Sikh Channel & Dudley Protest

[AnakinSkywalker]

TV channels should always stay un-biased regardless whatever situation they are covering. Running a channel with journalist mind is the only way to earn respect not by running with money power. Facts are more important than opinions. In this dudley issue, tv channels, news reporters and other media should rely more on factual facts rather than their own set of opinions. Facts can be easily taken from documents provided from office of Sri Akal Takht Sahib.

100% agree

[AnakinSkywalker]

When abusive language get reported, then the mods don't do anything. Singh you were here on the forum when the abusive language was being used. And now when everything is said and done. The mod wants to leave warnings. Why not stop the abusive language when it starts? Chal it's been like this for a while now on this forum. Thing will continue as they are.

Let me take the moral high ground here and offer my apologese if I have offended anyone on this forum.

I won't however offer my apologese to anyone who supports this beadbi....sorry admins I just can't do it....although I will now strive to ignore childish remarks or respond likewise to some of the immature members of this forum.

[AnakinSkywalker]

You must understand that you cannot associate a building with Guru Ji if it's being misused in that way. As soon as meat began to be consumed and alcohol began to flow within it's confines, it became like any other building. Again, I'm not saying it's fine to smash a building because it's NOT a Gurughar. But you must surely appreciate why people were protesting on Saturday (minus the ruck that later occured?)

Maybe I'm missing something? Would you explain why you think nobody should have taken action against the beadbi? Let's put the violence to one side (if you can). Are you saying that even a peaceful protest was not the right thing to do?

I don't understand why you think the hall was not Guru ji's property?

It was funded by Guru ji's golak yet you state it's not Guru ji's.

You still didn't answer my question on who owns the hall?

Answer my earlier question first then I'd be happy to answer your later ones.

[PAL 07]

khalsa ji says aapneh haq leh laro

[VanHelsingh]

I don't understand why you think the hall was not Guru ji's property?

It was funded by Guru ji's golak yet you state it's not Guru ji's.

You still didn't answer my question on who owns the hall?

Answer my earlier question first then I'd be happy to answer your later ones.

And I'll keep on reiterating that the moment "Guru Ji's property" was not used for purposes worthy of Guru Ji, it can't continue to be described as "Guru Ji's property" when there's meat and alcohol being served within it's four walls. What part of this statement is difficult to understand?

You admit the building is funded by Guru Ji's golak, and yet you don't have any problem with people using it for purposes that are contrary to Sikh practices. So you are in fact admitting that it's acceptable to hold parties which serve meat and alcohol in Guru Ji's property?

In essence you're saying that your brand of beadbi is acceptable, but someone else's supposed beadbi (your word not mine) is not? Is that right?

[AnakinSkywalker]

And I'll keep on reiterating that the moment "Guru Ji's property" was not used for purposes worthy of Guru Ji, it can't continue to be described as "Guru Ji's property" when there's meat and alcohol being served within it's four walls. What part of this statement is difficult to understand?

You admit the building is funded by Guru Ji's golak, and yet you don't have any problem with people using it for purposes that are contrary to Sikh practices. So you are in fact admitting that it's acceptable to hold parties which serve meat and alcohol in Guru Ji's property?

In essence you're saying that your brand of beadbi is acceptable, but someone else's supposed beadbi (your word not mine) is not? Is that right?

Just because individuals are doing beadbi on property that Guru ji owns doesn't automatically mean the ownership of that property transfers to someone else.

Guru ji owns the property and individuals were doing beadbi on it. What part of that do you have difficulty in understanding?

I don't know who's posts you have been reading but beadbi of Guru ji's property was being done when celebratory parties where held in it serving non-religious music with alcohol and meat. More beadbi was done when a minority of retards trashed Guru ji's property, smashing windows, spilling vegetarian food on the floor and other vandalous activities.

[VanHelsingh]

Just because individuals are doing beadbi on property that Guru ji owns doesn't automatically mean the ownership of that property transfers to someone else.

Guru ji owns the property and individuals were doing beadbi on it. What part of that do you have difficulty in understanding?

I don't know who's posts you have been reading but beadbi of Guru ji's property was being done when celebratory parties where held in it serving non-religious music with alcohol and meat. More beadbi was done when a minority of retards trashed Guru ji's property, smashing windows, spilling vegetarian food on the floor and other vandalous activities.

I'm glad to see you've finally admitted that the parties, etc., were beadbi. That wasn't too difficult was it? The reason I "have difficulty in understanding" is because you never expressed this thought until the above post! Like I've said on numerous occasions, I don't condone the attack on the centre.

But you aren't willing to admit that the party that was held on Saturday was the root cause of people taking matters into their own hands. A smashed window and spilt daal - in your opinion - is a maha-paap compared to years of absolute disrespect and manmat in Guru Ji's property. I use that term tentatively as the building maybe in the committee's name, but any right-minded person would never consider a building used to serve alcohol and meat as Guru Ji's property. It's a huge insult to Guru Ji to suggest that, despite the activities that take place within it's confines, it can somehow be proudly associated with Guru Ji. It maybe "Guru Ji's property" on whatever dotted line it was signed for, but for any Sikh there's not a chance in hell it can be attributed to Guru Ji.

Why no indignation about the aforementioned years of paap, yet a group of hot-headed Singhs smash a few windows and spill some Indian cuisine on the floor amidst a scuffle, and it's a case of "Let's get The Hague involved. Major human rights violations!". You seem to be suggesting that the committee's beadbi is not relevant. It's the cause of this whole problem!

Come on friend, where are your priorities? Why are you not passionately angry about meat and alcohol being served in the centre?

[AnakinSkywalker]

I'm glad to see you've finally admitted that the parties, etc., were beadbi. That wasn't too difficult was it? The reason I "have difficulty in understanding" is because you never expressed this thought until the above post! Like I've said on numerous occasions, I don't condone the attack on the centre.

But you aren't willing to admit that the party that was held on Saturday was the root cause of people taking matters into their own hands. A smashed window and spilt daal - in your opinion - is a maha-paap compared to years of absolute disrespect and manmat in Guru Ji's property. I use that term tentatively as the building maybe in the committee's name, but any right-minded person would never consider a building used to serve alcohol and meat as Guru Ji's property. It's a huge insult to Guru Ji to suggest that, despite the activities that take place within it's confines, it can somehow be proudly associated with Guru Ji. It maybe "Guru Ji's property" on whatever dotted line it was signed for, but for any Sikh there's not a chance in hell it can be attributed to Guru Ji.

Why no indignation about the aforementioned years of paap, yet a group of hot-headed Singhs smash a few windows and spill some Indian cuisine on the floor amidst a scuffle, and it's a case of "Let's get The Hague involved. Major human rights violations!". You seem to be suggesting that the committee's beadbi is not relevant. It's the cause of this whole problem!

Come on friend, where are your priorities? Why are you not passionately angry about meat and alcohol being served in the centre?

Again you've ignored my question on who owns the hall.

You keep on talking about the association of the activities that were occurring in the hall to Guru Ji whilst I'm talking about ownership of the property to Guru Ji.

If Guru Ji doesn't own a building or reside in it then how can beadbi that the Akal Takhat states in it's Sandesh occur?

I have never stated that beadbi was not occurring before the protests....so what am I admitting too?

Just because beadbi has occured before the protest doesn't mean its justified to do more beadbi!

How stupid can a person be to go and protest again beadbi and then do beadbi themselves during the protest. What hypocrisy.

And yet you're trying to justify it?

Youre trying to put the blame on others, other than the perpetrators who actually carried out the act?

One beadbi doesn't justify another.

I'm glad to see you've finally admitted that the parties, etc., were beadbi. That wasn't too difficult was it? The reason I "have difficulty in understanding" is because you never expressed this thought until the above post! Like I've said on numerous occasions, I don't condone the attack on the centre.

But you aren't willing to admit that the party that was held on Saturday was the root cause of people taking matters into their own hands. A smashed window and spilt daal - in your opinion - is a maha-paap compared to years of absolute disrespect and manmat in Guru Ji's property. I use that term tentatively as the building maybe in the committee's name, but any right-minded person would never consider a building used to serve alcohol and meat as Guru Ji's property. It's a huge insult to Guru Ji to suggest that, despite the activities that take place within it's confines, it can somehow be proudly associated with Guru Ji. It maybe "Guru Ji's property" on whatever dotted line it was signed for, but for any Sikh there's not a chance in hell it can be attributed to Guru Ji.

Why no indignation about the aforementioned years of paap, yet a group of hot-headed Singhs smash a few windows and spill some Indian cuisine on the floor amidst a scuffle, and it's a case of "Let's get The Hague involved. Major human rights violations!". You seem to be suggesting that the committee's beadbi is not relevant. It's the cause of this whole problem!

Come on friend, where are your priorities? Why are you not passionately angry about meat and alcohol being served in the centre?

Again you've ignored my question on who owns the hall.

You keep on talking about the association of the activities that were occurring in the hall to Guru Ji whilst I'm talking about ownership of the property to Guru Ji.

If Guru Ji doesn't own a building or reside in it then how can beadbi that the Akal Takhat states in it's Sandesh occur?

I have never stated that beadbi was not occurring before the protests....so what am I admitting too?

Just because beadbi has occured before the protest doesn't mean its justified to do more beadbi!

How stupid can a person be to go and protest again beadbi and then do beadbi themselves during the protest. What hypocrisy.

And yet you're trying to justify it?

Youre trying to put the blame on others, other than the perpetrators who actually carried out the act?

One beadbi doesn't justify another.

[VanHelsingh]

Again you've ignored my question on who owns the hall.

You keep on talking about the association of the activities that were occurring in the hall to Guru Ji whilst I'm talking about ownership of the property to Guru Ji.

I haven't ignored the question. I answered it if you read my post carefully.

You seem to think right of ownership overrides the anti-Sikh activities that were occuring in the building. If Guru Ji is less important to you than a flimsy contract signed in ill-faith then that's your opinion.

If Guru Ji doesn't own a building or reside in it then how can beadbi that the Akal Takhat states in it's Sandesh occur?

So now it's not Guru Ji's property? You spent most of yesterday and this morning arguing it was. But now you're stating the building is not Guru Ji's property?

To answer your question above, because funds from Guru Ji's golak were used to purchase the building or fund it's construction.

I have never stated that beadbi was not occurring before the protests....so what am I admitting too?

You only just admitted (dare I say very hesistantly) that beadbi was taking place by serving meat and alcohol.

Just because beadbi has occured before the protest doesn't mean its justified to do more beadbi!

How stupid can a person be to go and protest again beadbi and then do beadbi themselves during the protest. What hypocrisy.

And yet you're trying to justify it?

Youre trying to put the blame on others, other than the perpetrators who actually carried out the act?

One beadbi doesn't justify another.

I agree. I'll say it again: I don't condone the violence or the vandalism.

Look at it this way. No beadbi = no violence.

[AnakinSkywalker]

To answer your question above, because funds from Guru Ji's golak were used to purchase the building or fund it's construction.

If the Golak is Guru ji's and it's used to purchase a building, then who then will own the building?