https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/200147

On 18/10/2017 16:49, harry wrote:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/200147

Is that because they call (or are supposed to call) the name of their
god before slaughtering the animals?

You don't know how the animal died unless you have killed it yourself or
watched someone kill it for you- BTDTGGTT.

https://vimeo.com/125135664

I would say not suitable for children, however maybe they should watch
it next time they want a burger.

I have worked in such places but I still eat meat.




--
Adam

On Wednesday, 18 October 2017 19:15:56 UTC+1, ARW wrote:
On 18/10/2017 16:49, harry wrote:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/200147

Is that because they call (or are supposed to call) the name of their
god before slaughtering the animals?

I've signed it because for me it's about how the animal lived and died.

The problem with a significant number of such slaughter house is that they assume they can kill animals inhumanaly because it;s cheaper not to stun them first adn all they carry about are the words that are said at the time they are slaughtered.
I would have signed it even if it were captain kirk killing them with first setting his phaser on stun.

On 19/10/17 17:50, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 18 October 2017 19:15:56 UTC+1, ARW wrote:
On 18/10/2017 16:49, harry wrote:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/200147

[...]
I've signed it because for me it's about how the animal lived and died.
[..]
Whereas for Harry it's about racism and trying to denigrate Muslims.
TW

On 19/10/2017 18:11, TimW wrote:
On 19/10/17 17:50, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 18 October 2017 19:15:56 UTC+1, ARWÂ* wrote:
On 18/10/2017 16:49, harry wrote:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/200147

[...]
I've signed it because for me it's about how the animal lived and died.
[..]
Whereas for Harry it's about racism and trying to denigrate Muslims.

And Jews in this case.


--
Adam

whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 18 October 2017 19:15:56 UTC+1, ARW wrote:
On 18/10/2017 16:49, harry wrote:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/200147

Is that because they call (or are supposed to call) the name of their
god before slaughtering the animals?

I've signed it because for me it's about how the animal lived and
died.

+1 And signed.

The problem with a significant number of such slaughter house is that
they assume they can kill animals inhumanaly because it;s cheaper not
to stun them first adn all they carry about are the words that are
said at the time they are slaughtered. I would have signed it even if
it were captain kirk killing them with first setting his phaser on
stun.

I've worked in slaughter houses and watched the animals being killed. They
were stunned first, their legs went, then their throats slashed with a
bloody big knife whilst they were falling. Horrible to see.
But at least they were brain dead before they died. At least I hope so.
****ing Muslimes!

On 19/10/2017 19:56, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 18 October 2017 19:15:56 UTC+1, ARW wrote:
On 18/10/2017 16:49, harry wrote:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/200147

Is that because they call (or are supposed to call) the name of their
god before slaughtering the animals?

I've signed it because for me it's about how the animal lived and
died.

+1 And signed.

The problem with a significant number of such slaughter house is that
they assume they can kill animals inhumanaly because it;s cheaper not
to stun them first adn all they carry about are the words that are
said at the time they are slaughtered. I would have signed it even if
it were captain kirk killing them with first setting his phaser on
stun.

I've worked in slaughter houses and watched the animals being killed. They
were stunned first, their legs went, then their throats slashed with a
bloody big knife whilst they were falling. Horrible to see.
But at least they were brain dead before they died.

That would be a typical example of 90% of halal meat.

And the animals die somehow differently in a non halal slaughter house?

I'll bet the lambs in the slaughter line are arguing amongst each other
as they line up to die saying "I hope I'm Halal" or "I hope I'm Kosher"
or "my farmer has a range rover and despite me eating the same **** as
you two for the last year I hope I'm a very expensive organic lamb chop
(with expensive organic mint sauce as a dressing)"


Truth is, they are all kebab meat, and what is left over is cat food.

--
Adam

On 19/10/2017 18:11, TimW wrote:
On 19/10/17 17:50, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 18 October 2017 19:15:56 UTC+1, ARWÂ* wrote:
On 18/10/2017 16:49, harry wrote:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/200147

[...]
I've signed it because for me it's about how the animal lived and died.
[..]
Whereas for Harry it's about racism and trying to denigrate Muslims.

I don't see that it is denigrating Muslims to give people the right to
buy meat from an animal which was - or at least might have been -
slaughtered by an atheist. Apart from anything else, atheists need jobs
too.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 21:33:03 +0100, Robin wrote:

On 19/10/2017 18:11, TimW wrote:
On 19/10/17 17:50, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 18 October 2017 19:15:56 UTC+1, ARWÂ* wrote:
On 18/10/2017 16:49, harry wrote:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/200147

[...]
I've signed it because for me it's about how the animal lived and
died.
[..]
Whereas for Harry it's about racism and trying to denigrate Muslims.

I don't see that it is denigrating Muslims to give people the right to
buy meat from an animal which was - or at least might have been -
slaughtered by an atheist. Apart from anything else, atheists need jobs
too.

You're absolutely right. But that isn't Harry's agenda, as Adam said.


--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

ARW wrote:
On 19/10/2017 19:56, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 18 October 2017 19:15:56 UTC+1, ARW wrote:
On 18/10/2017 16:49, harry wrote:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/200147

Is that because they call (or are supposed to call) the name of
their god before slaughtering the animals?

I've signed it because for me it's about how the animal lived and
died.

+1 And signed.

The problem with a significant number of such slaughter house is
that they assume they can kill animals inhumanaly because it;s
cheaper not to stun them first adn all they carry about are the
words that are said at the time they are slaughtered. I would have
signed it even if it were captain kirk killing them with first
setting his phaser on stun.

I've worked in slaughter houses and watched the animals being
killed. They were stunned first, their legs went, then their throats
slashed with a bloody big knife whilst they were falling. Horrible
to see. But at least they were brain dead before they died.

That would be a typical example of 90% of halal meat.

Are you sure about that?

And the animals die somehow differently in a non halal slaughter
house?


Errrr, yes.



I'll bet the lambs in the slaughter line are arguing amongst each
other as they line up to die saying "I hope I'm Halal" or "I hope I'm
Kosher" or "my farmer has a range rover and despite me eating the
same **** as you two for the last year I hope I'm a very expensive
organic lamb chop (with expensive organic mint sauce as a dressing)"

Actually the lambs push and shove each other to get to their death. I've
seen them do this. So sad.


Truth is, they are all kebab meat, and what is left over is cat food.

There is very little left over. The skin from cows is made into hats, the
fleece from sheep into jackets and things. This is what I was told.
The cows heads are made into something else. I've seen skips full of cows
heads, I think that they were all blue. Nothing is wasted.
The **** is made into cat food.

On 19/10/2017 21:50, Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 21:33:03 +0100, Robin wrote:

On 19/10/2017 18:11, TimW wrote:
On 19/10/17 17:50, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 18 October 2017 19:15:56 UTC+1, ARWÂ* wrote:
On 18/10/2017 16:49, harry wrote:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/200147

[...]
I've signed it because for me it's about how the animal lived and
died.
[..]
Whereas for Harry it's about racism and trying to denigrate Muslims.

I don't see that it is denigrating Muslims to give people the right to
buy meat from an animal which was - or at least might have been -
slaughtered by an atheist. Apart from anything else, atheists need jobs
too.

You're absolutely right. But that isn't Harry's agenda, as Adam said.



Ah, so.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 19/10/2017 21:53, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
ARW wrote:
On 19/10/2017 19:56, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 18 October 2017 19:15:56 UTC+1, ARW wrote:
On 18/10/2017 16:49, harry wrote:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/200147

Is that because they call (or are supposed to call) the name of
their god before slaughtering the animals?

I've signed it because for me it's about how the animal lived and
died.

+1 And signed.

The problem with a significant number of such slaughter house is
that they assume they can kill animals inhumanaly because it;s
cheaper not to stun them first adn all they carry about are the
words that are said at the time they are slaughtered. I would have
signed it even if it were captain kirk killing them with first
setting his phaser on stun.

I've worked in slaughter houses and watched the animals being
killed. They were stunned first, their legs went, then their throats
slashed with a bloody big knife whilst they were falling. Horrible
to see. But at least they were brain dead before they died.

That would be a typical example of 90% of halal meat.

Are you sure about that?

And the animals die somehow differently in a non halal slaughter
house?


Errrr, yes.

Then you have never worked in a slaughter house.

--
Adam

ARW wrote:
On 19/10/2017 21:53, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
ARW wrote:
On 19/10/2017 19:56, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 18 October 2017 19:15:56 UTC+1, ARW wrote:
On 18/10/2017 16:49, harry wrote:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/200147

Is that because they call (or are supposed to call) the name of
their god before slaughtering the animals?

I've signed it because for me it's about how the animal lived and
died.

+1 And signed.

The problem with a significant number of such slaughter house is
that they assume they can kill animals inhumanaly because it;s
cheaper not to stun them first adn all they carry about are the
words that are said at the time they are slaughtered. I would have
signed it even if it were captain kirk killing them with first
setting his phaser on stun.

I've worked in slaughter houses and watched the animals being
killed. They were stunned first, their legs went, then their
throats slashed with a bloody big knife whilst they were falling.
Horrible to see. But at least they were brain dead before they
died.

That would be a typical example of 90% of halal meat.

Are you sure about that?



And the animals die somehow differently in a non halal slaughter
house?


Errrr, yes.

Then you have never worked in a slaughter house.
As a contractor:

http://www.dunbia.com/Contact/Site-L...unbia-(Preston)

Huge wrote:
On 2017-10-19, ARW wrote:
On 19/10/2017 21:53, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

[29 lines snipped]


And the animals die somehow differently in a non halal slaughter
house?


Errrr, yes.

Then you have never worked in a slaughter house.

Something else Pounder knows nothing about.

Something that I have seen and you have not.

On 19/10/2017 21:50, Bob Eager wrote:

I don't see that it is denigrating Muslims to give people the right to
buy meat from an animal which was - or at least might have been -
slaughtered by an atheist. Apart from anything else, atheists need jobs
too.

You're absolutely right. But that isn't Harry's agenda, as Adam said.

In Harry's defence can I point out that an objection to halal has two
bases. One is the cruelty involved. The other is that alien cultures
have no right to bring their heathen practices into our country. The
indigenous population has every right to object to that. You can call it
racism; you can call it anything you care to, but the fact is this is
Britain and we have British standards of behaviour and we want to keep
them. That's also why we don't like to think that homophobia, the
subjugation of women, and FGM have no place here. Those who want to
follow their medieval belief system should go back to a country where
it's regarded as acceptable. If they can't do that they should knuckle
down and damned well behave like civilised British people, as far as is
possible.

Bill

On Friday, 20 October 2017 01:01:51 UTC+1, Bill Wright wrote:
alien cultures
have no right to bring their heathen practices into our country. The
indigenous population has every right to object to that.

Bloody Christians driving out paganism. Bloody cheek of it...

In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
On 19/10/2017 21:50, Bob Eager wrote:

I don't see that it is denigrating Muslims to give people the right to
buy meat from an animal which was - or at least might have been -
slaughtered by an atheist. Apart from anything else, atheists need
jobs too.

You're absolutely right. But that isn't Harry's agenda, as Adam said.

In Harry's defence can I point out that an objection to halal has two
bases. One is the cruelty involved. The other is that alien cultures
have no right to bring their heathen practices into our country.

whereas we had every right to import our cultures to various places all
over the world?

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On Friday, 20 October 2017 09:42:49 UTC+1, charles wrote:
whereas we had every right to import our cultures to various places all
over the world?

Most of them were pretty grateful for the rule of law, economic stability, and decent railways.

Owain

On Friday, 20 October 2017 01:01:51 UTC+1, Bill Wright wrote:
In Harry's defence can I point out that an objection to halal has two
bases. One is the cruelty involved. The other is that alien cultures
have no right to bring their heathen practices into our country.

My third objection is that religious belief should not be grounds for exemption from the law.

If stunless slaughter is wrong, it's wrong.

Owain

On Friday, 20 October 2017 10:13:55 UTC+1, I wrote:
My third objection is that religious belief should not be grounds for exemption
from the law.
If stunless slaughter is wrong, it's wrong.

Of course it's down to Europe ...

EU Regulation 1099/2009, on the protection of animals at time of killing, requires all animals to be stunned before slaughter except where animals are slaughtered in accordance with religious rites. The EU Regulation and the Welfare of Animals at Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015

Owain

On 20/10/2017 10:17, wrote:
On Friday, 20 October 2017 10:13:55 UTC+1, I wrote:
My third objection is that religious belief should not be grounds for exemption
from the law.
If stunless slaughter is wrong, it's wrong.

Of course it's down to Europe ...

EU Regulation 1099/2009, on the protection of animals at time of killing, requires all animals to be stunned before slaughter except where animals are slaughtered in accordance with religious rites. The EU Regulation and the Welfare of Animals at Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015


The exemption from stunning for Jewish and Islamic religious rites was
in the law of E&W and of Scotland before the EEC existed.


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 20/10/2017 10:11, wrote:
On Friday, 20 October 2017 09:42:49 UTC+1, charles wrote:
whereas we had every right to import our cultures to various places all
over the world?

Most of them were pretty grateful for the rule of law, economic stability, and decent railways.

That was largely a myth, perpetuated by the conquerors.



Owain

On 20/10/2017 10:39, GB wrote:
On 20/10/2017 10:11, wrote:
On Friday, 20 October 2017 09:42:49 UTC+1, charlesÂ* wrote:
whereas we had every right to import our cultures to various places all
over the world?

Most of them were pretty grateful for the rule of law, economic
stability, and decent railways.

That was largely a myth, perpetuated by the conquerors.

And _that's_ a myth perpetuated by those who wanted independence _and_
benefit from our railways, language, civil service, law, knowing which
side of the road to drive, impressive colonial buildings...

--
Max Demian

On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 17:12:56 +0100, Max Demian
wrote:


That was largely a myth, perpetuated by the conquerors.

And _that's_ a myth perpetuated by those who wanted independence _and_
benefit from our railways, language, civil service, law, knowing which
side of the road to drive, impressive colonial buildings...

Moving back and forth from here at will choosing what customs to
follow as when it suits and screaming how we don't allow enough
diversity or respect their culture when it doesn't.

G.Harman

In article , Max Demian
wrote:
On 20/10/2017 10:39, GB wrote:
On 20/10/2017 10:11, wrote:
On Friday, 20 October 2017 09:42:49 UTC+1, charles wrote:
whereas we had every right to import our cultures to various places
all over the world?

Most of them were pretty grateful for the rule of law, economic
stability, and decent railways.

That was largely a myth, perpetuated by the conquerors.

And _that's_ a myth perpetuated by those who wanted independence _and_
benefit from our railways, language, civil service, law, knowing which
side of the road to drive, impressive colonial buildings...

afer all, what did the Romans do for us?

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On 20/10/2017 01:01, Bill Wright wrote:
On 19/10/2017 21:50, Bob Eager wrote:

I don't see that it is denigrating Muslims to give people the right to
buy meat from an animal which was - or at least might have been -
slaughtered by an atheist.Â* Apart from anything else, atheists need jobs
too.

You're absolutely right. But that isn't Harry's agenda, as Adam said.

In Harry's defence can I point out that an objection to halal has two
bases. One is the cruelty involved. The other is that alien cultures
have no right to bring their heathen practices into our country. The
indigenous population has every right to object to that. You can call it
racism; you can call it anything you care to, but the fact is this is
Britain and we have British standards of behaviour and we want to keep
them. That's also why we don't like to think that homophobia, the
subjugation of women, and FGM have no place here. Those who want to
follow their medieval belief system should go back to a country where
it's regarded as acceptable. If they can't do that they should knuckle
down and damned well behave like civilised British people, as far as is
possible.



What would you suggest we do with the uncivilised British people?

There are a ****ing lot of them.


--
Adam

On Friday, 20 October 2017 18:36:34 UTC+1, charles wrote:
And _that's_ a myth perpetuated by those who wanted independence _and_
benefit from our railways, language, civil service, law, knowing which
side of the road to drive, impressive colonial buildings...
afer all, what did the Romans do for us?

language, civil service, law, knowing which
side of the road to drive, impressive colonial buildings...

Owain

On Friday, 20 October 2017 19:48:35 UTC+1, ARW wrote:
What would you suggest we do with the uncivilised British people?
There are a ****ing lot of them.

And they do a lot of ****ing.

We used to be able to send them out to the colonies to learn to be civilised British people.

Owain

On 20/10/2017 22:28, wrote:
On Friday, 20 October 2017 18:36:34 UTC+1, charles wrote:
And _that's_ a myth perpetuated by those who wanted independence _and_
benefit from our railways, language, civil service, law, knowing which
side of the road to drive, impressive colonial buildings...
afer all, what did the Romans do for us?

language, civil service, law, knowing which
side of the road to drive, impressive colonial buildings...

Do you really think the locals didn't speak to each other before the
Romans arrived?



Owain

On 21/10/2017 09:12, GB wrote:
On 20/10/2017 22:28, wrote:
On Friday, 20 October 2017 18:36:34 UTC+1, charlesÂ* wrote:
And _that's_ a myth perpetuated by those who wanted independence _and_
benefit from our railways, language, civil service, law, knowing which
side of the road to drive, impressive colonial buildings...
afer all, what did the Romans do for us?

language, civil service, law, knowing which
side of the road to drive, impressive colonial buildings...

Do you really think the locals didn't speak to each other before the
Romans arrived?

To this day some ex-British colonies speak multitudes of different local
languages and rely upon English as the common language to talk to
someone from a different town/village/tribe. For instance Nigeria has
over 500 different languages! You can ignore a lot of those due to tiny
numbers of speakers, but there are still dozens of different languages
used by the majorities in the various states that make up the country.

SteveW

On 20/10/2017 10:13, wrote:
On Friday, 20 October 2017 01:01:51 UTC+1, Bill Wright wrote:
In Harry's defence can I point out that an objection to halal has two
bases. One is the cruelty involved. The other is that alien cultures
have no right to bring their heathen practices into our country.

My third objection is that religious belief should not be grounds for exemption from the law.

If stunless slaughter is wrong, it's wrong.

You don't stun game before you shoot it.

Nor do you shout Allah before taking a shot.



--
Adam

On 19/10/2017 17:50, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 18 October 2017 19:15:56 UTC+1, ARW wrote:
On 18/10/2017 16:49, harry wrote:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/200147

Is that because they call (or are supposed to call) the name of their
god before slaughtering the animals?

I've signed it because for me it's about how the animal lived and died.


Halal meat has nothing to do with the way the animal lived but the way
they die.



--
Adam

On Saturday, 21 October 2017 16:01:03 UTC+1, ARW wrote:
Nor do you shout Allah before taking a shot.

Not usually on pigeon shooting, no.

Owain

"Steve Walker" wrote in message
news
On 21/10/2017 09:12, GB wrote:
On 20/10/2017 22:28, wrote:
On Friday, 20 October 2017 18:36:34 UTC+1, charles wrote:
And _that's_ a myth perpetuated by those who wanted independence _and_
benefit from our railways, language, civil service, law, knowing which
side of the road to drive, impressive colonial buildings...
afer all, what did the Romans do for us?

language, civil service, law, knowing which
side of the road to drive, impressive colonial buildings...

Do you really think the locals didn't speak to each other before the
Romans arrived?

To this day some ex-British colonies speak multitudes of different local
languages and rely upon English as the common language to talk to someone
from a different town/village/tribe.

Not just ex British colonies either. I got quite a surprise when I was
told that many of the local Italians can't actually understand other
Italians here and have to speak english to each other. We have
something like 45% of the locals who are of Italian origin here.

For instance Nigeria has over 500 different languages!

PNG too. India isnt quite that bad. China too.

You can ignore a lot of those due to tiny numbers of speakers, but there
are still dozens of different languages used by the majorities in the
various states that make up the country.

"ARW" wrote in message
news
On 20/10/2017 10:13, wrote:
On Friday, 20 October 2017 01:01:51 UTC+1, Bill Wright wrote:
In Harry's defence can I point out that an objection to halal has two
bases. One is the cruelty involved. The other is that alien cultures
have no right to bring their heathen practices into our country.

My third objection is that religious belief should not be grounds for
exemption from the law.

If stunless slaughter is wrong, it's wrong.

You don't stun game before you shoot it.

And no one I know was ever actually stupid enough
to stun a chook before chopping its head off or
slitting its throat and letting it bleed to death either.

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
news
On 19/10/2017 21:50, Bob Eager wrote:

I don't see that it is denigrating Muslims to give people the right to
buy meat from an animal which was - or at least might have been -
slaughtered by an atheist. Apart from anything else, atheists need jobs
too.

You're absolutely right. But that isn't Harry's agenda, as Adam said.

In Harry's defence can I point out that an objection to halal has two
bases. One is the cruelty involved. The other is that alien cultures have
no right to bring their heathen practices into our country.

But its fine for you lot to take your heathen practices all over
the ****ing world and inflict those on everyone else, eh ?

And without their heathen practices, you lot would
be a tad short of currys, kebabs, tea, coffee, potatoes,
tomatoes, burning at the stake etc etc etc.

The indigenous population has every right to object to that.

Yep, they should have told you lot to bugger off back to that
soggy little frigid island when you lot did so much of that.

You can call it racism;

We can and do.

you can call it anything you care to, but the fact is this is Britain and
we have British standards of behaviour

Yeah, like burning each other at the stake, killing witches,
raping children, slavery, keeping the coal in the bath etc etc etc

and we want to keep them.

Only the rabid bigots like you. Everyone else is quite happy to try
the more useful stuff the stinking foreign evils get up to at times.

That's also why we don't like to think that homophobia, the subjugation of
women, and FGM have no place here.

Could have sworn you lot made homos illegal at one time.

And didnt allow women to own property either.

And proclaimed some of the more uppity woman
to be witches and burnt and drowned them too.

Those who want to follow their medieval belief system should go back to a
country where it's regarded as acceptable.

But no reason why you lot should have to bugger
off back to that soggy frigid little island, eh ?

If they can't do that they should knuckle down and damned well behave like
civilised British people, as far as is possible.

How odd that none of your lot ever did that
when not on that soggy little frigid island.

wrote
Bill Wright wrote

In Harry's defence can I point out that an objection to halal has two
bases. One is the cruelty involved. The other is that alien cultures
have no right to bring their heathen practices into our country.

My third objection is that religious belief should not be grounds for
exemption from the law.

If stunless slaughter is wrong, it's wrong.

But its not wrong. No one I know is actually stupid enough to
stun a chook before chopping its head off or slitting its throat.

And only barbarians dont swallow oysters live.

On 21/10/17 15:40, Steve Walker wrote:
On 21/10/2017 09:12, GB wrote:
On 20/10/2017 22:28, wrote:
On Friday, 20 October 2017 18:36:34 UTC+1, charlesÂ* wrote:
And _that's_ a myth perpetuated by those who wanted independence _and_
benefit from our railways, language, civil service, law, knowing which
side of the road to drive, impressive colonial buildings...
afer all, what did the Romans do for us?

language, civil service, law, knowing which
side of the road to drive, impressive colonial buildings...

Do you really think the locals didn't speak to each other before the
Romans arrived?

To this day some ex-British colonies speak multitudes of different local
languages and rely upon English as the common language to talk to
someone from a different town/village/tribe. For instance Nigeria has
over 500 different languages! You can ignore a lot of those due to tiny
numbers of speakers, but there are still dozens of different languages
used by the majorities in the various states that make up the country.


In S africa, ther are off te top of my head...

English
Afrikaans
Portugese
Geraman
Zulu
Xhosa
Tswana
Sotho
and hald a dozen oither tribal languages, all spoken.

The point is that these people only now have to speak to each other,
because they moved off their tribal lands into the townships.

They now speak a brilliant mix called 'tsotse taal'. ' Tsotsi is a sotho
word, apparently a corruption of 'zoot suit' meaning young smart urban
and propbably criminal, and 'taal' is dutch/afrikaans for 'speech'.

It features words and constructions from all the langauges there are.

Listen to this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7jAeDPL1sk

You can hear passages in english, words that are recognisably afrikaans,
xhosa 'clicks' and I spotted a few zulau words I knew.

The point is, all these people now live in the same place, they need to
communicate and although there were two 'official' langauges - English
and Afrikaans, since the end of Apartheid the government has not
enforced that as rigidly as in the past, and encourages tribal langeuses
as well.

Like all well meaning socialist efforts it leaves a lot to be desired.
There is no 'lingua franca', so one has arisen naturally.

There is no word for 'crosss head screwdriver' in Xhosa. Nor are their
textbooks on nuclear physics in Afrikaans.

English is the de facto choice of the educated, just as tsotsi taal is
the choice of the undeducated. Many people speak both.

There is a similar situation in India.

English may once have been forced on people, but it is no longer.
English is the nearest thing we have to a common world language just as
Latin used to be.

It makes sense for people to use it. So they do.


SteveW



--
€œit should be clear by now to everyone that activist environmentalism
(or environmental activism) is becoming a general ideology about humans,
about their freedom, about the relationship between the individual and
the state, and about the manipulation of people under the guise of a
'noble' idea. It is not an honest pursuit of 'sustainable development,'
a matter of elementary environmental protection, or a search for
rational mechanisms designed to achieve a healthy environment. Yet
things do occur that make you shake your head and remind yourself that
you live neither in Joseph Stalins Communist era, nor in the Orwellian
utopia of 1984.€�

Vaclav Klaus

On 21/10/17 16:00, ARW wrote:
On 20/10/2017 10:13, wrote:
On Friday, 20 October 2017 01:01:51 UTC+1, Bill WrightÂ* wrote:
In Harry's defence can I point out that an objection to halal has two
bases. One is the cruelty involved. The other is that alien cultures
have no right to bring their heathen practices into our country.

My third objection is that religious belief should not be grounds for
exemption from the law.

If stunless slaughter is wrong, it's wrong.

You don't stun game before you shoot it.

Nor do you shout Allah before taking a shot.


Ther is no game in Islamic countries. They killed all that centuries ago.





--
"Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social
conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the
windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) "

Alan Sokal

On 19/10/2017 21:53, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
ARW wrote:
On 19/10/2017 19:56, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 18 October 2017 19:15:56 UTC+1, ARW wrote:
On 18/10/2017 16:49, harry wrote:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/200147

Is that because they call (or are supposed to call) the name of
their god before slaughtering the animals?

I've signed it because for me it's about how the animal lived and
died.

+1 And signed.

The problem with a significant number of such slaughter house is
that they assume they can kill animals inhumanaly because it;s
cheaper not to stun them first adn all they carry about are the
words that are said at the time they are slaughtered. I would have
signed it even if it were captain kirk killing them with first
setting his phaser on stun.

I've worked in slaughter houses and watched the animals being
killed. They were stunned first, their legs went, then their throats
slashed with a bloody big knife whilst they were falling. Horrible
to see. But at least they were brain dead before they died.

That would be a typical example of 90% of halal meat.

Are you sure about that?

And the animals die somehow differently in a non halal slaughter
house?


Errrr, yes.

Would you wish to ban this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-41698293


--
Adam