Guest London jwaan

Discrimination against disabled people in gurdwara

9 posts in this topic

www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/39029675?

This got to court!! Er really?? Where in the gurus teaching was this advocated? I think somewhere a jagsaw interpretation has been applied.

In a similar vein should elderly people with knee/hip issues be banned from darbar halls because they can't sit on the floor? Or are they not sikh if they sit on a chair?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's been a thread about this for 5 days on this forum but........there is no way in hell Guest London Jawan could resist. The excitement of being able to show Sikhs as extremists got too much for him. £5 note threads yesterday and this one today. This Indian viewpoint muppet gets blindness when opportunities like this come along.

Benti to Admin and Mods:   London Jawan Singh's account obviously hasn't been approved yet so now is the time for you to look at his behaviour and base your decision on that. In his first 2 weeks as a guest on this forum every single one of his posts have been either attempts at showing Sikhs as taliban type extremists or provoking fights and arguments through insults. If a man can come through the moderation process after acting like that really would render the moderation process pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/02/2017 at 9:07 PM, Guest London jwaan said:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/39029675?

This got to court!! Er really?? Where in the gurus teaching was this advocated? I think somewhere a jagsaw interpretation has been applied.

In a similar vein should elderly people with knee/hip issues be banned from darbar halls because they can't sit on the floor? Or are they not sikh if they sit on a chair?

this was settled out of court and it is clear from reports that 5 people were suing for compensation of 150,000 pounds , that is not about establishing equality but lining pockets of the charitable trust's money.

Edited by jkvlondon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of that do you think it was correct to do that in the first place? 

Do you think elderly people sitting on chairs is beadbi?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/02/2017 at 11:41 PM, jkvlondon said:

this was settled out of court and it is clear from reports that 5 people were suing for compensation of 150,000 pounds , that is not about establishing equality but lining pockets of the charitable trust's money.

Not only factually incorrect, that's a pretty ignorant interpretation jkvlondon.

Where in our religion does it say that you section off disabled members of the sangat like lepers??

Actually they brought the court case to remove this discrimination.

What they were awarded was costs. For the benefit of your mental limitations, what that means is legal costs incurred in bringing the case to the court. What the definition of costs NEVER includes in the UK is compensation. By indicating that they were money grabbers is an outrageous example of you talking right out of your jagsaw.

In addition, it wasn't settled out of court, a proposal by the gurdwara on how this would be stopped was presented to the court and agreed. 

So all in all, a pretty ignorant post by you. Fake sheikh type reporting springs to mind. 

It would be helpful if you could actually get your facts straight before commenting.

http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2017/02/22/calls-for-sikh-temple-boss-to-quit-after-legal-battle-with-disabled-worshippers/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/03/2017 at 11:53 AM, Guest London jwaan said:

Not only factually incorrect, that's a pretty ignorant interpretation jkvlondon.

Where in our religion does it say that you section off disabled members of the sangat like lepers??

Actually they brought the court case to remove this discrimination.

What they were awarded was costs. For the benefit of your mental limitations, what that means is legal costs incurred in bringing the case to the court. What the definition of costs NEVER includes in the UK is compensation. By indicating that they were money grabbers is an outrageous example of you talking right out of your jagsaw.

In addition, it wasn't settled out of court, a proposal by the gurdwara on how this would be stopped was presented to the court and agreed. 

So all in all, a pretty ignorant post by you. Fake sheikh type reporting springs to mind. 

It would be helpful if you could actually get your facts straight before commenting.

http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2017/02/22/calls-for-sikh-temple-boss-to-quit-after-legal-battle-with-disabled-worshippers/

 

I read the actual people's accounts  and yes it was settled out of court because the gurdwara agreed to install an external lift to the building and remove the boards .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jkvlondon said:

I read the actual people's accounts  and yes it was settled out of court because the gurdwara agreed to install an external lift to the building and remove the boards .

I would suggest that the peoples own accounts didn't state that they were looking for compensation of 150,000 pounds as you have stated.

You have a lot to learn if you believe that covering legal costs and sing for compensation are the same thing.

What your effectively doing is suggesting that they were in the wrong for bringing legal action against being discrimination. The 150k costs is the fault of the committee for making up their own rules and interpretation of sikhi.....much like you and our resident behvkoof jagsaw....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/39029675

Have a read of the link. It clearly states that "The terms of the settlement were approved during a hearing at Birmingham County Court on Monday"

That is not an out of court settlement. An out of court settlement means both parties agreed to a compromise that did not involve further court involvement. This is not it.

Please elaborate on your source that shows "it is clear from reports that 5 people were suing for compensation of 150,000 pounds "

clear. Do you understand the meaning of the word clear? Actually is not clear at all. It is an entirely fabricated conclusion by you based on distorting the true facts. Nice one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/03/2017 at 9:46 AM, jkvlondon said:

I read the actual people's accounts  and yes it was settled out of court because the gurdwara agreed to install an external lift to the building and remove the boards .

No you didn't. As the actual people's accounts would not have said that "Yes we are seeking 150,000 pounds in compensation". The only thing that is clear, is that you are talking right out of your jagsaw, and have slandered members of the sangat who were discriminated against in direct contravention of sikhi.

And the following link clearly shows that a proposal was taken to the court and agreed by the court. An out of court settlement is one where both parties agree on a compromise that requires no further from the court. The link below states :

"The terms of the settlement were approved during a hearing at Birmingham County Court on Monday."

How is that an out of court settlement, Einstein?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/39029675

Whats your counter argument? That the facts are misreported by the BBC as it's an Abrahamic institution that is pro Indian govt  and against sikhi? And you know better? That's the typical nonsense presented by both you and jagsaw. 

And to be clear, this is not about a lift. This is about hiding disabled members of the sangat behind screens to ostracise them. 

There would have been no issue or financial damage to the gurdwara had the committee not been pigheaded and removed the screens in the first place. So the fault is that of the committee, not of the sangat who took it to court, who you have tried to tar as money grabbers.

If their accounts oppose that, please quote your source. Benti to you to not make stuff up and post it as if it was fact.

Otherwise we can assume that based off evidence I have provided, that you have not, you were in fact talking out of your jagsaw......

Waheguru JI ka Khalsa, Waheguru JI ki fateh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

Loading...



  • Topics

  • Posts

    • WJKK WJKF bhenji, as long as you are in chardikala now, everything should be. Though I am not sure how much of your past should you relieve to the individual?
    • Anyone else notice where these emergent trends will end? 
    • I don't remember who told me perhaps it was my uncle but the main problem with many Sikhs in the military is that in general we are honest and not cut throat. Someone mentioned that an individual in the military had noticed this and thus he claimed that one Sikh in particular along with other Sikhs weren't savvy enough with politics to rise the ranks even though that particular individual more than deserved it. This is an important tactic even more so than being able to shoot a gun.  What I'm saying is your service is what yoy personally make it because there are rules and regulations in every western country and if something occurs that isn't just, you have the power to shed light on it.  I agree with not being manipulated but I don't think the solution is to not join the military at all nor do I think it would help change that mentality. The thing about serving in military in USA GB Aus CAN ECT is that there are international laws and the discretion of ranks and foot soldiers on how they will carry out missions. Look at Harjit Sajjan he's representative of how Canada, a country who helped USA in the wars, helped carry out certain operations while saving troop and civilian lives. You underestimate the power of an independent thinking sovereign individual. No banner can change that. I dislike this deal making culture. A while back I tried to have a rational discussion about Gurdas Man's new song. The individual I disagreed with trying to rile up feminazis in hopes they would spearhead the crusade against Mann. The writer wrote that Mann's song was somehow sexist because it portrayed the mom neglecting her kids and having substance abuse problem. Point is his plan to make a silent deal of give and take in hopes that his begging to feminazis would help him crusade against Mann failed horribly.  This is the same mentality Sikh coalition type of orgs have they think bending over to Islamophobia brigade will end up helping somehow. Similar to how Muslims are using Sikhs and BLM to white wash their own image it's at the expense of us and I would argue other people allied in the silent deal of supporting each other.  I may be wrong but I think we should be above this for the issues that are most important for us. Instead of using service as a bargaining chip military service should be independent as a means of protecting your home and further becoming an asset to the Panth. In that process individuals automatically become powerhouse for pushing and acting on our narrative.  This applies to any field really but since we are talking about military service only mentioned that.    I don't disagree with much of what you say but I think there is a fundamental flaw in assuming that military service translates into what you're saying bro      
    • “Members of our sect are strictly forbidden from hosting a reception party and accepting gifts from relatives and friends. There is no dowry. The bride does not take anything with her to the in-laws’ house. We solemnise marriages en masse, at a cost equivalent to Re 1.20, ”   How hard would it really be for Sikhs to do this? It's a sad day when even Ghadars ; (naamdhari) are more loyal to their Ghadari than some who consider themselves Sikhs and not Ghadars, to their Sikhi, but everything else was completely wrong from the Havan to a false Anand Karaj focused on Dalip Singh instead of Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.