I have to say, I've always found it a little sad that we find it necessary to define people by the archaine rules of religions or past history. There was a spot of bother back in the 1930s where this happened big time. Do we really need lables?

Tony Benn summed it up quite well; My Father was a Lord so under our rules that qualifies me to be a Lord and therefore fit to rule - if he'd been an Airline Pilot, would you have been satisfied to let me take you for a trip in a plane, after all I'd be qualified....!

I don't think anyone other than Mr Fry can comment on Mr Frys religion.

I think this thread represents the frustration felt by a growing number of people about the constrictive oppression of Britain by political correctness. I believe that this can only simmer for so long before it really boils over.

For the record, I believe that we are now far too accomodating as a country in some respects. We are in grave danger of losing our identity for good. I wonder how accomodating other countries would be to our 'needs' should the roles be reversed? Because this is my belief, I would appreciate it if you'd just roll over and accept it. ;-)

Ah yes, the Great British Identity.

Where we work for international companies, drive in German cars listening to music sung by American artists, buy Salad from Latvia, where we watch British teams made up of foreign players playing football on Televisions made in China while sitting on Sofas bought from DFS made in Peru.

We have no identity. The problem isn't identity, it's PCness which I hate.

I am not PC at all.

Ok, fine by me.

When objections are made against people and upheld by authority because they demonstrate their christian belief by wearing a cross, crucifix or any other christian badge then we have already lost the PC battle.

Some of the justifiably concerned responses here are worried about loss of a national sense of identity / purpose. Regrettably, we've been sleepwalking into what has been termed a multi cultural society - though none of us have ever seen it in a political manifesto. We used to have a saying 'when in Rome, do as the Romans do' - not a bad touch stone. After all, in the US - billed as the land of the free, see what happens if you decide to deface the flag, or criticise the troops.

The thread is getting a bit bear ( sic) ish . The unequivocal truth is that nationalism does exist in all of us , multiculturalism being something dreamt up by the spin doctors in order to make us feel guilty whenever the race card is played ,the fact that we tend to become defensive when our legislate is ignored or deemed non applicable on ethnic or religious grounds only empathises our concerns for our continuing identity . To paraphrase a well worn quotation , they may well be crap laws but they are our crap laws .

Jews define themselves - an fact that has meant the survival of the Jews as a distinct group, I cannot think of any other group that has been so successful at not assimilating into a host culture. Of course many have assimilated, but the survival of Judaism after hundreds of years immersed in Christian European cultures is an impressive feat.

Everyone uses labels all the time, for some reason we do need them. The problems come if we start thinking that those labelled X are in some way inferior to those labelled Y and that therefore it is okay to treat them differently.

Defo agree with that, a fair point. But unfortunately when was the last time the public were questioned or polled on an event, ruleset, anything?

I think it would be fairly easy to set up a voting system on proposed rule changes and introduction. It can be linked to the census, so you register a web account against your census name (to be done via post or at a council office, driving license, passport, whatever) , giving you the right to then participate in easy 1-click "for" or "against" votes online on and, because we are a democracy, the majority of the votes is what should then be passed (or rejected) -

I don't agree. That is because this country is largely made up of ill-informed people. I'd be happier if there was some kind of competency test.

I agree with you Andy in principle however the point of a democracy is that the people get to vote. Even if the people are morons.

Why should it be assumed 'democracy' is the truth?

Well, I thought (excuse me if I'm wrong) that a democracy was rule of the majority. So a selective majority is what you'd want? Fine by me, but on what criteria?

'Democracy' as currently propagated, has become the method by which ego-driven politicians justify what they do

No; I'm simply asking why should it be assumed any democracy is best? Why should it be assumed that equal power to everyone, is best for everyone?

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried.

Hmm, I suppose. I mean I always found in group conflicts that normally things were resolved by doing a vote and siding with the majority. Unfortunately the minority in that case may get crapped on - And perhaps it's the minority who were right.

So ... Idk, Governments are complicated and you're never going to make everyone happy. But on policies which directly affect the people they should at least get a say? I'm not sure

I think maybe the point of this thread has, as usual, drifted away from the OP's point which is, do the majority of people in this country think it acceptable to slit an animal's throat while it is still concious and, if not, should it be allowed to continue, regardless of culture or religion?

Correct, and 'no'.

Thank you Biker1.

When a thread goes from the original posting subject to another due to converstaion by posters it's called a "spinoff" and is part of forums. If everyone stuck solidly to the original subject threads would be very short and full of one and two word replies.

But yes animals should be stunned which (nearly) everyone has agreed on.

Having read some on line articles about this, some (most? all?) Muslims are perfectly happy with animals being stunned before being slaughtered. So it would seem to be a non-problem that could be resolved by legislation.

Another article (this was by some vegetarian organisation, so maybe not unbiased) said that major supermarkets when asked said they either did not supply Halal meat at all, or the animal was stunned before slaughter. Link

This is generally my understanding from what I have read. Most Muslims agree that the animal should be stunned first, but some hardliners disagree - which could lead to an abhorrent and cruel situation which should be stamped out with the enforcement of legislation.

I was under the impression that Halal meat was in the shops and restaurants far more than we realise, and this does not particuarly bother me as long as the animal is slaughtered in the most humane way possible.. but perhaps it would be nice to be able to make an informed choice.

Presumably, if you buy a kebab it's going to be Halal meat, so there's one easy choice to make.

Should one make a choice on a presumption? Perhaps it would be better to become better informed first?

Probably, yes. Since I have never bought a kebab, the point is moot in my case. My assumption was based on the fact that kebab = Turkish = Muslim. Perhaps someone would like to ask on my behalf?

As a vegetarian I personally am uncomfortable with the slaughter of any animals whether it is done in the halal, Kosher of general manner, and I say this as someone whose family farm sheep and other livestock.

I do though benefit from the by-products of others carnivorous tendencies for I do like my leather seats in the car, and the shoes that I wear.

An animal should not be slaughtered for food, but it's ok if it is done for your vanity?

You are joking?

I like both meat and veg. A favourite is a basic Cauliflower Cheese. Cheese on toast for a lunchtime snack.
I have 2 most wondrous Aubergines left over from my Christmas veg display. Probably about 500 gms each.

They need to be cooked soon. Car seats and shoes won't work for me made from dried aubergine..
So I think I will roast and freeze. Maybe a curry in the cold weather approaching. I have Veg cookbooks.

I have had problems with young friends of my children,who became vegetarians and then Vegans.
It was a bit of a revolt at the time. It was a nightmare. I had to take a magnifying glass to check on food.
They are all carnivores now. I think it was the bacon sarnie that did it for most of them.

As for the bigger topic. I feel the general rule should be simple. "All for one and one for all"

And Andy Capp's competency test as mentioned at the top of the page would take us back to
pre-suffragette times ,which would get rid of Diane Abbott as well.

Hey 2 solutions at a moments notice!

Where does Ruwan say it is not right to slaughter for food?

Er, he never said it was "not right", but he is a vegetarian and says he is uncomfortable about it..

Exactly, so why the 'outburst'?

Sorry, you have lost me.

Rgds

In my eyes being uncomfortable with something is not the same as saying it should not be done. I would be uncomfortable killing a beef cattle myself, but quite happy to let someone
else do it for me.

Yes, my daughter can be fussy in what she eats, but the smell of grilled bacon...

So we have to ask: why the 07:28 PM post?

Pass. You read into this something I cannot explain. Cheers.

You accused someone of something they didn't do or say.

Snipped to emphasise the bit I think Vodabury is pointing out. I thought she made sense.

I did? Well I apologise anyway. Good night.

Snipped the bits out that made it plain obvious he wasn't advocating slaughter of animals for leather goods you mean!!!!

Vodabury made sense, but they, like you it seems, didn't read it properly. He said leather was a by-product of carnivorous, meaning killed primarily for food, and the remains put to 'good use'. This in no-way implies he supports slaughter for leather goods to make him look and feel good (vanity).

Yes - pretty obvious he wasn't advocating killing animals for vanity.

and equally obvious that whilst he is uncomfortable about killing animals to eat, he's happy to wear their skins.

He may as well eat cheap burgers & sausages too. Are they not made from the by products & waste of the abbatoir?

Hypocrisy at it's greatest.

It's fine to kill an animal to eat it. It's how the world works. As much as I like leather seats I don't then complain about the animal being killed for food, either be for it or against it. You can't say "oh, killing them and eating them is a bit much, but skin them so my **** can get sticky in hot weather".

Hmm.

Talking of animals for lunch I'm going to have a lovely chicken roll.

As that is not what was said or meant by the OP, it seems you can't read either!

You seem to have an incomplete post dannyboy!

You just can't get the staff these days.

I'd love to employ staff to post on my behalf, that would be amazing.