Jump to content

Sikh Channel & Dudley Protest


Recommended Posts

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

:)

By that rationale, someone uses funds from Guru Ji's golak to buy some XXX-rated DVDs. Do we attribute the DVDs to Guru Ji because money from the golak was used to buy them? Where do you draw the line? Anything manmat is still attributed to Guru Ji? I thought you said the building wasn't Guru Ji's property? So now it is?

I apologise for being so blunt but you asked the question and I answered.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 224
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hiding in the shadows.... Thats what this above poster is good for. I post after a long period of time and the above poster doesn't even take 30 mins to come on sikhsangat to respond. If you look a

Before this psuedo scholar dal starts foaming at the mouth, im leave this topic. Khalistanigunman, I say you do the same. This guy doesn't have nothing better to do, than sit on Sikhsangat and insul

I watched the Dudley Protest show on Sikh Channel last night at 9.30pm...now while the Gursikhs in the Studio correctly stated what occurred on the day and they did so very well but the only video's s

Posted Images

That scenario would be an abuse of the funds.

I'm talking about the building that you referred to in your quote below

It's a very simple question that you seem to have difficulty in answering.

Again I ask.

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?

:)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

That scenario would be an abuse of the funds.

I'm talking about a building.

I understand. Serving meat and alcohol in a golak-funded building is an appropriate use of funds from Guru Ji's golak but XXX-rated DVDs are not. Okay thanks for clearing that up.

It's a very simple question that you seem to have difficulty in answering.

Again I ask.

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

I told you I already answered it. If my reply is not to your satisfaction that is not my problem. Here, I'll paste my reply below if you can't find it on the previous page...

.....I use that term (Guru Ji's property) tentatively as the building may be 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 may be "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.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh so by your logic either the building was never owned by Guru ji, (even though Guru Jis golak was used to fund or purchase it) or if it was once owned by Guru Ji, (which you haven't admitted it was) the ownership was somehow magically transferred to someone else once beadbi occurred in that building!

:D

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh so by your logic either the building was never owned by Guru ji, (even though Guru Jis golak was used to fund or purchase it) or if it was once owned by Guru Ji, (which you haven't admitted it was) the ownership was somehow magically transferred to someone else once beadbi occurred in that building!

:D

Like I said, a Sikh would never consider that building belonging to Guru Ji if meat and alcohol was being served in it. By saying that the building is Guru Ji's is implying that Guru Ji approves what was occuring inside the building. Once beadbi occured, it should not have been referred to as Guru Ji's property.

You're the fella that yesterday said it was Guru Ji's property. This morning/afternoon you changed your stance to "Erm...it's not Guru Ji's property" and now you're saying "Yes, it's Guru Ji's property!". Make up your mind!

I love that phrase "Guru Ji's property". I've used it so much today. Makes me feel all warm inside.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what they say...don't cry over spilt cholay....

Or spilt daroo...:laugh2:

EDIT: Was alcohol spilt in the kerfuffle? No I don't think it was. Oh well, whatever else that was spilt on Saturday. Spilt plates of meat curry?

Link to post
Share on other sites

lets get one thing straight the freehold was purchased by the gurdwara purely out of gurdwara golak funds........yes the building itself was built from other sources.......including a contribution from the nishkam sevak jatha and baba ji himself laid the first brick.....all these are facts!!!

guru ji's property/land has been used for immoral purposes...end of!!!

what we should be talking about is the woman spokesperson for the centre how dare she call mahraj da saroop...a book......further beadbi here to a national audience what a total disgrace!!!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The crux of the issue I have with AnakinSkywalker is this: It was wrong to attack the centre (which I completely agree). But up until last night, he didn't raise an objection to the serving of alcohol and meat in the building - or at least not with the same fervour and passion that he criticises the marauding Singhs.

His whole argument is based around the fact that - in his opinion - holding a party, eating meat and drinking alcohol in the Dudley centre is less of a problem than someone entering the centre by force and roughing it up, hence his focus on the act of violence rather than the beadbi that caused the violence.

Why is the provision and consumption of meat and alcohol in that building less important (I said 'less important' not 'irrelevant') than a smashed window or two? Why does the misappropriation of golak funds for manmat practices not draw the same ire that a few toppled pans do?

Why does he not refer to the party people as retards for consuming meat and alcohol in the centre? Are they immune from such criticism? That's the only "problem" I have with his stance on this particular issue. He seems like a good person considering his previous posts but I can't understand why he doesn't condemn the partygoers as much as he does the rioters.

I think the guy really has been drawn towards the power of the Dark Side!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.itv.com/c...-disorder56929/

The chap in this story comes across as a complete lafanga, "we was trying to get to the bottom of this..through negotiation with the council ....what the covenant was and what the lease was saying". Looks like the council must be higher than the Akal Takht for the Dudley Committee. I think its time the Akal Takht Jathedar summoned these idiots and if they don't turn up declare them tankhaniya and instruct the Khalsa Panth to avoid these guys, then again they are besharam so would care little for this.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You're the fella that yesterday said it was Guru Ji's property. This morning/afternoon you changed your stance to "Erm...it's not Guru Ji's property" and now you're saying "Yes, it's Guru Ji's property!". Make up your mind!

I love that phrase "Guru Ji's property". I've used it so much today. Makes me feel all warm inside.

I never said it wasn't Guru Jis property. You're misreading again....not surprising.

Makes you feel all warm inside?....hey whatever floats your boat dude.

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

The crux of the issue I have with AnakinSkywalker is this: It was wrong to attack the centre (which I completely agree). But up until last night, he didn't raise an objection to the serving of alcohol and meat in the building - or at least not with the same fervour and passion that he criticises the marauding Singhs.

His whole argument is based around the fact that - in his opinion - holding a party, eating meat and drinking alcohol in the Dudley centre is less of a problem than someone entering the centre by force and roughing it up, hence his focus on the act of violence rather than the beadbi that caused the violence.

Why is the provision and consumption of meat and alcohol in that building less important (I said 'less important' not 'irrelevant') than a smashed window or two? Why does the misappropriation of golak funds for manmat practices not draw the same ire that a few toppled pans do?

Why does he not refer to the party people as retards for consuming meat and alcohol in the centre? Are they immune from such criticism? That's the only "problem" I have with his stance on this particular issue. He seems like a good person considering his previous posts but I can't understand why he doesn't condemn the partygoers as much as he does the rioters.

I think the guy really has been drawn towards the power of the Dark Side!

When did I ever say one beadbi was less than another.

Go on...quote me where I said that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't it have been lovely to see this truth in the British Press!!!

Yes I think the British Tax Payer should be very concerned with the local Dudley non practising Sikhs who can be easily recognised, as basically they will not resemble a Sikh in any way, shape, or form. Most of the non-practising Sikhs of Dudley normally have shaved heads and more likely to be mistaken for Hari Krishna worshippers, but do not have the honesty and integrity of Hari Krishna worshippers. The shaved head non-practising Sikhs generally lack belief in any religion. There are a few Dudley Temple committee members that have deliberately adopted the appearance of Sikhs to cause unfair competition regarding party halls in the Dudley area. The Dudley Sikh imitating Committee do this because it pains them to think that their Shaved head congregation, who do not practise Sikhism, may pay money to people of other races, including ordinary British Tax paying Citizens, in order to hire halls for parties. The Dudley Temple committee members, who try imitate the appearance of real Sikhs, use the religion of the Sikhs to market and advertise their Dudley party hall for the consumption of alcohol. This marketing method, and drinking alcohol, is very clearly against even the most basic of Sikh Tenets. The committee seem to take great pleasure in knowing that they are hurting the sentiments of the Sikhs, and at them same time, drawing business away from local law abiding British Tax payers, who have set up their party halls in the correct and proper manner, and who use fair marketing and advertising techniques to drawn in their customers. As mentioned before, the Sikh imitating Dudley Temple committee members have argued that, why should our congregation (mostly non-practising shaved head Sikhs) pay money over to law abiding British Tax Paying Citizens who own party halls, when they could instead, keep the money within their own "non-Sikhi practising" community. This British Tax payer, and especially the Dudley Press/Newspapers, should note that it is the shaved head congregation, and Sikh imitating Dudley Temple committee, who are working against the Dudley Tax Payer and business owners. The proper British Sikhs, who support long beards and turbans, are supporting all the genuine British Tax payers of Dudley by trying to prevent the unfair marketing being used against the British Tax payer by this shaved head congregation of people who do not practice Sikhism. The practising genuine Sikhs who protested against the activities taking place at the hall were defending the rights of the British Tax Payer.

The rest of the Dudley and National Community, the Dudley and National Press, and the Dudley and National Police Force should realise that the Sikhs, who supported long beards and turbans, who protested against the activities of the hall on Saturday, where fighting for the rights of the British tax payer!

We should leave the sale and promotion of alcohol to the Pubs, Nightclubs, off licences, and restaurants, as allowed by the law of this land. Gurdwares should not be taking business away for Pubs, Nightclubs, off licences, and restaurants that offer anyone a place to drink without offending anyone!

The Great British Press and Media, and the Police, should be supporting their tax paying Pub, Nightclub and restaurant owners, rather than protecting and assisting mislead Gurdwara Committee members in taking customers away from the Legitimate British Tax Paying Men and Women who sell alcohol in legal, legitimate and suitable venues!!!

One of the best quotes I have heard recently is, "saying you are a Sikh, when you do not practise even the basic Sikh Doctrines and Tenets, is like saying you are a footballer, when you do not even play football" - brilliant quote!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use