Jump to content
InderjitS

Brothers charged with unlawful behaviour at Leamington Gurdwara cleared

Recommended Posts

Fantastic News! Sunny Hundal types and the bent committee - UP yours.

https://leamingtonobserver.co.uk/news/brothers-charged-with-unlawful-behaviour-at-sikh-temple-cleared/

this line sums up the BS and fervour stirred by the leftie liberal loons:

They argued ‘poor’ police statements had resulted in over-dramatic headlines in the national press.

  • Like 3
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Premi5 said:

Never trust the Media whatever happens  - they can spin the story in whichever way they want

What bit? It's been widely reported they were cleared of all charges, the only thing that annoyed me was the Police response in this report

https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/calls-probe-police-handling-sikh-14267792?utm_source=google_news&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=google_news&utm_content=sitemap

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, GurjantGnostic said:

I think they mean the original story. The sword wielding armed hate crime bit. 

some context wouldnt go amiss :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, InderjitS said:

What bit? It's been widely reported they were cleared of all charges, the only thing that annoyed me was the Police response in this report

https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/calls-probe-police-handling-sikh-14267792?utm_source=google_news&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=google_news&utm_content=sitemap

 

Sorry, meant the original story

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/02/2018 at 3:10 PM, InderjitS said:

Fantastic News! Sunny Hundal types and the bent committee - UP yours.

https://leamingtonobserver.co.uk/news/brothers-charged-with-unlawful-behaviour-at-sikh-temple-cleared/

this line sums up the BS and fervour stirred by the leftie liberal loons:

They argued ‘poor’ police statements had resulted in over-dramatic headlines in the national press.

These muppets lied in court pretending they weren't there to protest against a so called mixed race marriage.. What a joke.. What kind of plastic singhs are they 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

These muppets lied in court pretending they weren't there to protest against a so called mixed race marriage.. What a joke.. What kind of plastic singhs are they 

Thanks genuine Singh, where did you hear they lied?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, InderjitS said:

Thanks genuine Singh, where did you hear they lied?

They lied in court statements pretending they weren't there to protest against the wedding.. What a croc of <banned word filter activated>.. They shut the gurdwara down to stop the wedding going ahead.. 

This is what the organisers of the protest themselves professed.. When did singhs become so spineless as to not stand up what they believe and deal with  the consequences 

 

 

Plastic singhs 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

They lied in court statements pretending they weren't there to protest against the wedding..

please share evidence.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

leam comittee aint even singhs, most are moneh sessioners who cant even speak punjabi properly. all money men whose own kids are messed up. then the odd 'singh' they do have such a motha sio the mayor, well lets just say even the others in the committee are better than him

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

Share evidence.. Bro they denied being at the protest to stop the wedding.. That is the statement they made in court.. It's been recorded in court.. 

https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/local-news/sikh-temple-protest-men-deny-14250016.amp

Its improbable but personally cannot say with certainty why they were present. Use of clever wording by stating they were there to protest against 'alleged misuse of funds and "corruption", aka the wedding might have got them off the hook.  I'm happy for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, InderjitS said:

Its improbable but personally cannot say with certainty why they were present. Use of clever wording by stating they were there to protest against 'alleged misuse of funds and "corruption", aka the wedding might have got them off the hook.  I'm happy for them.

Clever wording! You mean they lies under oath as Sikhs I'm guessing on a ghutka.. 

And here was me thinking in sikhi we had a tradition of standing up for our beliefs and not denying them.. 

They should be ashamed of themselves they couldn't face the consequences of their actions which if they did it for their beliefs should have been easy. Their  sikhi was so cheap they lied to get off what was probably only ever going to be a small fine. 

If these guys aren't  the guardians of sikhi they are the problem.. 

On top of which they made false allegations against the gurdwara Committee 

Disgraceful behaviour 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I'm not quibbling over the import of the word "disassociate". What I'm saying is that your statement implied that if your husband (or wife) becomes an atheist you can divorce him.  And I said that that is specifically disallowed in Canon Law. On the other hand, if you were non-Christians in the first place, and you become a Christian, and your husband/wife divorces you, you have not violated anything if you remarry. But: If you were non-Christians in the first place, and you become a Christian, and your husband/wife does not divorce you, you cannot divorce him/her in Canon Law.
    • well bro what does disassociate mean to you ...I heard seperation of ways , but also I understood it to be a grey area since canon law still maintains that they are married despite the dharmic arth of the instruction..
    • hobson's choice , if you have a preselected array who have blessing from on high by centre there is NO choice only eyewash ....even Kejriwal showed his true colours when he didn't oppose the transfer of Jaggi to Tihar Jail
    • Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa. Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh! Often times I hear people say "SGGSJ doesnt say (insert topic) so it must be ok", and in the case of pre-marital sexual relations a dear friend of mine has made the same argument. My friend (non khalsa) argues that Bani specifically condemns rape, adultery, and polygamy, however isnt against sex outside of marriage, provided that both are not married to anyone, and have given consent. My friend likes to disregard anything outside SGGSJ.  He brings up tuks from Gurbani that specifically mention "others wives" to support the argument that its specifically about adultery, however I would argue, the English translation is very shallow, and in the context of Bani, "others wives" is also talking about anyone who isnt your wife, and isnt limited to adultery, but also anyone who isnt married.  Example 1:  Siri  Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Ang 274 ਪਰ ਤ੍ਰਿਅ ਰੂਪੁ ਨ ਪੇਖੈ ਨੇਤ੍ਰ ॥ Par Thria Roop N Paekhai Naethr || ਪਰ means other ਤ੍ਰਿਅ means wife
        Example 2:  Siri  Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Ang 1013
      ਇਸਤ੍ਰੀ ਤਜਿ ਕਰਿ ਕਾਮਿ ਵਿਆਪਿਆ ਚਿਤੁ ਲਾਇਆ ਪਰ ਨਾਰੀ ॥
      Abandoning his own wife, he is engrossed in sexual desire; his thoughts are on the wives of others.   Context:  Its not just talking just about adultery, the English translations are limiting, generally the concept is to not covet another wife, in the context of Bani, doesn't mean you can have sexual relations with women who are not married. Our rehat and history make it clear that one cannot have any sexual relations outside of marriage. There is a specific reason the Guru had 10 forms over 200 years, it was to show Sikhs how to live and practically apply Bani, otherwise the SGGSJ would have been all compiled by Guru Nanak and there would be no long history of the Guru in his many forms.    The SGGSJ isnt a rule book, and isnt going to specifically ban everything that we know is immoral. Where in SGGS Ji does it say that Sri Guru Har Rai Sahib Ji was the 7th Guru Sahib after Sri Guru Hargobind Sahib Ji? Why would a primary Sikh text not name him?  In terms of Gurbani, when taken into context, and even compared to rehat and our history, its clear that sexual relations outside of marriage are discouraged.    Do you agree with my argument? These are just a few tuks I decided to bring up, if anyone has any more, please feel free to share! 
    • Badal out, badnaam in...why do people vote so badly or 
×