than refusing to employ them because in essence they are making themselves unemployable in the role they've applied for. Would you expect a scaffolding company to employ an erector that refused to work at heights for religious reasons? Or a doctor who would refuse to treat the sick if their skin was the wrong colour? Yet this is essence is what Marks and Spencer are permitting, they are employing those who are refusing to do their jobs and allowing them to use their religion as an excuse not to do them.
This is a slippery slope that we're going down and pandering to these people here and in other areas simply makes them attempt to try for more concessions from companies, politicians and other organisations.
If you can't do a job, then you should not apply for it, simple as that.

Normalising a debased religion

I don't like islam, I believe that those who bomb, maim, mutilate, rob, steal, rape, groom underage children are all following in the exact words of its founder. That's not to say that all muslims are bad people, it's just my opinion that many are good people in spite of their religion, rather than because of it.
So it comes as no surprise that a leftard headmistress jumped the gun by telling parents that children would be marked down for racial discrimination if they did not attend a workshop on Islam. This is despite the fact that islam, nor muslim is actually a race despite the best attempts by the moronic left to insist that it is...
Mail.

Parents today accused a primary school of trying to 'blackmail' them after they were told their children would be marked down for racial discrimination if they did not attend a workshop on Islam.
The headmistress of Littleton Green Community School, in Huntington, Staffordshire, wrote to parents telling them about the school trip to the Explore Islam workshop at Staffordshire University next week.
They were told the Years Four and Six children would be looking at religious artefacts on their visit - and threatened with being labelled as racists 'throughout their school career' if they did not go.

Going through the various comments also displays a staggering ignorance with few being able to tell the difference between a religion and race. As for the schools reasoning that they have to study another religion, you'd think they'd opt to avoid one with a history of barbarism that stretches through to today. This comes on top of a threat of another twin towers outrage by muslim groups in Norway if they don't get a part of Oslo declared a muslim enclave under shariah law.
This is why there is no place for islam in any civilised society and this is why the left who have been complicit in apologising for these barbarians have no place in government, power or influence in the UK as they too are the enemies of civilisation.
We are storing up a dreadful legacy for our children by allowing this religion a place in our society in pretty much the same way as the left supported Hitler at the beginning of WW2 because of the pact between Hitler and Stalin and ended up horrified by the invasion of the barbaric Soviet Union.
You reap what you sow, something leftards and other apologists for the religion of hate seem to forget.

Bansturbation

Remember, remember the fifth of November
Gunpowder, treason and plot.
I see no reason, why gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot.

Bonfire night as it's sometimes known as, a celebration in the UK of a plot foiled to destroy our Parliament and possibly herald in a different regime more friendly to Catholicism. Or in my eyes a reminder to Parliament that next time they might not be so lucky.
Still, as ever there's someone out there who wants to ban it, but not for the usual 'fireworks are dangerous' meme that comes around at this time of year.
No, they want it banned because it's anti-Catholic.
Express.

BONFIRE Night should have been stopped years ago ­because of its anti-Catholic overtones, campaigners say.
Burning an effigy of the Pope at Lewes, East Sussex, is especially offensive, they insist, and setting fire to a likeness of Guy Fawkes is just outdated.Bonfire Night commemorates the Gunpowder Plot of November 5, 1605, when ­Catholic rebels tried to blow up Parliament and kill the Scottish Protestant king James I.
They were caught, tortured and put to death, but Fawkes ­declared: “Our intention was to blow back the beggarly Scots to their native mountains.”
Now Edinburgh Secular Society chairman Gary McLelland wants to purge Bonfire Night of sectarian links. He said: “I think we should have stopped years ago. Bonfire Night should become a purely secular event.”

Well, I have news for Mr McLelland, bonfire night is pretty much a secular event as even Catholics take part in it and thoroughly enjoy setting off fireworks like the rest of us.
Again though this is simply just another case of someone (or society) with an agenda looking to generate headlines at a particular time of the year. The various Secular Societies are not particularly nice people in that they believe that those who are religious should be treat differently from the rest of society, not just the dangerous religions though, all religions. It is these killjoys who would ban Christmas and Easter,  something even Cromwell tried and failed at. Naturally though the Secular Societies usually pick on religions they know will shrug and get on with things, you rarely hear of them having a go at islam for instance which shows that self preservation rather than actual commitment is at the source of their litany of complaints.
As it is, Edinburgh Secular Society chairman Gary McLelland has his fifteen minutes of fame and the rest of us know what a tosser he actually is.
There is nothing religious about Bonfire Night any more, hasn't been for several generations. I know that, you know that, the Roman Catholic Church knows that.
Shame Gary McLelland doesn't appear to know it...

Freedom of choice

Every year at this time I choose to wear a poppy to remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country, willingly or not. This is my choice, I do it to honour the fallen and those who live with the consequences of serving their country in the armed services. As for those who choose not to wear a poppy or even wear a white one, that is there choice too, so long as it's an informed choice and not something else...
Telegraph.

A female vicar has sparked fury by refusing to wear a poppy when she conducts this year's remembrance service because the symbol 'advocates war'.
American-born Reverend Patricia Jackson announced the controversial decision at a meeting of the clergy.
The vicar, who calls herself Rev PJ, told local councillors it was her "democratic right" not to wear the poppy when she conducts the service at Hadley Methodist Church in Telford, Shropshire on November 10.
She refused to give a reason for her decision but a spokesperson at the Telford circuit said it was because Rev Jackson is in favour of peace.
A church spokesman said: "Reverend Jackson is happy to wear a white poppy but doesn't want to wear a red one because she feels it advocates war which is something she does not believe in.

I foresee a vicar in a world of trouble soon, however that's her choice. However i do believe the idiot woman is misinformed as to the red poppy's significance as it does not commemorate war, does not glorify war nor does it advocate militarism. It reminds us of sacrifice and those who fell as well as those who served. There is precious little glory in war as any conversation with soldiers, sailors or airmen will tell you. Nor does the horror of seeing your friends killed or maimed give them anything other than grief.
As for the white poppy, well it was used by the Women's Cooperative back in 1933 as a symbol to end all wars, six years later the UK was fighting for its life agains the Nazi's, there was the horror of the concentration camps and the systematic murder of foreign nationals on their own soil by the Einsatzgruppen der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD. The white poppy to me symbolises the peace at any price mindset of the hard of thinking aka the left who are happy to disarm civilisation, though no one else. These were the same people who wanted to ban the bomb (only for the UK) spied upon their own citizens and raved about the socialist paradises across the iron curtain and who still bitterly regret the people there throwing off the yoke of the communists.
The white poppy to me does not symbolise peace, but surrender, this is my view and one which I hold too which is why I will never wear one and do not care for those who do. However this is their choice as it is the vicars choice.
That said, why the hell is she still doing the remembrance service for the fallen if she chooses not to honour their memory?

Their gaff their rules.

Yes its muslims... again.
I'm of the opinion that your employer decides just what goes on in his premises. Dress code, health and safety basically what you can and can't do, so long as its within the law. But as we all know, islam and muslims have their own interpretations of just what they can and can't do and aren't afraid to get litigious about it.
Mail.

Two Muslim Tesco workers have won a discrimination case against the supermarket after bosses kept their prayer room locked.
Abdirisak Aden and Mahamed Hasan, both aged 27, were among a number of devout Muslim employees who had lobbied for a prayer room since 2006.
In 2008 managers agreed to set aside a security office at the distribution depot in Crick, Northamptonshire, as a prayer room for Muslims.
But in 2012 bosses set new restrictions on the use of the room which included keeping it locked when it was not in use.
Muslim workers were forced to tell managers when they were going to pray and had to ask for the key and fill in their names in a book every time they entered the room.
They also claimed they were forbidden to worship in groups and were only allowed to pray one at a time.

Is it just me, if you're praying, then you aren't working, if you aren't working, then you don't get paid? It's not like it's a call of nature now is it?
Express.

TWO teenage Muslim pupils have been banned from lessons after refusing to shave off their beards for school.
The school says the 14 year olds are breaching its dress code and has placed the boys in isolation, sparking a row with their parents.
The boys’ families claim they are suffering discrimination because beards are a symbol of faith and their religion forbids them to shave.
However, the Mount Carmel Roman Catholic High School in Accrington, Lancashire, has conducted it own research which concludes the boys are not required by the Koran to wear beards, and it is merely their choice.

Pretty much a case of the muslims not knowing the quran which doesn't mention beards or shaving and more a cultural desire to emulate the murderous, misogynistic, bigamistic, paedophilic, murderous warlord founder of the islamic cult.
Now as far as I'm concerned (though not the judge) Tesco's have set aside a room for muslims to pray, most other groups would either do it outside of work or as they are working. They won't allow groups, after all who wants he workforce knocking off in bunches to chat to their sky fairy? They're supposed to be working after all and if they can't cope without knocking their heads on a mat for part of the day alone then perhaps they ought to go somewhere else.
As for the boys, well the school has its dress code and religion ought not to trump the code, I doubt anyone else would try this tack except of course muslims. It's the same with the veil and the desire to knock off and pray. If you want to do that in your own house or on the street (so long as you don't block the traffic) then fine, but you don't get to say so in my place or in anyone else's place who says you can't.
Same with the schoolgirls mother who was going on about her daughter not being allowed to wear a 'Help for heroes' bracelet in school. It's a good cause, but it's against the rules.
Live with it, because using the law to enforce your rules is storing up a lot of trouble for yourself in the future.

A message from the EDL to the Archdruid of Canterbury

Telegraph.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has said he does not want to live in a "monocultural" society and condemned "unacceptable" and "inexcusable" attacks on Muslims over recent weeks.

Apart from the fact that there have been little or few attacks on muslims other than by muslims.
Of course he could be using the Tell Mama data which has been proven to be made up of course
Telegraph.

Tell Mama and Mr Mughal did not mention, however, that 57 per cent of the 212 reports referred to activity that took place only online, mainly offensive postings on Twitter and Facebook, or that a further 16 per cent of the 212 reports had not been verified. Not all the online abuse even originated in Britain.

I rather suspect the Archmoron is...
Perhaps he'd be better off looking at what the people he's defending are actually up too...

2001: "asians" behind most racist attacks:

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1160552.stm
2006: white people are the victim in half of racist murders ("political correctness stifling debate"):
www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/oct/22/ukcrime.race
Racist Murders of White Men/Women by Muslims
Lee Rigby (2013)
Kieran Crump-Raiswell (2013)
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2356211/Gap-year-student-Ki...
William McKeeney (2012)
kafircrusaders.wordpress.com/2012/10/15/racist-muslims-asif-...
Victor Parsons & Keith Needell (2012)
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2146328/Ali-Koc-Sadistic-ki...
Rosina Waller (2010)
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-11889364
Christopher Folkes (2009)
www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/4786313.Teenager_kicked_B...
Keith Brown (2008)
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1022815/BNP-hijack-murder-t...
Vicente Delgado (2007)
www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/146497/.html
Andrew Holland
www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/2036526.thug_stabbed_victim_the...
Christopher Yates (2005)
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4463142.stm
Mary-Ann Leneghan (2005)
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/4953362.stm
Kris Donald (2004)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kriss_Donald
Gavin Hopley (2003)
scot.altermedia.info/insecurity-ethnic-mixing/justice-for-ga...
Charlene Downes (2003)
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1552482/Missing-girls-body-p...
Ross Parker (2001)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Ross_Parker

Aaron Dugmore, 9 (2013)

en.metapedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Dugmore
Christina Edkins, 16 (2013)

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2289518...-journey-school.html
David Ryding, 26 (2013)

www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news...g-death-race-5098626
Danny O'Shea, 18 (2011)

en.metapedia.org/wiki/Danny_O%27Shea


It makes quite a list of people attacked, missing or murdered by the none indigenous of this country.
Yet what does the Archdruid do? He attacks those who are exposing the barbarism in society by using figures which appear to have been drawn from thin air!
He even mentions attacks on mosques, most of which after some sensational headlines go strangely quiet after it turns out the perpetrators weren't white or English.
Basically he's attacking the majority for something they haven't even done.
Astonishingly he doesn't mention the bloodstained borders surrounding islamic states next to non islamic ones. He doesn't mention the plight of the Copts in Egypt, the terrorised Christian communities in Iraq and Syria the persecution of Christians in Pakistan ...
Basically the list of islamic barbarism is endless and the Archmoron chooses to attack some minor (if true) incidents!
What happened to Lee Rigby was unacceptable... What happened next whilst bad doesn't even come close.
The Archmoron ought to read the sign held up by the EDL member and perhaps contemplate that before opening his ignorant mouth to shove his foot in it!

Hypocrisy

Whilst I can see the need for someone to be the conscience of a nation, I really do not think that at the moment the church is in a position to do such a thing. Too many scandals, too much support for unworthy causes and too much pandering to other religions does not help.
BBC.

Four churches have joined forces to accuse the government of welfare payment cuts they say are unjust and target society's most vulnerable.
The Easter criticism has come from the Baptist Union of Great Britain, the Methodist and United Reformed Churches, and the Church of Scotland.
They also want to see a change to "a false picture" of the poor as "lazy".
The government said society suffered when people were paid more to be unemployed than to work.
A series of changes to benefits are being made in April - including capping rises on working-age benefits at 1% - which will affect hundreds of thousands of households across the UK.

Looks like a case of other people's money syndrome being played out on the BBC, though one can't help but wonder if it would have been a major headline if as i were the Labour Party facing such criticism. What is particularly galling is that those calling upon the government to give to those who do not contribute are multi billion pound organisations themselves.
The Church of England for instance holds investments in industrial estates, leisure parks, shopping centres, parking facilities in the city of London and European property. As an established religious organisation, the Various churches are also exempt paying VAT on the costs of maintaining their property, and therefore not contributing to the tax revenue required to run the country, yet they expect us to pay more.
The other three are not so wealthy yet they are clearly in breach of several biblical (New Testament) commands...

Matthew 19:21... Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.

Matthew 6.1... Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of people in order to be noticed by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. So whenever you give to the poor, do not blow a trumpet before you, like the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they will be praised by people. Truly I tell you, they have their full reward! But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be done in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

Matthew 6.5... And when you pray, you should not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. But you, when you pray, enter into your closet, and when you have shut your door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and your Father which sees you in secret shall reward you openly.

Mark 6.7... And he called to him the twelve, and began to send them out two by two, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits. He charged them to take nothing for their journey except a staff; no bread, no bag, no money in their belts; but to wear sandals and not put on two tunics.


In other words people in glass houses should not throw bricks. If you're going to criticise someone for not spending money on the poor, it's best not to do it from the position of a multi-billion pound organisation.
This is hypocrisy in the extreme, the church would do well to look at the teachings of its founder and not be gathering the fruits of Mammon to spend upon maintaining itself nor using the donations of its followers to keep 44 Bishops on a salary of circa £40,000 to £80,000 a year, who all live rent free in one of the Church’s lavish, historic, houses/palaces/castles.
Note, this isn't an attack on Christians or Christianity, but upon the organisations that have grown up to support themselves by their means. Until or unless Christians go back to basics and shed the bishops and the wealth accumulated then such criticism of the government for not helping the poor simply looks like posturing...

Marginalised

I did have a bit of a snigger at an ex arch druid of Canterbury's attack on David Cameron accusing him of feeding the fear of Christian persecution. This being the same guy who sat silent when Labour invited in all those militant islamists who really have it in for Christians (and pretty much everyone else)
BBC.

The former archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, has accused David Cameron of making Christians feel marginalised.
He said it was a "bit rich" for the prime minister to tell religious leaders to oppose secularisation.
This follows comments made by the PM at a pre-Easter Downing Street reception for faith leaders.
A Downing Street spokesman rejected the criticism, saying Mr Cameron valued "the profound contribution" Christianity had made to UK life.
But Lord Carey wrote in the Daily Mail that the government seemed to be "aiding and abetting" aggressive secularisation.

One wonders why he kept so silent when Labour allowed a foreign creed to establish deep roots in the UK. Why he didn't speak out against shariah courts and grooming of young girls by islamists. Nor why he didn't speak out against Labours clearly hostile stance towards Christians with their secular attacks on bed and breakfast owners who refuse to allow gays into their establishment, people who wore crosses and registrars who were sacked owing to their Christian beliefs.
No, as ever he goes for an easy target rather than the party really responsible for taking Christianity to the edge in the UK.
That's always been the problem for the C of E, it was once known as the Tory party at prayer, but lately a series of ambitious left wing arch Bishops has driven the church itself further into the wilderness as it mistook social justice for actual Christian ethics.
The C of E only has itself to blame for the position it finds itself in, they sat and said nothing whilst Labour pulled the rug from underneath them, mostly because the previous two Bishops were Labour supporters rather than actual Christians.
You reap what you sow and for all Cameron is supporting Gay marriage, he wasn't the one who started the persecution...

Dhimmitude

When the islamic community reaches a certain tipping balance, I suspect that abuses like this will become more commonplace, though again, once this happens, I doubt it will be reported as rioting and murder will no doubt ensue if any sort of criticism is levelled at the barbarians in our midst.
Mail. (Usual caveats)

An Indian domestic worker was repeatedly raped and beaten by her employers who threatened to murder her if she complained, a court heard.
The 39-year-old vulnerable and illiterate mother-of-four was used as a 'sexual toy' and 'general dogsbody' by an extended family and their friend who forced her to become their slave for a total of six years.
She was scalded with boiling water, burned with a hot iron, beaten and threatened her throat would be cut and her body buried in a back garden if she didn't do as she was told, a jury were told today.
Despite the woman approaching numerous agencies for help, Croydon Crown Court heard how the abuse continued.
The court heard how the woman initially went to live with Aleemuddin Mohammed, 44, a supermarket manager, and his wife Shamina Yousuf, 42, after they successfully applied for the woman's visa.
Both are accused of assaulting the woman and paying her just £24 during the two years and eight months she worked for them.
The woman was then allegedly forced to moved in with Mohammed's mother, 56-year-old shop worker Shanaz Begum, and her partner, butcher Enkarta Balapovi, 53, who is accused of raping her.
After escaping the couple, she was then sent to live with an acquaintance of the family, optician Shashi Obhrai, 53, from Northwood, who is accused of assaulting her.
Prosecutor Miss Caroline Haughey said: 'Each of these defendants treated her with contempt, ignoring her basic rights and taking advantage of her naivety, her vulnerability and her ignorance.

Oh I'm sure that many will claim that this wasn't because of the religion or that it is rare and unusual, though when such cases do come to light it's usually an islamic involved.That's because slavery is the natural default state of the islamic mind for anyone not a muslim, even then some muslims if they are from different countries or tribes come under such a state, islam being top heavy from the Arabian peninsular perspective where a Saudi muslim trumps any other.
The state of dhimmitude as far as muslims are concerned is where the likes of non muslims belong, tolerated at best, there to be used and abused at worst and all justified by the abomination that is the quran. Women dhimmi's are of course the lowest of the low and simply there to be used by muslim uber-menschen which is why we have the current grooming scandal in the UK as the men perpetratng the outrage saw (and probably still do not see) nothing wrong in what they did, these young girls were theirs to do with as they wished, they weren't 'human' they were dhimmi's. Not so long ago there was a spate of kidnapping of young girls in Egypt, oddly enough they were all the daughters of coptic Christians, there was a cursory police investigation, but apparently they were all 'married off' to muslims and forced to convert so that was ok.
This is the type of mindset we have to deal with, a cancerous group think justified by a fascistic command and control handbook on controlling every aspect of their lives including how to treat the unter-menschen around them. That it makes no sense at times and has no place in the modern world makes no difference, it's from their supposed god so that makes it something to be done, besides it allows them to justify barbarism in the name of their religion.
There can be no place for islam in a modern society, the odd muslim perhaps, but not communities of them, in that way lies cultural suicide.

The enemy within

There have been warnings about hate preachers for a number of years now, though the MSM rarely if ever took them seriously. They were far more concerned with the so called 'thugs' of the 'far right' who as any examination of the evidence would show were neither thuggish nor far right in any way shape or form. Perhaps it was that these hate preachers were just preaching to minorities and small minorities at that, plus the groups they were preaching too were voting fodder and so protected by the powers that be under various bits of legislation and political correctness to the point where valid accusations of a two tier system of justice were being levelled at law enforcement and the judiciary. (Look up Emma West still untried after more than a year, still presumed guilty by some despite evidence that she was set up and the evidence edited to suit)
There are people who are out there preaching hate against us, and it's only now just becoming obvious to organisations such as Ofcom that the MSM have occasionally been complicit in helping them reach out to a far wider audience than they would normally be able to get too.
Telegraph.

The communications watchdog, Ofcom, has made a series of rulings against channels which allowed “inflammatory” material to be broadcast in breach of rules which forbid extreme opinions gaining a platform on British television. The cases, disclosed today, include examples of an imam telling viewers that those who disrespect the prophet Mohammed should be killed, and another broadcaster saying homosexuals should be beaten and tortured. The stations were found to have committed serious breaches of the broadcasting code by allowing the extreme opinions to be aired unchallenged. Last night experts warned that the extent and seriousness of the broadcasting breaches raises questions over whether extreme Muslim speakers who were previously confined to small audiences in mosques are able to reach thousands more people by broadcasting intolerant teachings on television. Although the channels have tiny audiences compared to the mainstream, they are targeted at Muslim communities, including people of Pakistani background, with some of the content being broadcast in Urdu and other languages.

Now if you or I were to make speeches telling others that gays were to be killed, unbelievers executed and that anyone who insults our religion should be massacred I suspect our feet wouldn't even touch the ground before we found ourselves in a prison cell awaiting trial for 'hate speech'
Just recently Lars Hedegaard a 70 year old European journalist who is critical of Islamic fundamentalism was visited by an assassin at his front door, the attacker was described as foreign looking, however two years ago Hedegaard was put on trial for discussing 'honour killings' in Denmark though the charges were later dismissed though nothing he said would have warranted a trial other than the Danish states attempts to appease.
In our country we have 'shariah' patrols in places like Tower Hamlets where non muslims are told that they are in a muslim area and attacked for 'disrespecting islam, attacks on gays have happened and also on people drinking.A week ago a young woman had acid thrown in her face by a veiled person, her crime? Possibly working for Victoria's Secrets.
For far too long the powers that be and our media have been brushing under the carpet and/or ignoring the hate coming from this minority because it suited their purpose. Oh I'll allow the usual caveats that it's not all the minority etc. But there are those amongst them sucking at a very dangerous extremist poison and are protected by the muslim community as a whole.
Even if we shut down the hate preachers, they'll continue to have their adherents and they now live in numbers amongst us.
If you aren't worried about this, then you should be.

Easy targets

One of the more downheartening aspects of watching (so called) radical atheists these days is that so many of them are looking at the wrong target. Or rather they are going after easy targets possibly because they know what will happen if they go after the harder one...
Mail.

Raising your children as Roman Catholics is worse than child abuse, according to militant atheist Richard Dawkins.
In typically incendiary style, Professor Dawkins said the mental torment inflicted by the religion’s teachings is worse in the long-term than any sexual abuse carried out by priests.
He said he had been told by a woman that while being abused by a priest was a ‘yucky’ experience, being told as a child that a Protestant friend who died would ‘roast in Hell’ was more distressing.
Last night politicians and charities condemned the former Oxford professor’s views as attention-seeking and unhelpful.
The remarks are due to be broadcast tonight by Qatar-based TV network Al Jazeera.
Interviewer Mehdi Hasan asked Professor Dawkins about previous comments he made, when he said: ‘Horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place.’

You would think that Dawkins talking to islamic mouthpieces might just have noticed the islamic tendency to bring their children up believing that women are second class citizens, that Jews and Christians are descended from apes and pigs, that it's ok to beat your wife, that paedophilia is fine after all look what the 'prophet' did, that blowing up innocents  and other acts of terrorism are fine because the people aren't muslims. Or indeed the ever growing hatred between shia and sunni sects in the religion of (not) peace at all.
No, Dawkins does as many militant atheists do, go after the easy targets, the ones who don't threaten to kill you if you look the wrong way at them.
It would be interesting to see him have a go at islam, but I'm not going to hold my breath on that, I rather suspect he never will...

Honesty

Part of the problem anyone in politics faces are calls to step down or apologise over saying something they hold to be true, despite it not fitting into the current multiculti, politically correct, one size fits all equality being rammed down our throats being encouraged upon us by the powers that be in an attempt to destroy society help us all get along. This essentially means that Christians who follow the New Testament with regard to their beliefs can often come under fire for holding to what their holy book tells them.
BBC.

A UKIP by-election candidate has been called on to apologise after saying gay people should not be allowed to adopt.
Winston McKenzie, UKIP candidate for Thursday's Croydon North by-election, told a local reporter placing children with same-sex couples was "unhealthy".
His comments, which he said were linked to his Christian views, have been criticised by a number of his competitors for the south London seat.
UKIP said the party wholeheartedly supported equal rights for gay couples.

I'm sure it would have been easy for Mr McKenzie to have been less than honest in his interview or did a politicians fudge by avoiding the question with waffle (aka answering a different question entirely) but he chose to hold to his beliefs and is now being castigated by various other candidates because of them. Thing is, most people know that Christians are opposed to certain things, it sort of goes with the territory and these are Mr McKenzie's personal views not that of his party. I doubt it will stop the pink mafia descending on Croydon to try and make his life a misery though, but perhaps it might be best to let the electorate decide rather than some special interest groups. Mind you, the only ones (so far) having a go at him are the failing Lib Dems and lunatic Greens both behind him in the polls anyway. The Labour candidate refused to comment which seems to suggest some common sense at work there given the parties now tattered reputation in Rotherham perhaps spilling over into Croydon.
What someone believes and what their party advocates are not the same thing at all, people ought to understand this and not try to make political capital over it. Mr McKenzie is entitled to his views backed up as they are by his religion. He's not calling for gays to be banned, nor hung from cranes as certain islamic countries do.
At least he's honest, perhaps the people of Croydon could do worse than elect an honest man to represent them...

Money grubbing

It always strikes me as odd that in a matter that's only vaguely linked to a person, they feel that they have the right to tell others what they should do with their money. It's a bit like betting on a winning horse and being asked by the winner to donate to its favourite charity...
BBC.

The next Archbishop of Canterbury has suggested people who made money by correctly betting on his appointment should donate their winnings to parish churches.
The Rt Rev Justin Welby made the call on the social networking site, Twitter.
Ladbrokes, which suspended betting after a flurry of bets placed on Bishop Welby's name, has now said it will donate £1,000 to Canterbury Cathedral.
The bishop was named as the next head of the Church of England on Friday.
On Saturday morning, Bishop Welby tweeted: "Thought in the night, those who made money betting on me give it to their local church! I suspect it was less than papers suggest."

Now if I were to be a successful betting man (I'm not, I'm pretty much the antithesis) then I'd hardly be likely to be influenced by the wishes of the object of my bet, after all, what I do with my cash is my business (something I wish the government would take note of)
Still it's bloody cheeky of the new Archdruid to try and prick peoples consciences to hand over their ill gotten gains simply because he won the equivalent of a talent contest.
The world seems to be full of people who think they have the right to our cash, or a right to ask for it from charity chuggers to the robbery with menaces through the Inland Revenue. It's an unusual month for the QM household not to receive a batch of raffle tickets from some charity or other who have gotten our address from somewhere and expecting us to sell them for them (binned every time)
I'm really tired of people in the media and elsewhere telling me how I should be spending my money, I know which charities I support and I'm not happy about being spammed by those I don't, particularly ones with government ties, the government gets way too much of my hard earned cash as it is.
It might just be a jokey or frivolous throwaway comment by the Archdruid, but really he ought to keep comments like that to himself. What is bet upon gets no say in how the winnings are spent.

The B word

Certain words trip off the tongue of those on the left of the political spectrum, they're mostly used to try and shut down debate by accusing those who oppose the proposals or cause as something beyond the pale. That it backfires is no surprise, just ask Gillian Duffy or indeed Gordon Brown...
So it really should not have come as a surprise to Nicky (boy) Clegg that using derogatory terms to try and suppress or attack the opponents of one of his pet causes should backfire...
BBC.

Nick Clegg has become embroiled in a row over gay marriage after aides had to remove comments in the draft version of a speech calling opponents "bigots".
The deputy PM was expected to launch an attack on those against the policy - which include some Tory MPs - in a speech at a reception in London.
But the wording of initial extracts released to the media was changed.
Mr Clegg later insisted he never intended to use such language as it was "not the kind of word" he would use.
Sources close to Mr Clegg said the "bigot" claim was "a mistake" in an early draft of the speech which should not have been released to the press.
But Former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey said the remarks were "very offensive".
"If he persists in taking that view I and others would be very offended, he said.
"To be called a bigot is a very offensive statement and I would ask him to recall it...because there are issues here that demand very serious debate."

I'm not sure who first said it, but it's a truism that if you have to resort to insult, then you've lost the debate, Clegg's claims that it was just a draft may indeed be true, however knowing how the mindset of those on the left work (and Clegg is indeed a lefty) the term bigot was probably thought to be a suitable term for those who oppose 'gay marriage' whether they were bigoted or not.
The church has deep seated religious reasons for being opposed to gay marriage, they regard the term 'marriage' as being the union between a man and a woman to bring children into the world and believe it to be the way approved of by God. At the moment, civil partnerships provide exactly the same rights in a same sex relationship, so why the insistence on being allowed to call it a marriage is a little beyond me, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck then all semantics aside, it is a duck!
If however this is just some sort of way to try and force churches to marry people of the same sex to each other in the sight of God then sorry, no, you don't get to do this without a change in the rule book, and good luck with that one. It's certainly not the privilege of politicians to dictate to the church, not now, not then, not ever.
That's not to say there aren't bigots involved in the debate, it's just that they are likely to be on both sides of the debate, however as the boy Clegg has just found out, using the B word first automatically loses you a battle in the war. Personally I don't hold with Clegg's excuse that this was a draft copy, I simply think he didn't know better and was shocked when the controversy came right back to his door.
But sadly that's the left for you these days...

Not the same thing at all...

The boy Clegg seems to be (as ever) under the misunderstanding that matters of conscience are interchangeable with similar legislation. He believes that MP's should not be allowed a free vote on 'Gay marriage' because they weren't given one on 'Civil Partnerships'.
Telegraph.

The Deputy Prime Minister said Liberal Democrat MPs will be forced to vote in favour of allowing gay marriage when the legislation is considered by Parliament.
Some Tory MPs are strongly opposed to allowing gay marriage. Last week Sir George Young, the Conservative leader of the Commons, announced that there would be a free vote on the subject because it was a matter of conscience.
But Mr Clegg disagreed, pointing to the fact that the original law bringing in civil partnerships was also not passed on a free vote in the House of Commons.
He the BBC’s Andrew Marr porgramme: “My view is that in the same way that the civil partnerships legislation that was introduced under Labour was a whipped vote, I personally don’t think this is something that should be subject to a great free-for-all because we’re not asking people to make a decision of conscience about religion.”
Mr Clegg said gay marriage was not “a matter of conscience” because the Government was not forcing churches to marry homosexual couples.

What Clegg is missing of course is the exact connotation of the word marriage. It doesn't matter if the government forces churches to marry gay people or not (something that they know they'd lose) but because the term marriage is a religious one and therefore is a matter of conscience. Marriage is a religious ceremony to join together a male and female for the purpose of bringing children into the world. Calling a civil partnership a marriage is wrong simply because the two terms are not interchangeable. What the government are doing is attempting to change the basis of a religious state into a civil one. This in essence is why the 'Gay Marriage' debate is a matter of conscience to many MP's not because they are opposed to gays living together or having the same rights as married couples, but because the term 'marriage' has a far different meaning to them than it does to the likes of Cleggy boy and various other parliamentarians on the liberal left including Cameron himself.
That is why it's a matter of conscience and that is why as usual Clegg is wrong to insist his MP's vote the party line.

Pharisaism

My previous post mentioned the resignation/retirement of the Archbeardy of Canterbury and touched upon who was the front runner to be his successor, namely Dr John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York. I did wonder how the church would react if it was faced with having an actual Christian running it. Seems I was right in wondering, he hasn't even got the post yet and the knives are out...
Mail.

Senior insiders have questioned whether the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, is up to the job of leader of the Church of England as bitter infighting broke out between rival factions.
The popular and outspoken Dr Sentamu has been widely tipped to become the first black Archbishop of Canterbury following Dr Rowan Williams’s announcement on Friday that he is to resign.
But in a taste of the political intrigue to come as conservatives and liberals battle for their favoured candidate, a source close to Lambeth Palace said Dr Sentamu lacked the diplomatic skills for the top post.

Well, Mr Beardy had diplomatic skills and look where that left him, a church on the brink of schism because he wasn't firm on areas of the faith where compromise was impossible and irresolute on attacks on the faith from most notably the followers of Islam, but also various secular authorities in the previous Labour government. Instead of dealing with the causes of the problems the church faced he instead tried to compromise between the liberal and the traditional wings of the church, in short the act of a diplomat, not a leader. Sentamu is a leader, this is what the liberal factions fear, he has some support from the masses as he's a popular guy though sadly not the all career minded church hierarchy, particularly the toadies that surrounded Williams.
I suspect if Sentamu wishes a diplomatic approach he'll do as governments do, appoint someone to take care of it for him.

The insider said the decision by Dr Sentamu to write a column for the newly launched Sunday edition of The Sun newspaper, which is known to have angered aides of Dr Williams, will have been seen as ‘a serious misjudgement’.

So good to see the spirit of the Pharisees is alive and well within the church, the Pharisees didn't care for the sermon on the mount either, I suspect they felt that to be a serious misjudgement too. Dr Sentamu is taking an opportunity to bring his message from the church to a wider audience, one who probably only turn up in churches for births, deaths and marriages. Jesus himself rarely preached in the temple, he was out and about in the countryside preaching and ministering to the masses. I suspect if he were around today he'd have a column in the Sun or perhaps the Mail, whilst no doubt he'd be condemned by the Guardian reading Pharisees.

Another senior source claimed that Dr Sentamu, though charming and articulate, had a reputation for occasionally losing his temper.

John 2:15,  So he (Jesus) made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.
There do come moments when it's perfectly correct to lose your temper in matters of faith, Dr Sentamu does appear to be following more in Jesus' footsteps than Mr Beardy has ever done.
In short though, the hierarchy surrounding Mr Beardy  does not want change, they especially do not want anyone who actually believes in a position of real power in the church, after all, he might actually decide that they'd be better off ministering to the poor and sick, rather than living like princes on the fat of the land.
Now there's a thought.

You wont be missed

Well the arch-beardy of Canterbury has spat his dummy out, thrown the toys out of his pram and announced his retirement due mostly to the row over gay marriage and the controversy over the wearing of crosses.Yet strangely enough he was perfectly happy for the misogynistic and bigoted shariah law to be practised in this country as well as constant interfering in the business of government in areas he had no concern in. Rather it seems that the Labour placeman (for that is what he is) irritated the government enough to strike back in areas in which he was vulnerable.
Telegraph.

Dr Rowan Williams resigned as Archbishop of Canterbury with an attack on “dim-witted prejudice” against symbols of Christianity, such as wearing a cross. 

But his resignation comes after he accepted a likely defeat in his efforts to prevent schism in the Church.
Hours before his announcement he admitted to a group of senior clerics that the initiative is likely to collapse and spoke of his sense of “foreboding”.
He announced he would step down as leader of 77 million Anglicans early, ahead of a series of votes in dioceses which would spell the end of the unity pact on which he staked his credibility.
He acknowledged his decade-long tenure had been marked by “crisis management”. His comments came after weeks dominated by a public debate over the role of the church in national life, including a High Court ban on council prayers, the row over gay marriage and the controversy over the wearing of crosses.
He presided over one of the most turbulent periods in the Church’s modern history with long and, at times, acrimonious arguments over the ordination of women bishops and divisions between liberal and conservative branches of the Anglican Communion over the issue of homosexuality.
Yesterday he acknowledged that his time had been marked by “crisis management” adding: “The worst aspects of the job I think have been the sense that there are some conflicts that won’t go away, however long you struggle with them, and that not everybody in the Anglican Communion or even in the Church of England is eager to avoid schism or separation.”

The problem for many in the Anglican Church was that Mr Beardy was not seen as a Christian, rather he was seen as a theologian strapped to a socialist ethos and what he believed was not what the Bible actually told Christians to believe. He was appointed to his position by Tony Blair ahead of the other candidate the Bishop of Southwark because he was thought to be sympathetic to New Labours plans and so it turned out to be with a disaster laden tenure in which he spent most of his time firefighting problems of his own making. In a time where Christians were under attack in Egypt, Nigeria, Sudan, Iraq and even occasionally in the UK by Muslims he felt the need to tell us that shariah law in the UK was unavoidable. Despite the fact that it was obvious that the ongoing jihad was part of shariah law and that under shariah law itself...
There is no freedom of religion
There is no freedom of speech
There is no freedom of thought
There is no freedom of artistic expression
There is no freedom of the press
There is no equality of peoples-a non-Muslim, a Kafir, is never equal to a Muslim
There are no equal rights for women
Women can be beaten
A non-Muslim cannot bear arms
There is no equal protection under Sharia for different classes of people. Justice is dualistic, with one set of laws for Muslim males and different laws for women and non-Muslims.
Our Constitution is a man-made document of ignorance, and must be twisted so that all must submit to Sharia
There is no democracy, since that means that a non-Muslim is equal to a Muslim
Non-Muslims are dhimmis, third-class citizens
There is no Golden Rule
There is no critical thought
All governments must be ruled by Sharia law
Unlike common law, Sharia is not interpretive, nor can it be changed.

Mr Beardy was the wrong man in the wrong place, he suited New Labour just fine, but as a representative of Christianity he was an utter failure and appears to have broken that which he tried to hold together, he was essentially an administrator rather than a leader and it showed. He was of the gentle Jesus meek and mild persuasion, forgetting that the same Jesus was prepared on occasion to take a whip to scourge those who dishonoured God.
His successor is rumoured to be Dr John Sentamu, though this will be a decision for Cameron vis the Queen. It will be interesting to see what happens if it is, Sentamu actually believes, is an actual Christian.
I wonder how the Church of England will cope with having an actual Christian running it after all these years...

Symbology

A lot of Christians wear a cross of some description, a lot of Christians are also getting a wee bit peed off with the current government too with its insistence on gay marriage and what appears to be a mild persecution of their faith. The government may come to regret this later, but we're in the here and now and looking at a double standard.
Telegraph.

Christians do not have a right to wear a cross or crucifix openly at work, the Government is to argue in a landmark court case.
In a highly significant move, ministers will fight a case at the European Court of Human Rights in which two British women will seek to establish their right to display the cross.
It is the first time that the Government has been forced to state whether it backs the right of Christians to wear the symbol at work.
A document seen by The Sunday Telegraph discloses that ministers will argue that because it is not a “requirement” of the Christian faith, employers can ban the wearing of the cross and sack workers who insist on doing so.
The Government’s position received an angry response last night from prominent figures including Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury.
He accused ministers and the courts of “dictating” to Christians and said it was another example of Christianity becoming sidelined in official life.

To my mind,the government is actually right in the detail, but acting in gross hypocrisy in the wider sense of what it does appear to allow. They are correct in stating that it's not mandatory for Christians to wear crosses, a lot of Christians don't after all. It's not mentioned in the Bible and is in a lot of cases just a piece of jewellery, no matter the personal significance of it to the wearer. It's not for example mandatory as in the case of Sikhs with turbans and hair cutting, along with the kara bracelet. However, in the case of the NHS which is technically a branch of the state Muslim women are allowed to wear a hijab whilst nursing and despite claims by some Muslims that this is a religious symbol, it isn't. It's not mentioned in the Quran and it's only mention in the hadiths is An-Nur 24:31, which doesn’t explicitly say that the head should be covered, it just talks about modesty. To wear the Hijab is certainly NOT an Islamic obligatory on women. It is just an innovation of Islamic men suffering from a piety/sexual complex who are so weak morally that they just cannot trust themselves to keep their hands off women.

The Government claims the two women’s application to the Strasbourg court is “manifestly ill-founded”.
Its response states: “The Government submit that… the applicants’ wearing of a visible cross or crucifix was not a manifestation of their religion or belief within the meaning of Article 9, and…the restriction on the applicants' wearing of a visible cross or crucifix was not an ‘interference’ with their rights protected by Article 9.”
The response, prepared by the Foreign Office, adds: “In neither case is there any suggestion that the wearing of a visible cross or crucifix was a generally recognised form of practising the Christian faith, still less one that is regarded (including by the applicants themselves) as a requirement of the faith.”

I suspect it's time to get the popcorn out, because if I know about the hijab, you can bet that those bringing the case know about it and whilst two wrongs don't make a right, they do make for interesting court cases.