Jump to content

Discrimination against disabled people in gurdwara


Guest London jwaan
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest London jwaan

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jagsaw_Singh

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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Guest London jwaan
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/

 

Link to comment
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 .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest London jwaan
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....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest London jwaan

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest London jwaan
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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • yeh it's true, we shouldn't be lazy and need to learn jhatka shikaar. It doesn't help some of grew up in surrounding areas like Slough and Southall where everyone thought it was super bad for amrit dharis to eat meat, and they were following Sant babas and jathas, and instead the Singhs should have been normalising jhatka just like the recent world war soldiers did. We are trying to rectifiy this and khalsa should learn jhatka.  But I am just writing about bhog for those that are still learning rehit. As I explained, there are all these negative influences in the panth that talk against rehit, but this shouldn't deter us from taking khanda pahul, no matter what level of rehit we are!
    • How is it going to help? The link is of a Sikh hunter. Fine, but what good does that do the lazy Sikh who ate khulla maas in a restaurant? By the way, for the OP, yes, it's against rehit to eat khulla maas.
    • Yeah, Sikhs should do bhog of food they eat. But the point of bhog is to only do bhog of food which is fit to be presented to Maharaj. It's not maryada to do bhog of khulla maas and pretend it's OK to eat. It's not. Come on, bro, you should know better than to bring this Sakhi into it. Is this Sikh in the restaurant accompanied by Guru Gobind Singh ji? Is he fighting a dharam yudh? Or is he merely filling his belly with the nearest restaurant?  Please don't make a mockery of our puratan Singhs' sacrifices by comparing them to lazy Sikhs who eat khulla maas.
    • Seriously?? The Dhadi is trying to be cute. For those who didn't get it, he said: "Some say Maharaj killed bakras (goats). Some say he cut the heads of the Panj Piyaras. The truth is that they weren't goats. It was she-goats (ਬਕਰੀਆਂ). He jhatka'd she-goats. Not he-goats." Wow. This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard in relation to Sikhi.
    • Instead of a 9 inch or larger kirpan, take a smaller kirpan and put it (without gatra) inside your smaller turban and tie the turban tightly. This keeps a kirpan on your person without interfering with the massage or alarming the masseuse. I'm not talking about a trinket but rather an actual small kirpan that fits in a sheath (you'll have to search to find one). As for ahem, "problems", you could get a male masseuse. I don't know where you are, but in most places there are professional masseuses who actually know what they are doing and can really relieve your muscle pains.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use