Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'bbc'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type



Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



Website URL



  1. Sikhs have been complacent to allow ex sikhs, people explicitly stating they do not believe or follow the faith, in the quota for jobs in the media, especially BBC.How are we going to get our issues on the agenda, if we we dont have no sikhs in the game.I have been lobbying the BBC ,about this lack of representation.Asian network has no sikh presenters in any form, forget a turban wearing sikh.All the presenters are ex sikhs, jumping on the bandwagon to get the job s, later stating they are atheist. Wake up sikhs, 10000 sikhs pay for a tv licence, we want represntation .The sikh media should be highlighting these issues too. A sikh = person who states he is a sikh ,accepts the ten gurus and guru sri guru granth granth sahib ji.Any thing above or more is their personal choice.Please do not take this topic down the road of who is a sikh or not.Its just one long sikh road
  2. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01g86qm/Our_World_No_Mans_Land/
  3. www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60761972.amp Scientists are concerned that the allowable levels of toxic PFAS - known as "forever chemicals" - in UK drinking water are too high. A BBC study found PFAS levels exceeded European safety levels in almost half of the samples taken. However, none exceeded the current UK safety level. The chemicals are in many products such as non-stick pans, food packaging, carpets, furniture, firefighting foam. They have been linked to a range of diseases, including cancer. Guidelines from the UK Drinking Water Inspectorate state drinking water must contain PFAS chemicals at no more than 100 nanograms per litre (ng/l). Above that, action must be taken to reduce levels. Working with Greenwich University, the BBC took 45 tap water samples. Laboratory analysis found that none exceeded the 100ng/l level. But 25 samples did contain PFASs, and four had levels that exceeded 10ng/l, which, under the current guidelines, means local local healthcare professionals must be consulted, and levels monitored. And almost half of the samples exceeded the European Food Standards Agency tolerable limit of 2.2ng/l. Professor Roger Klein, a chemist and PFAS expert, said: "The significance of your results, even though they're small, is that it underlines that this stuff is everywhere and that it's in drinking water. "It's ridiculous that the UK Drinking Water Inspectorate has a level of 100ng/l before action is taken." Rita Lock-Caruso, Professor of toxicology at the University of Michigan, also said the results raised a potential health concern: "We're finding health effects at lower and lower concentrations - in the single digits." Research has found the most common PFAS chemicals, PFOA and PFOS, have probable links to high cholesterol, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, testicular cancer, kidney cancer, and pregnancy-induced hypertension. There is particular concern about the effect on children. Professor Philippe Grandjean, of Harvard University, said: "A woman may build this up in her body and when she gets pregnant, she shares that with her foetus. She eliminates part of her body burden into her milk. So, the next generation will get a huge dose, and the baby may end up having up to 10 times as much PFAS in the blood as her mother has." The US is considering reducing its regulatory level, from 70ng/l. "We are beginning to think that there's no such thing as a safe level and we want them to be as low as possible, because water is not the only source of exposure," said former head of the National Institute of Environmental Sciences, Linda Birnbaum. However, there is little public data about its presence or impacts in the UK.
  4. G7: Rich nations back deal to tax multinationals https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-57368247 The G7 group of advanced economies has reached a "historic" deal to make multinational companies pay more tax. Finance ministers meeting in London agreed to battle tax avoidance by making companies pay more in the countries where they do business. They also agreed in principle to a global minimum corporate tax rate of 15% to avoid countries undercutting each other. Tech giants Amazon and Facebook are among those likely to be affected. Amazon has €250m 'back taxes' overturned in court Europe to fight Apple 13bn euro tax bill decision The Dane targeting multinationals The deal announced on Saturday, between the US, the UK, France, Germany, Canada, Italy and Japan, plus the EU, could see billions of dollars flow to governments to pay off debts incurred during the Covid crisis. Negotiated over many years, it will put pressure on other countries to follow suit, including at a meeting of the G20 next month, which includes China, Russia and Brazil. IMAGE COPYRIGHTPA MEDIA image captionThe G7 attendees posed for photos at Lancaster House US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen told reporters that the "historic" agreement on a global minimum tax would "end the race to the bottom in corporate taxation and ensure fairness for the middle class and working people in the US around the world". UK Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak, who hosted the summit, said the agreement would make the global tax system "fit for the global digital age". His German counterpart, Olaf Scholz, said it was "very good news for tax justice and solidarity and bad news for tax havens". "Companies will no longer be in a position to dodge their tax obligations by booking their profits in lowest-tax countries," he said. Why did they want to change the rules? Governments have long grappled with the challenge of taxing global companies operating across many countries. That challenge has grown with the boom in huge tech corporations like Amazon and Facebook. At the moment companies can set up local branches in countries that have relatively low corporate tax rates and declare profits there. That means they only pay the local rate of tax, even if the profits mainly come from sales made elsewhere. This is legal and commonly done. The deal aims to stop this from happening in two ways. Firstly the G7 will aim to make companies pay more tax in the countries where they are selling their products or services, rather than wherever they end up declaring their profits. Secondly, they want a global minimum tax rate so as to avoid countries undercutting each other with low tax rates. The right to tax is the essence of sovereign power. That is why co-ordinated international action is so difficult. It has been the dream of campaigners and mainly European finance ministers for years. They would scarcely have believed it was possible until the past few months. But the need to fill coffers emptied by the pandemic, and the arrival of the Biden administration in the US, created a moment of opportunity. There was, however, a big compromise to get this across the line. A minimum corporation tax rate of 15% is rather low. Although European finance ministers succeeded in including the phrase "at least 15%", which offers a path to get that number higher. How much bite this change actually has will depend on the fine print of ongoing negotiations. Tech firms say they welcomed the move. Facebook vice president Nick Clegg said they recognised it could mean the company "paying more tax, and in different places". And then there is the question of the rest of the world. This now goes from the G7 to the wider G20 group, including China, Russia and Brazil, and then beyond. The German finance minister told me that the likes of Ireland, with its low corporation tax rate, now needed to "get on the train". The Irish finance minister told me he accepted that change was coming, but he would continue to argue for legitimate tax competition. A process has begun, a precedent has been set. It may or may not end up being transformative, but this moment is historic. How would the agreement work? The rules on making multinationals pay taxes where they operate - known as "pillar one" of the agreement - would apply to global companies with at least a 10% profit margin. Twenty percent of any profit above that would be reallocated and taxed in the countries where they operate, according to the G7 communiqué. In the case of the UK, for example, more tax revenue would be raised from large multinationals and would help pay for public services. The second "pillar" of the agreement commits states to a global minimum corporate tax rate of 15% to avoid countries undercutting each other. In the UK, corporation tax is already 19% and is set to rise to 25% by 2023 in response to spending during the pandemic. Ms Yellen said there was an understanding that national digital services taxes such as those levied by the UK and EU countries would be scrapped and replaced by the new agreement. Such taxes are regarded by the US as unfairly targeting American technology giants. US challenges 'unfair' tech taxes in the UK and EU "The timing remains to be worked out exactly but there is broad agreement that these two things go hand in hand," the treasury secretary said. Asked whether Amazon and Facebook would fall under the new proposals for a global minimum corporation tax, she replied: "It will include large profitable firms and those firms, I believe, will qualify by almost any definition." Separately, the G7 also agreed to give a commitment to make it mandatory for firms to report the climate impact of their investment decisions. What happens next? The agreement will be discussed in detail at a meeting of G20 finance ministers in July in Venice. Paolo Gentiloni, the EU commissioner for the economy, described Saturday's agreement as a "big step... towards an unprecedented global agreement on tax reform" and promised the EU would "contribute actively to making that happen" in Venice. IMAGE COPYRIGHTREUTERS image captionJapan's Finance Minister Taro Aso (L) rubbed elbows with European Commissioner for Economy Paolo Gentiloni But Irish Finance Minister Paschal Donohoe, whose country offers a low 12.5% corporate tax rate, tweeted any agreement would have to "meet the needs of small and large countries, developed and developing". He referred to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), an intergovernmental economic organisation with 38 member countries, which promotes world trade and has been also working on updating global tax rules. How have the corporations reacted? A spokesperson for Amazon quoted by Reuters news agency said: "We believe an OECD-led process that creates a multilateral solution will help bring stability to the international tax system. "The agreement by the G7 marks a welcome step forward in the effort to achieve this goal." Facebook's Nick Clegg described the agreement as a "significant first step towards certainty for businesses and strengthening public confidence in the global tax system". A spokesperson for Google said: "We strongly support the work being done to update international tax rules. We hope countries continue to work together to ensure a balanced and durable agreement will be finalised soon." Related Topics
  5. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-55370482 Blindian Project: Celebrating black and South Asian relationships Blindian Project: Celebrating black and South Asian relationshipsClose 'How do I introduce my partner to my parents?' That is the question Jonah Batambuze always gets from Asians who contact him. So he has started running workshops to help couples prepare for tricky introductions. He is the founder of Blindian Project, an online platform celebrating black and Asian relationships. He says anti-black racism within the South Asian community can be the biggest challenge for couples. But recent events in the United States - Black Lives Matter protests and the election of Kamala Harris as US vice-president - are starting to shift attitudes in the South Asian community. Produced by BBC Asian Network's Nalini Sivathasan. Additional filming by Baldeep Chahal and Suhail Patel.
  6. Rumours about this stuff have been going around for some time. With people like Jimmy savile, Ralph Harris etc There seems to be another one coming to light. Those from the uk would probably know about a tv presenter called Philip Schofield. Hes a presenter on "this morning" a breakfast show on the ITV. About a month ago he came out as a gay man despite being married to a woman for 27 yrs with 2 daughters! And everyone did the whole rubbish "so proud of you" "brave man" bla bla. Anyway shorty after he came out, claims started spreading that he actually came out because he was in a secret relationship with a 18 yr old guy who worked for the ITV but then broke up with Philip schofield, the guy then threatened to go to the Sun newspaper and spill the tea. Philip then quickly decided to come out on tv b4 the boy could sell his story to the papers. The thing is its now known that philip Schofield has known this guy since the guy was around 10 yrs old! And has even been pictured with him! Theres been a lot of talk about it on twitter and social media. Philip then at one point claimed he 1st met the lad when he was 18 but a photo was released of philip pictured with the boy much younger than 18! My point is its no secret what these media tv personalities get up to but the channels they work for and powerful people in the business cover them up. Look at the case of Jimmy savile the BBC covered his pedophilia for decades. I dnt understand why they do this. Ralph Harris is another 1. Philip Schofield will probably get away with this for some time. It's also interesting how that in his coming out interview he really stresses on how it was his decision and no one made him come out! I think more stuff is gnna come out about this man. It makes you wonder how many more pedos are there working for british tv. Watch this video do you reckon hes a pedo? My mum said he used to be on tv even in the 80s! And used to visit schools!
  7. Today programme presenter has expressed his regret over Sikh peer’s decision to quit Thought For The Day over 'thought police' row. Lord Singh announced he was quitting Thought for the Day after 35 years to protest the BBC trying to prevent him from broadcasting an item commemorating an executed Sikh Guru for fear that it “might offend Muslims". The script, which was broadcast last November, did not criticise Islam and did not recieve any complaints for discussing the Sikh guru, who had spoken out about Hindus being forced to convert to Islam under the 17th century Mughal emperors of India. Speaking on the Today programme on BBC Radio 4 yesterday morning, presenter Justin Webb called the news of Indarjit Singh’s departure “rather sad”. Indarjit Singh has accused the BBC of “prejudice and intolerance”. "It was like saying to a christian that he or she should not talk about Easter for fear of giving offence to the Jews," he told the Times. Lord Singh made an official complaint about the incident, saying it was not the first time he had been prevented from discussing subjects important to Sikhs. James Purnell, the corporation's director of radio, ordered a review, which rejected the complaint. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/10/04/today-presenter-expresses-regret-sikh-peers-decision-quit-thought/] Good for him to speak out!
  8. BBC are doing a 3 part series on sacred wonders of the world. 1st episode is available on BBC iplayer. They gnna show Harmandir sahib as well but its not in the first episode. Fascinating show, shows what faith is in different parts of the world and what peoples faith means to them. The cinematography is beautiful, some amazing shots. First episode they show a 1000 yr old mandir in Cambodia which is the biggest religious building in the world, its now a buddhist temple. They also show a chinese buddhist temple where the monks practice kung fu they have amazing martial art skills! https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0007fhj/sacred-wonders-series-1-episode-1
  9. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/stories-47562252 At 27, Minreet Kaur married a man she had met through a Sikh temple in west London. It turned out to be a disaster, and within a year she was back home with her parents. For 10 years now she has been hoping to find another husband, but has reached a bitter conclusion: most Sikh men don't want to marry a divorcee. "If you divorce me, you will never marry again," my husband shouted at me before I left him. He said it to hurt me, but he knew it could turn out to be true. And so did I. Divorce is shameful in the Sikh community, especially for women. To begin with I was ashamed myself. I felt dirty and used. How could I look at another man when I knew he would regard me as used goods? Other people reinforced this feeling. My grandma in London told me I should have worked at my marriage, even though she knew what I had been through. My dad's family in India said they were disappointed that I was home; I was a disgrace to them. My parents supported me 100% but I felt I had let them down. For five years I hardly went out, but in 2013 I started to look again for a partner. When I asked people to look out for a partner. When I asked people to look out for a suitable man for me they would often be happy to help. They would start asking questions - how old I was, where I lived, where I worked - but as soon as told them I was divorced, their facial expression changed. It was a look that said, "we can't help you". My marriage had been semi-arranged. People kept telling me I was getting old and putting pressure on me to marry, so I asked the temple in Southall to introduce me to someone. After my divorce, when I started looking for a new husband, I went to the Hounslow temple to register in its matrimonial book. I knew the temple would only introduce me to members of my own caste, even though caste isn't important to me. But what I didn't know was that, since I was a divorcee, they would only introduce me to divorced men. Once the volunteer saw my details on the form I had filled in he said: "Here are two men who are divorced - they are the only ones suitable for you. But in at least two temples I have seen divorced men being introduced to women who have never previously married. So why can't divorced women be introduced to men who have not been married before? It's as though men can never be responsible for a divorce, only women. I asked the man in charge of the Hounslow temple's matrimonial service, Mr Grewal, to explain this to me and he told me it wasn't his choice - it was the men looking for a bride, and their parents, who said they didn't want a divorcee. "They are not going to accept divorce, as it shouldn't happen in the Sikh community, if we follow the faith," he said. But actually Sikhs do get divorced sometimes, just like everyone else. The 2018 British Sikh Report says that 4% have been divorced and another 1% have separated. Some of those who admit to having been divorced may have remarried, but I'm quite sure that a larger number tick the "single" box even though they are divorced - it's such a taboo. As divorce becomes more common, attitudes will most likely change. Younger people have told me it's not such a big issue for them. But in my generation, even people who have divorced sisters or daughters in their own family will still judge another divorced woman outside their family. These are the kinds of things people say to me: "You are too old to have kids, you are going to find it hard to meet someone now - you've left it too late. You should just find anyone and marry them." (Actually, at 38 I'm not too old to have children. It's just another prejudice.) Sometimes I'm told: "Min, it's going to be very difficult to meet someone in the UK, you're better off meeting someone in India." When my mum asked one of her friend's sons if he knew anyone for me, he told us I was like a "scratched car". I know I have made things difficult for myself by looking not just for a Sikh but for a turbanned Sikh. There are more than 22,000 Sikhs in Hounslow, so probably 11,000 are men. Only a small proportion of them are in the right age group, and unmarried. And of those who are, many don't wear a turban. The turban is important to me, though. Faith is important to me - the Sikh faith that says that men and women are equal and that we should not judge one another. I don't want to meet men who are just out for a laugh and don't want to settle down. But nor do I want to meet men who want a housekeeper rather than a wife, and ask questions like, "can you cook?" the first time we meet. I am an independent person who wants a partner for companionship. Last month I was introduced to someone through a friend. It was a familiar story. He said he wasn't interested in a divorcee. He was in his 40s, but he expected women to come with no history. After meeting about 40 different men over the last 10 years, it's only in the last few months that I have begun to think about considering non-turbanned Sikhs, and even non-Sikhs. Some of my friends have already taken this step. By telling my story I am hoping I will help to remove the stigma of being a divorced woman. Maybe it will encourage more women to speak up. And if women are trapped in an abusive marriage because of the taboo of divorce, I would urge them to leave. We are human beings, and we deserve to be treated equally.
  10. I watched this week's Dr Who episode entitled 'Demons of the Punjab' yesterday evening. What a huge disappointment it was. I know Dr Who is a sci-fi entertainment show but at least the writer who is a Gujarati Hindu could have used the opportunity to show some of the realities of the partition. Here are just some of the shortcomings-; 1. For a show about the partition of the Punjab it mentions Sikhs just once when the Hindu character mentions the division of the people of the Punjab. As Sikhs were the worst sufferers of the partition having lost their best lands, their Gurdwaras and their people to the violence of partition an omission of any Sikh characters . The writer of the show is Vinay Patel who is a BAFTA nominated writer and on his Twitter he states that he read many books on the partition but having seen the episode it didn't show. The reason for why there are no Sikh characters is strange especially since the partition line from Firozpur to Gurdaspur had mainly a Sikh and Muslim rural population and the Hindus were mainly concentrated in the urban areas. 2. The two Hindu brothers looked and dressed more like urban Lalas than rural farmers from 1947. Although the name Prem could be a Punjabi Hindu name of the time but the names Manish and especially Kunal is more Bollywood than Punjab. The younger brother Manish looked like an RSSS member and his claim to have farmed the land while his brothers were at war was totally unbelievable, the character looked like he would be more at home in a Hatti than a Khet. Also there weren't many Punjabi Hindu soldiers from the partition line areas in the British army. There were Hindu soldiers from rural areas of Haryana but they were hundreds of miles away from the partition line. Most of the former soldiers were Sikhs or Muslims. 3. The setting was the Punjab in 1947 but the scenes were set in some hilly wooded area with mountains in the background, hardly the Punjab plains of 1947. 4. The Hindu-Muslim marriage with just some minor disagreement from the bride's mother was totally unbelievable, although it was used to good effect to show the couple going against the events around them but such a thing could never have happened in 1947. 5. The episode also showed the Muslims as the victims which is in line with the usual liberal BBC biased presentation of the partition as basically a case of the Muslims as the victims and whitewashing history in order to show this. The Muslim bride claims that they would not give up their land which was quite ironic given that the Sikhs suffered the greatest loss of land than the Muslims or the Hindus. The Muslims actually gained more land than they had prior to partition.
  11. Been told the so called 'asian' network could hold a debate on the birmingham Visakhi mela, where there flags with ak47 with khalistan Zindabad slogans
  12. Is this a repeat of the 80s and 90s, attacks on sikhs ignored to appease political correctness by the BBC.Or political censorship by the government to stop negative stories influencing the exit Eu referendum vote
  13. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35563415 Why are some Sikh women now wearing the turban? By Rajeev GuptaHeart and Soul, BBC World Service 8 hours ago From the sectionMagazine Devinder and her daughter Har-Rai The turban is worn by millions of Sikhs - traditionally, mostly male ones. Now many Sikh women are donning it, too. Why? "Doing this has helped me stay grounded and focused on what my responsibilities are as a human being." Devinder is in her early 40s. She's a slender, tall British-Indian Sikh woman. She works as a teaching assistant at her local school in Ilford, north-east London. You can't help but notice that she wears a turban, or what's commonly known within Sikhism as a dastar. The turban is the one thing that identifies a Sikh more than any other symbol of their faith. An edict handed down in 1699 by the 10th Sikh Guru, Gobind Singh, requires Sikhs to not cut their hair. The turban, part of the Bana or military uniform at that time, was used to help keep the long hair and protect a Sikh's head. However, in line with its military tradition, it's something that has always been a masculine symbol and almost exclusively worn by men, not women. That is until now, it seems. "I wasn't always like this," says Devinder holding up a photo album of her younger years. "I used to have cut black curls, wear makeup - go out and do what people do on nights out… but it never sat comfortably with me even then." Seven years ago Devinder decided to become fully baptised into the Sikh faith. She stopped cutting her hair, and began wearing a tall white wrapped turban. "People told me I shouldn't do it and that it will hold me back. The elders felt it's something that Sikh women didn't do. But wearing my turban, I feel free and it pushes me forwards to be the best I can be every day." As well as wearing the turban, Devinder lets her facial and bodily hair grow naturally as well. It's something she speaks confidently about. Image copyrightGetty Images Sikh women have more traditionally worn headscarves"Asian women are naturally hairy so it was difficult to let go at first and let go of the expectations society places upon what a woman should look like," she says. "But letting it go was so empowering. It's a way of saying this is who I am, this is how God made me and putting that above what society expects of me." It impossible to know exactly how many Sikh women are now wearing the turban, but at a time when some Sikh men are deciding to cut their hair, Devinder is among a growing number of Sikh women deciding to wear one. Doris Jakobs, professor in religious studies at Waterloo University in Canada, has done some of the most in-depth research in this area. She says that women tying turbans are mostly Sikhs living outside of their traditional homeland of the Punjab in India. "This is something that the younger generation in the diaspora are doing. It's a sign of religiosity in which some Sikh women are no longer content with just wearing a chuni (headscarf). Wearing a turban is so clearly identifiable with being Sikh and so women now also want that clear visual sign that they are also Sikh as well. It's a play on the egalitarian principle of Sikhism." Post-9/11, many Sikhs faced discrimination and have even been attacked after being mistaken for Muslims. Some in the community say have turned to the turban as they feel it helps give them an individual identity. Sikhism at a glance Image copyrightGetty ImagesSikhism is a monotheistic religion, founded in the 16th Century in the Punjab by Guru Nanak and is based on his teachings, and those of the nine gurus who followed him The Sikh scripture is the Guru Granth Sahib, a book that Sikhs consider a living Guru There are 20 million Sikhs in the world, most of whom live in the Punjab province of India. The 2011 census recorded 432,000 Sikhs in the UK Jasjit Singh, a research fellow at Leeds University, has spent the last few years interviewing women who have begun to wear the turban. He says there are many reasons why they are doing it. "Some say it helps with meditation and others say its part of a Sikh's uniform," he says. "I found that many young girls see this as a way of reclaiming equality within the religion. The Punjabi community is still very patriarchal but these girls tell me that Guru gave a uniform to all Sikhs - and so why shouldn't they wear the turban as well." The idea is an interesting one. Some might find it curious that, in order to seek equality, a woman might dress like a traditional Sikh man. But others argue a woman wearing a turban is a sign of empowerment. Sarabjoth Kaur, 25, from Manchester, is one of them. She began wearing a turban two years ago. She appears draped in royal blue robes with a matching tightly wrapped turban. It has a metal shaster, a type of ancient Vedic weapon wedged into the front. Sarabjoth, a former bhangra dancer, says her faith became stronger after she witnessed devout white Sikhs wearing the turban whilst worshipping in India. She strongly defends the right for women to wear the turban. Image caption Sarubjoth Kaur (right) with Heart And Soul presenter Nikki Bedi"People in my family weren't comfortable with it. They thought it would be difficult to get a job or how would I find a good husband," she says. "Before we had to change to fit in with British society. "Sikh women are meant to be strong. They're still khalsa (saint soldiers of the Guru) and the Kkhalsa isn't differentiated on gender. When I tie my turban every morning I want to see my Guru. I feel a great sense of pride when I see my reflection as I think this is what my Guru looked like, this is what the khalsa looks like." You can hear the full report on Sikh women and the turban on BBC Radio World Service's Heart and Soul programme, 09:30 GMT on Sunday 14 February - or catch up on BBC iPlayer Radio
  14. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-34664627 https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10153101419237791&substory_index=0&id=240716567790
  15. Saw this on social media. Don't know how true it is but goes to show how far the Indian establishment and British establishment work very closely together to put on fake religious people in mainstream media to attack and belittle minority groups such as the Sikhs.
  16. Children in Need https://instagr.in/p/1081968845737359606_1545688517
  17. Wjkk Wjkk As the sangat may be aware the BBC is running a consultation regarding its future. In particular this is an opportunity for sikhs to use this to express their displeasure regarding anti -sikh programmes like the nihal show on BBC Asian network and anti -sikh bias in the news such as lack of coverage of the hunger strike by bhapu surat singh and human rights abuses in India. Here is the link http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/have_your_say
  18. What does it mean to be a Sikh? 11-year-old Simran explains her religion of Sikhism and young brothers Taran and Joven take the life-changing decision to join the Khalsa. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b05p6t8s/my-life-my-religion-3-sikhism#long-description First Shown : 5am, 26 March 2015 Length : 30 minutes BBC iPlayer TV programmes are available to play in the UK only. Video is available only for 29 Days
  19. On the 27th of jan, the bbc asian network invited amitabh bachchan for an interview/show whatever it was. Some time in december early jan, the public could book tickets to be a part of the audience. Did anyone from here go? Bachchan has some serious allegations against him as well as a court case pending in New York regarding his role in the 84 genocide. Namely, inciting genocide on door darshan with slogons of "khoon ka badla khoon". As far as im aware, 4/5 years back sajjan kumar was refused entry into the UK because of his alleged involvement in the genocide. So why is this case any different? Is it because we made a big deal of it back then, contacted our mps etc and therefore the gov under pressure refused him entry? Should we be doing something about this? Complaining to the bbc/ gov/ whoever? I've sent a complaint to the bbc, pretty straight forward simple enough to do. Follow: https://ssl.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/?reset=#anchor What are your thoughts?
  20. Yesterday on the so called Asian network work nihal made a statement He said a women while on her period can't touch Shri Guru Granth Sahib. Can someone confirm if this is true.
  21. It preaches help for the poor and loving thy neighbour but now a new study has provided evidence that religion can make people more generous in their everyday lives. Research commissioned by the BBC found that people who profess a religious belief are significantly more likely to give to charity than non-believers. Sikhs and Jews emerged as the most likely to share their worldly goods with a good cause, just ahead of Christians, Hindus and Muslims. The study, carried out for the BBC's network of local radio stations, included polling by ComRes of a sample of more than 3,000 people of all faiths and none. It found that levels of generosity across the British public are strikingly high, but highest among those with a religious faith. Overall as many as seven in 10 people in England said they had given money to a charity in the past month. But while just over two thirds of those who professed no religious faith claimed to have done so, among believers the figure rose to almost eight out of 10. Among those polled, all of the Sikhs and 82 per cent of practising Jews had given money in the past month. Among practising Christians the figure was 78 per cent. The Revd Dr Martyn Atkins, general Secretary of the Methodist Church, said: Religious faith should motivate people to acts of generosity and its good to see this reflected in these figures. Of course, financial giving is only part of the picture. For some people a simple act of kindness, or the very fact that someone has made time for them, can mean more than any financial gift. "But every act of generosity, however small, bears witness to a generous and loving God and helps to change the world for good. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10885180/Religion-makes-people-more-generous.html
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use