Jewish sabbath

[poolman]

I'm all for people respecting their faith but this is just daft


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/5550497/Jewish-couple-sue-neighbours-over-automatic-light.html

[Peevemor]

I'm all for people respecting their faith but this is just daft


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/5550497/Jewish-couple-sue-neighbours-over-automatic-light.html

Ridiculous. :bitchy:

[Phil D. Rolls]

I must say it is very unusual to come across such intolerant Jews. I have always seen Judaism as a tradition that accepts the rights of others readily. I think this whole affair is a disgrace, and they should be given a free house on someone else's land, as a means of atonement for their suffering.

[poolman]

I must say it is very unusual to come across such intolerant Jews. I have always seen Judaism as a tradition that accepts the rights of others readily. I think this whole affair is a disgrace, and they should be given a free house on someone else's land, as a means of atonement for their suffering.


Or perhaps become MP's :greengrin

[Phil D. Rolls]

Or perhaps become MP's :greengrin

Or ducks?

[poolman]

Or ducks?


Lame effort FR :devil:

[(((Fergus)))]

I'm all for people respecting their faith but this is just daft


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/5550497/Jewish-couple-sue-neighbours-over-automatic-light.html

This story is being presented in an anti-religious way to make it more sensational.

This is a holiday flat these people own in a group of apartments, i.e., modification has been made to their shared property without their consent.

They offered to have fitted an override system for use during the Sabbath but this was not accepted.

Whether you think it is right/wrong for Jews to do work on the Sabbath or not is irrelevant - there are laws in this country governing religious freedom.

The problem here is the conflict between two inconsistent positions: the spiritual (religious observance) versus the material (commerce/convenience).

If you are curious to learn more about the character of Mrs Coleman, she appears at the beginning of this prospectus video for her school.

http://www.yavnehcollege.org/prospectus.html

[Peevemor]

This story is being presented in an anti-religious way to make it more sensational.

This is a holiday flat these people own in a group of apartments, i.e., modification has been made to their shared property without their consent.

They offered to have fitted an override system for use during the Sabbath but this was not accepted.

Whether you think it is right/wrong for Jews to do work on the Sabbath or not is irrelevant - there are laws in this country governing religious freedom.

The problem here is the conflict between two inconsistent positions: the spiritual (religious observance) versus the material (commerce/convenience).

If you are curious to learn more about the character of Mrs Coleman, she appears at the beginning of this prospectus video for her school.

http://www.yavnehcollege.org/prospectus.html

Because it wouldn't work. It is the law of the UK that adequate lighting must be provided in common areas. A single override swith wouldn't do the job, you would need switches everywhere - a bit like a hall/staircase/landing set up in a house. Either that or, as is often the case, the lights are on a timer and are on for 12 hours at a time.

This action is a piece of nonsense and I don't believe the elders in their church are condoning such intolerence.

[(((Fergus)))]

Because it wouldn't work. It is the law of the UK that adequate lighting must be provided in common areas. A single override swith wouldn't do the job, you would need switches everywhere - a bit like a hall/staircase/landing set up in a house. Either that or, as is often the case, the lights are on a timer and are on for 12 hours at a time.

This action is a piece of nonsense and I don't believe the elders in their church are condoning such intolerence.


I assumed the override would be an override for the entire system, i.e., the lights would be switched on for the hours of darkness.

The intolerance is on the part of the management company. They are essentially forcing a property owner to break their own religious prohibitions within their own property. Because the family are not prepared to break the Sabbath, they would have to remain either inside or outside their property for the full 24 hours.

In other words, these people have no option - other than to sell the flat and move elsewhere.

The management company do have an option. What is their reason for not accommodating the Jewish religion? "It would set an unacceptable precedent". What does that mean?

Anyway, legally the company are on very shaky ground.

[Peevemor]

I assumed the override would be an override for the entire system, i.e., the lights would be switched on for the hours of darkness.

The intolerance is on the part of the management company. They are essentially forcing a property owner to break their own religious prohibitions within their own property. Because the family are not prepared to break the Sabbath, they would have to remain either inside or outside their property for the full 24 hours.

In other words, these people have no option - other than to sell the flat and move elsewhere.

The management company do have an option. What is their reason for not accommodating the Jewish religion? "It would set a dangerous precedent". What does that mean?

Anyway, legally the company are on very shaky ground.


The Sabbath begins at sunset on Friday and lasts until Saturday night.

The management company is conforming to the law of the land. What would happen if there was a fire in the building and people had difficulty escaping due to the common passages/stairwell being in total darkness?

Do you think they are the only orthodox jews on the planet to live in this situation.

All this couple are doing is bringing unneccessary, negative attention to their church.

[poolman]

This story is being presented in an anti-religious way to make it more sensational.
This is a holiday flat these people own in a group of apartments, i.e., modification has been made to their shared property without their consent.

They offered to have fitted an override system for use during the Sabbath but this was not accepted.

Whether you think it is right/wrong for Jews to do work on the Sabbath or not is irrelevant - there are laws in this country governing religious freedom.

The problem here is the conflict between two inconsistent positions: the spiritual (religious observance) versus the material (commerce/convenience).

If you are curious to learn more about the character of Mrs Coleman, she appears at the beginning of this prospectus video for her school.

http://www.yavnehcollege.org/prospectus.html


There is nothing in the article to suggest it is anti-religious

[(((Fergus)))]

The management company is conforming to the law of the land. What would happen if there was a fire in the building and people had difficulty escaping due to the common passages/stairwell being in total darkness?

Do you think they are the only orthodox jews on the planet to live in this situation.

All this couple are doing is bringing unneccessary, negative attention to their church.

The management company just have to leave the lights in the hallways on all night from Friday into Saturday. Is that too much to ask?

Yes, they probably are the only orthodox Jews in the world with this problem. Those who observe the Sabbath to this degree would not tolerate this situation. They would either move elsewhere, stay elsewhere on Sabbath or stay indoors on Sabbath. The most orthodox wouldn't have been their in the first place.

This couple, however, seem to be "secular" enough to enforce their property rights through the courts - which they are entitled to do and will probably win - rather than ask themselves if they really want to live in these surroundings.

Still, rather than question the intransigence and penny-pinching of the management company, people prefer to have a go at religion/Judaism.

[(((Fergus)))]

There is nothing in the article to suggest it is anti-religious

Yes there is.

"A Jewish couple are suing their neighbours in a block of flats because they say an automatic security light breaks a religious prohibition."

A factual wording would be:

"A Jewish couple are suing their neighbours in a block of flats because an automatic security light breaks a religious prohibition."

[poolman]

Yes there is.

"A Jewish couple are suing their neighbours in a block of flats because they say an automatic security light breaks a religious prohibition."

A factual wording would be:

"A Jewish couple are suing their neighbours in a block of flats because an automatic security light breaks a religious prohibition."



Talk about clutching at straws :paranoid:

[(((Fergus)))]

Talk about clutching at straws :paranoid:

Do you not understand the distinction?

There's more of the same in the article ("claim" etc.). It'sthere ifyoulookfor it.

[(((Fergus)))]

I'm all for people respecting their faith but this is just daft


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/5550497/Jewish-couple-sue-neighbours-over-automatic-light.html


Maybe you could explain what is "daft" about it?

What would the "sensible" course of action be?

[Peevemor]

The management company just have to leave the lights in the hallways on all night from Friday into Saturday. Is that too much to ask?

Yes, they probably are the only orthodox Jews in the world with this problem. Those who observe the Sabbath to this degree would not tolerate this situation. They would either move elsewhere, stay elsewhere on Sabbath or stay indoors on Sabbath. The most orthodox wouldn't have been their in the first place.

This couple, however, seem to be "secular" enough to enforce their property rights through the courts - which they are entitled to do and will probably win - rather than ask themselves if they really want to live in these surroundings.

Still, rather than question the intransigence and penny-pinching of the management company, people prefer to have a go at religion/Judaism.

What about the other owners' right to have safe, energy efficient, modern lighting?

[hibsbollah]

What about the other owners' right to have safe, energy efficient, modern lighting?

Im not sure that 'right' is as inalienable as the right to religious observance. This story is another example of 'us' forgetting how to be good hosts (from a cultural point of view), and instead expecting guests to make all the sacrifices.

[(((Fergus)))]

What about the other owners' right to have safe, energy efficient, modern lighting?

You can have safe and modern lights on all night.

If money is the problem, the couple could offer to pay the added cost for that period.

Once they have motion sensors on street lamps, we can start talking about energy efficiency

[Oscar T Grouch]

The dangerous precident that could be set here is the factoring company will have to accomodate every request from tnts/owner occupiers in the freehold/leasehold. This is not anti jewish is just common sense. I'm afraid fire regulations take priority here, an override switch would be possible but illegal too.

IMO I'm all for people worshiping how they like, as long as it does not contrivene the laws and bylaws of the country. Fire regs are in place for a reason, and the legal onus is put on the factors in these cases. So I take it they don't turn on any electrical equipement on the sabbath? Every switch we touch causes a spark, which by their own defination is breaking the sabbath, no tea or coffee, no hot food, oh wait a minute nae cold food either because they will obviously turn the fridge off on the sabbath (light inside) hope they have a seperate freezer, wait a minute freezers have lights on them too. How far does your religion take them?

[Peevemor]

Im not sure that 'right' is as inalienable as the right to religious observance. This story is another example of 'us' forgetting how to be good hosts (from a cultural point of view), and instead expecting guests to make all the sacrifices.

So where does that stop? Polygamy, animal sacrifices, seppuku...?

[(((Fergus)))]

Just noticed this bit in the story:

"The couple say they only moved into the flat in the spring of 2003 on the understanding that motion sensors would not be installed in communal areas."

If they have proof of this, then the company are ****ed.

[Peevemor]

Just noticed this bit in the story:

"The couple say they only moved into the flat in the spring of 2003 on the understanding that motion sensors would not be installed in communal areas."

If they have proof of this, then the company are ****ed.

If this is the case, then I'm more sympathetic to their cause, although I find that a bit strange in this day and age.

[(((Fergus)))]

The dangerous precident that could be set here is the factoring company will have to accomodate every request from tnts/owner occupiers in the freehold/leasehold. This is not anti jewish is just common sense. I'm afraid fire regulations take priority here, an override switch would be possible but illegal too.

IMO I'm all for people worshiping how they like, as long as it does not contrivene the laws and bylaws of the country. Fire regs are in place for a reason, and the legal onus is put on the factors in these cases. So I take it they don't turn on any electrical equipement on the sabbath? Every switch we touch causes a spark, which by their own defination is breaking the sabbath, no tea or coffee, no hot food, oh wait a minute nae cold food either because they will obviously turn the fridge off on the sabbath (light inside) hope they have a seperate freezer, wait a minute freezers have lights on them too. How far does your religion take them?

You are right - orthodox jews do not turn on any electrical device on the Sabbath. They can leave the cooker on and have hot food or just have cold (unrefrigerated). itis also possible to have a fridge without a light.

Anyway, why would an always-on hall light be illegal?

It's no precedent either - these people sought assurances there would be no motion sensors before they bought the property.

[(((Fergus)))]

So where does that stop? Polygamy, animal sacrifices, seppuku...?

It would be stop at the line defined by the law of the land.

[Peevemor]

You are right - orthodox jews do not turn on any electrical device on the Sabbath. They can leave the cooker on and have hot food or just have cold (unrefrigerated). itis also possible to have a fridge without a light.

Anyway, why would an always-on hall light be illegal?

It's no precedent either - these people sought assurances there would be no motion sensors before they bought the property.

Because European Regulations stipulate energy saving measures. These then become part of the building regulations, which are passed as an act of parliament.

[Peevemor]

It would be stop at the line defined by the law of the land.

See above.

[(((Fergus)))]

Because European Regulations stipulate energy saving measures. These then become part of the building regulations, which are passed as an act of parliament.

So under building regs, all existing shared hallways have to be retrofitted with motion sensor lighting?

Why have they not said anything about that in the story? the only thing mentioned is cost - of electricity and maintenance.

If it is a legal requirement, I'm surprised their solicitors don't know about it.

[Jack]

Wait a minute! :greengrin

Are these Jewish people not being intolerant of the needs and wishes of the other 35 residents? The need for the residents to be safe while moving around and the wish for them to save power/money while the other 6 billion of us on the planet can be reassured that the carbon footprint of the holidays flats has been reduced? **** it my tourettes nearly took over there! :wink:

I assume the lights were on all night every night before 6 months ago, why didn’t that breach their human rights? With the light being off more often during the Friday night rather than on is this not more aligned to their beliefs than before?

Why are they, and all the others who believe this, not affected by street lighting?

[(((Fergus)))]

Wait a minute! :greengrin

Are these Jewish people not being intolerant of the needs and wishes of the other 35 residents? The need for the residents to be safe while moving around and the wish for them to save power/money while the other 6 billion of us on the planet can be reassured that the carbon footprint of the holidays flats has been reduced? **** it my tourettes nearly took over there! :wink:

I assume the lights were on all night every night before 6 months ago, why didn’t that breach their human rights? With the light being off more often during the Friday night rather than on is this not more aligned to their beliefs than before?

Why are they, and all the others who believe this, not affected by street lighting?

It's not to do with the lights being on or not, it's the fact that the Jews involved would be operating a switch (doing work) during the Sabbath. This is forbidden.

Motion sensor street lighting would also be a problem for this reason - one more reason to stay at home on a Friday night.

I'm assuming the problem in this case is that the motion sensors are active 24 hours a day, i.e., the lights come on automatically even during daylight (assuming there is also natural light in the hallways). Or perhaps they have a variable timer that adapts to the changing time of sunrise/sunset.

[(((Fergus)))]

So under building regs, all existing shared hallways have to be retrofitted with motion sensor lighting?

Why have they not said anything about that in the story? the only thing mentioned is cost - of electricity and maintenance.

If it is a legal requirement, I'm surprised their solicitors don't know about it.


Actually,would it be possible for the EU to enforce retrospective legislation such as this that would conflict with the laws on religious observance?

As for the case itself, if it is true that assurances were made concerning non-fitment of motion sensors, then the plaintiffs have a moral duty to hold the property company to their agreement.

[Jack]

Flippant yes but …

I take it all the motion sensors in Israel get switched off on a Friday night?

[(((Fergus)))]

Flippant yes but …

I take it all the motion sensors in Israel get switched off on a Friday night?

There are plenty of non-observant jews in israel who do all sorts on the Sabbath. The more observant people tend to group together - e.g, Mea Sharim, Sefat, etc. - so stuff like this isn't an issue.

You could say that orthodox jews should also "ghettoise" in the UK - and there is some merit in that - however in this case, the family were given express assurances on the specific issue of motion sensors (among other things, no doubt) and it seems these assurances have been broken.

[Mibbes Aye]

Yes there is.

"A Jewish couple are suing their neighbours in a block of flats because they say an automatic security light breaks a religious prohibition."

A factual wording would be:

"A Jewish couple are suing their neighbours in a block of flats because an automatic security light breaks a religious prohibition."

Only if the couple could be argued as being arbiters of whether the automatic security light breaks a religious prohibition. Which I'm guessing they're not. I would think it would have to be contested as to whether the light broke a tenet of their faith, but them saying it did probably isn't adequate.

[Mibbes Aye]

I must say it is very unusual to come across such intolerant Jews. I have always seen Judaism as a tradition that accepts the rights of others readily. I think this whole affair is a disgrace, and they should be given a free house on someone else's land, as a means of atonement for their suffering.

:tee hee:

[(((Fergus)))]

Only if the couple could be argued as being arbiters of whether the automatic security light breaks a religious prohibition. Which I'm guessing they're not. I would think it would have to be contested as to whether the light broke a tenet of their faith, but them saying it did probably isn't adequate.


The issue isn't up for arbitration by anyone - it's clearly specified by Jewish law.

A corresponding example would be:

"A couple are suing their neighbours in a block of flats because they say the lack of security lighting breaks health and safety legislation."

Either it does or it doesn't. Is the journalist too lazy to find out?

Anyway, why do you think that such a trivial domestic issue has reached the national papers?

[Mibbes Aye]

The issue isn't up for arbitration by anyone - it's clearly specified by Jewish law.

A corresponding example would be:

"A couple are suing their neighbours in a block of flats because they say the lack of security lighting breaks health and safety legislation."

Either it does or it doesn't. Is the journalist too lazy to find out?

Anyway, why do you think that such a trivial domestic issue has reached the national papers?

Eh? That contradicts what you said earlier doesn't it?. It might be breaking health and safety legislation but that's not for the couple to decide, it's for the courts. And neither is it up to them to define whether it breaks the tenets of their faith. They might feel it did, but ultimately it would have to be contested in the courts and the opinions taken would be more than just theirs in that case. And whether those tenets are seen to be broken or not, the context is still one of the legal system in which we operate i.e. faiths are afforded protection but not beyond the law.

[(((Fergus)))]

Eh? That contradicts what you said earlier doesn't it?. It might be breaking health and safety legislation but that's not for the couple to decide, it's for the courts. And neither is it up to them to define whether it breaks the tenets of their faith. They might feel it did, but ultimately it would have to be contested in the courts and the opinions taken would be more than just theirs in that case. And whether those tenets are seen to be broken or not, the context is still one of the legal system in which we operate i.e. faiths are afforded protection but not beyond the law.

The point I was trying to make is that it is not a matter of opinion whether it breaks Jewish law or not. The paper is reporting it as if there is if some doubt - subtext: here's some more of these religious nuts making weird stuff up - when in fact Jewish law is perfectly clear on this issue.

Nor would the court decide whether it is part of Jewish law or not (yes, in H&S cases that may be an issue - my example was confusing in that respect), they would merely rule on whether it is considered as such by the relevant Jewish authorities. The same authorities the editor could have consulted had they not had an anti-religious agenda. As I said before, why else is such a trivial issue national news if not to stir up feelings against "these crazies"?

[Sir David Gray]

I think if it's true that they only bought the flat on the understanding that motion sensors wouldn't be fitted in communal areas, then they may have a case.

But where do we draw the line in terms of trying to tolerate other religions?

We already have KFC providing halal meat for Muslims in a number of their stores, we allow Sikhs to possess kirpans (which are effectively small swords) in public and now we have Jews fighting to be allowed to turn off all communal lights in their flat, during the Sabbath.

Also I do not believe that this is in accordance with Jewish law, it is an interpretation of Jewish law in Orthodox Judaism.

Obviously 3-4,000 years ago when Judaism began, there was no electricity, so it is impossible to explicitly say that turning on a lightbulb is against original Jewish teachings. The law prohibits the lighting of fires during the Sabbath but the Orthodox Jews have ruled that it also covers the turning on of light switches.

I really think this is a bit much.

[ArabHibee]

It's not to do with the lights being on or not, it's the fact that the Jews involved would be operating a switch (doing work) during the Sabbath. This is forbidden.

Motion sensor street lighting would also be a problem for this reason - one more reason to stay at home on a Friday night.

I'm assuming the problem in this case is that the motion sensors are active 24 hours a day, i.e., the lights come on automatically even during daylight (assuming there is also natural light in the hallways). Or perhaps they have a variable timer that adapts to the changing time of sunrise/sunset.

Excuse my ignorance, but how is a motion-sensor light breaking any Jewish laws? They are not operating a switch, the light does all the work itself.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Excuse my ignorance, but how is a motion-sensor light breaking any Jewish laws? They are not operating a switch, the light does all the work itself.

But if they weren't there the light wouldn't come on. Or would it.......:devil:

Is it one of the lights that won't work if it runs out of Jews?

I'll get my long black coat.

[(((Fergus)))]

Excuse my ignorance, but how is a motion-sensor light breaking any Jewish laws? They are not operating a switch, the light does all the work itself.

The sensor responds to the motion of the body, just as a conventional light switch does when someone presses it.

[(((Fergus)))]

I think if it's true that they only bought the flat on the understanding that motion sensors wouldn't be fitted in communal areas, then they may have a case.

But where do we draw the line in terms of trying to tolerate other religions?

We already have KFC providing halal meat for Muslims in a number of their stores, we allow Sikhs to possess kirpans (which are effectively small swords) in public and now we have Jews fighting to be allowed to turn off all communal lights in their flat, during the Sabbath.

Also I do not believe that this is in accordance with Jewish law, it is an interpretation of Jewish law in Orthodox Judaism.

Obviously 3-4,000 years ago when Judaism began, there was no electricity, so it is impossible to explicitly say that turning on a lightbulb is against original Jewish teachings. The law prohibits the lighting of fires during the Sabbath but the Orthodox Jews have ruled that it also covers the turning on of light switches.

I really think this is a bit much.

tbh i'd trust halal meat a lot morethan the usual muck they put in kfc.

nowt wrong with wee swords either, just tuck it in your sock a la skean dubh

As for whether an electric light is equivalent to fire, you'll have to take that up with the rabbis. In the meantime, consider what we used to have before the electric light bulb was invented.

[sleeping giant]

But if they weren't there the light wouldn't come on. Or would it.......:devil:

Is it one of the lights that won't work if it runs out of Jews?

I'll get my long black coat.

:faf:

That is outstanding:top marks

[Mibbes Aye]

tbh i'd trust halal meat a lot morethan the usual muck they put in kfc.

nowt wrong with wee swords either, just tuck it in your sock a la skean dubh

As for whether an electric light is equivalent to fire, you'll have to take that up with the rabbis. In the meantime, consider what we used to have before the electric light bulb was invented.

Sunlight :confused:

Don't tell me 'they're' going to extinguish the sun on Saturdays. It's political correctness gone bloomin' mad.

I dread to think what this will do to the fixture list

[(((Fergus)))]

Sunlight :confused:

Don't tell me 'they're' going to extinguish the sun on Saturdays. It's political correctness gone bloomin' mad.

I dread to think what this will do to the fixture list

:greengrin

[ArabHibee]

The sensor responds to the motion of the body, just as a conventional light switch does when someone presses it.
Understand what you are saying but bear with me. If they go out their door, they are not actually making another motion to turn on/off the light it is doing it automatically. When they are going back into their house, they would have to make an actual movement to 'switch' on lights in their house, hence I can understand the 'no work on the sabbath'. The motion sensor is doing the 'work' for them, so from where I'm coming from, their technically not doing any extra work? :dunno:

[Sergio sledge]

We already have KFC providing halal meat for Muslims in a number of their stores, we allow Sikhs to possess kirpans (which are effectively small swords) in public and now we have Jews fighting to be allowed to turn off all communal lights in their flat, during the Sabbath.

As far as I understand it, the do not want all communal lights switched off, just that they want them all left on so that they are not operating the switches, i.e. lighting the fire on the sabbath.

There are no regulations stipulating that motion sensors are required in communal areas of flats or buildings, it is just one of many energy saving measures which could be implemented.

Fire safety regulations do not apply, as these are dealt with by the emergency lighting which is battery operated and seperate to the motion sensors.

[sleeping giant]

We already have KFC providing halal meat for Muslims in a number of their stores, we allow Sikhs to possess kirpans (which are effectively small swords) in public and now we have Jews fighting to be allowed to turn off all communal lights in their flat, during the Sabbath.



Is this true. Can it be carried about outwith ceremonies ?

[(((Fergus)))]

Understand what you are saying but bear with me. If they go out their door, they are not actually making another motion to turn on/off the light it is doing it automatically. When they are going back into their house, they would have to make an actual movement to 'switch' on lights in their house, hence I can understand the 'no work on the sabbath'. The motion sensor is doing the 'work' for them, so from where I'm coming from, their technically not doing any extra work? :dunno:

the only difference between touching a light switch and "touching" a motion sensor is that in one there is a physical connection and in the other there is a non-physical connection. In both cases, the light would not come on without the intervention of the person. The law is that the person should not make fire. if the person doesn't enter the hall, no "fire" is made, therefore it is the person who "makes the fire".

[ArabHibee]

the only difference between touching a light switch and "touching" a motion sensor is that in one there is a physical connection and in the other there is a non-physical connection. In both cases, the light would not come on without the intervention of the person. The law is that the person should not make fire. if the person doesn't enter the hall, no "fire" is made, therefore it is the person who "makes the fire".

Cool - thanks for explaining. I see where you're coming from now! :thumbsup:

[Tazio]

Excuse my ignorance, but how is a motion-sensor light breaking any Jewish laws? They are not operating a switch, the light does all the work itself.

Your movement switches the circuit on. By doing that you would be the person switching it on.

The H&S argument doesn't carry any weight as the law states that public stairs must have sufficient emergency lighting in place. That lighting cold easily be made bright enough for people to use the stair.

[Hibby D]

The couple say they only moved into the flat in the spring of 2003 on the understanding that motion sensors would not be installed in communal areas.


“The lesses also allege in the claim that when they purchased their flat in the spring of 2003 it was on the basis of assurances from selling agents that that movement sensors would not be installed at Embassy Court.

If it was important enough to discuss at the time you'd think that they would ensure it formed part of a contract and not simply an "understanding" or an "assurance".

The development I live in contains 60 flats - For improvement related decisions to be carried there needs to be a vote and more than 50% of the owners must agree before any work can be carried out. There's nothing in my title deeds or in my contract with the property management company that stipulates that a residents religious beliefs should be taken into account before certain improvents/repairs can be carried out. If it did, I'm sure either my solicitor or myself would have spotted it at the time I bought the place. What I would have done about it had there been, I simply don't know.

It's such a unique story and my leanings are towards the remaining residents who will be forced to bear the legal costs, which could be considerable, through no fault of their own :agree:

I can't really see how an electric light can be considered to be "fire" I accept the orthodox Jews' right to do so however but at the end of the day it will be what the courts accept that will decide the outcome of this.

PS I also struggle with the concept that unlevened bread is turned into the body of Christ :greengrin

[(((Fergus)))]

I can't really see how an electric light can be considered to be "fire"

This is quite simple really: fire (at night) is an artificial (man-made) "sun". An electric light performs the same function (in terms of light if not so much in heat). Before electric, houses were lit by naked flame.



PS I also struggle with the concept that unlevened bread is turned into the body of Christ :greengrin

With you on this one. :agree:

[Sir David Gray]

Is this true. Can it be carried about outwith ceremonies ?

Yes, it is true.

Under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, a Sikh is legally permitted to carry their kirpan with them in public, as it is deemed necessary to their religion.

Info here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpan#United_Kingdom).

Can you imagine if "Jakey Joe" and his mates said to a policeman, "Aye, nae bothur officer, I've goat this knife oan me 'cos it's pairt a' ma religious beliefs an' that?"

Their feet wouldn't touch the ground.

The same would apply if the same "Jakey Joe" was walking in a shopping centre whilst wearing a hoodie with the hood up, covering most of his face. He would probably be asked to leave.

Would that happen if a Muslim woman came in wearing the niqab, which basically conceals her entire face, except for her eyes?

I don't think it would.

If it did happen, the manager of the shopping centre would probably be taken to court, charged with religious hatred.

[Tazio]

Can you imagine if "Jakey Joe" and his mates said to a policeman, "Aye, nae bothur officer, I've goat this knife oan me 'cos it's pairt a' ma religious beliefs an' that?"



The same would apply if the same "Jakey Joe" was walking in a shopping centre whilst wearing a hoodie with the hood up, covering most of his face. He would probably be asked to leave.



What a ridiculous argument.

The ned's knife wouldn't be a religious issue.

Jakey Joes hoody isn't a religious garment.

[poolman]

It's not to do with the lights being on or not, it's the fact that the Jews involved would be operating a switch (doing work) during the Sabbath. This is forbidden.

Motion sensor street lighting would also be a problem for this reason - one more reason to stay at home on a Friday night.

I'm assuming the problem in this case is that the motion sensors are active 24 hours a day, i.e., the lights come on automatically even during daylight (assuming there is also natural light in the hallways). Or perhaps they have a variable timer that adapts to the changing time of sunrise/sunset.


I remember when Goldbergs at Tollcross first opened it never used to open on a Saturday

That all changed when there wasn't enough paper money clogging up the tills :rolleyes:

The lights soon got switched on on the Sabbath

[Tomsk]

I would love to be in court when this case is presented before the bench to join in the general ridicule when these two nutcases are laughed out of the building holding a bill for all costs and a writ for wasting police time.

[(((Fergus)))]

I remember when Goldbergs at Tollcross first opened it never used to open on a Saturday

That all changed when there wasn't enough paper money clogging up the tills :rolleyes:

The lights soon got switched on on the Sabbath

Put like that, it sounds like they became poor because they were religiously observant however the fact they worked on the Sabbath proves they weren't.

In other words: cause and effect are the other way round.

[(((Fergus)))]

I remember when Goldbergs at Tollcross first opened it never used to open on a Saturday

That all changed when there wasn't enough paper money clogging up the tills :rolleyes:

The lights soon got switched on on the Sabbath

PS any thoughts on a sensible resolution to this case?

[poolman]

PS any thoughts on a sensible resolution to this case?


Well, that's a tough question fergus

All we are going by is a newspaper article, it's not as if we are privy to any other details or dialogue with the parties but it does seem kinda trivial for this to waste taxpayers money on going to court

[(((Fergus)))]

Well, that's a tough question fergus

All we are going by is a newspaper article, it's not as if we are privy to any other details or dialogue with the parties but it does seem kinda trivial for this to waste taxpayers money on going to court

The way I see it there are two options:

1) The Colemans give up Judaism
2)The property company fit an override paid for by the Colemans

If I was them, I would also offer to pay the added cost of electricity and maintenance for the Fridays/Saturdays I was there and the override was active. Since it's only a holiday home, that shouldn't amount to much anyway.

[Darth Hibbie]

Yes, it is true.

Under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, a Sikh is legally permitted to carry their kirpan with them in public, as it is deemed necessary to their religion.

Info here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpan#United_Kingdom).



English law I am afraid. Carrying of knives is covered under The Criminal Law Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1995

The exemptions are

a)for work
b)for religious reasons
C)as part of a national dress

A and C are pretty obvious. B is slightly more contentious but you would need to show it was for a specific religious reason rather than I am a ....... so I can

[(((Fergus)))]

The way I see it there are two options:

1) The Colemans give up Judaism
2)The property company fit an override paid for by the Colemans

If I was them, I would also offer to pay the added cost of electricity and maintenance for the Fridays/Saturdays I was there and the override was active. Since it's only a holiday home, that shouldn't amount to much anyway.

Sorry, 3 options :hnetinq: :greengrin


1) The Colemans give up Judaism
2) The Colemans sell the flat
3) The property company fit an override paid for by the Colemans

I bet there's more...:greengrin

[Tomsk]

Sorry, 3 options :hnetinq: :greengrin


1) The Colemans give up Judaism
2) The Colemans sell the flat
3) The property company fit an override paid for by the Colemans

I bet there's more...:greengrin

How about:

1 The Colemans stop vucking about and wasting police time.
2 The police arrest the Colemans for wasting police time.

[(((Fergus)))]

How about:

1 The Colemans stop vucking about and wasting police time.
2 The police arrest the Colemans for wasting police time.

How about you read the case before spouting off. The polis aren't even involved. :wink:

[Jack]

How about you read the case before spouting off. The polis aren't even involved. :wink:

The police are probably wasting their time by reading this thread :duck:

[Sir David Gray]

What a ridiculous argument.

The ned's knife wouldn't be a religious issue.

Jakey Joes hoody isn't a religious garment.

Why is it a ridiculous argument?

Sikhs are exempt from laws which prohibit the carrying of a bladed object in public, because of their religious beliefs, but a teenager would be arrested for possessing basically the same item.

All baptised Sikhs were told to wear the kirpan at all times, by Guru Gobind Singh. Its original function was as a defensive weapon.

That is EXACTLY the same reason that a lot of teenagers give as to why they carry knives around with them. They're not specifically looking to use it on someone but they know that they can use it if they get picked on, in order to defend themselves.

Please tell me what the difference is between the two cases, other than the fact that the Sikh community has "special authority", dating back more than 300 years ago, to carry their weapon about?

As for the hoodie/niqab debate, teenagers are asked not to wear their hoods up in shopping centres as it conceals their identity. The niqab does exactly the same thing, in fact it covers even more than a hood does, as you can only see the wearer's eyes.

Muslim women are not obliged to wear the niqab, it is an item of choice, much like a hoodie is.

I have no problem whatsoever with Muslim women wearing the hijab, as you can quite clearly see the person's face but, in my opinion, the wearing of the niqab poses a security risk and they should therefore be banned in the UK.


English law I am afraid. Carrying of knives is covered under The Criminal Law Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1995

The exemptions are

a)for work
b)for religious reasons
C)as part of a national dress

A and C are pretty obvious. B is slightly more contentious but you would need to show it was for a specific religious reason rather than I am a ....... so I can

I'm pretty sure Sikhs would be exempt under that Scots law as well, as it is deemed to be compulsory for a baptised Sikh to wear the kirpan at all times.

[(((Fergus)))]

Why is it a ridiculous argument?

Sikhs are exempt from laws which prohibit the carrying of a bladed object in public, because of their religious beliefs, but a teenager would be arrested for possessing basically the same item.

All baptised Sikhs were told to wear the kirpan at all times, by Guru Gobind Singh. Its original function was as a defensive weapon.

That is EXACTLY the same reason that a lot of teenagers give as to why they carry knives around with them. They're not specifically looking to use it on someone but they know that they can use it if they get picked on, in order to defend themselves.

Please tell me what the difference is between the two cases, other than the fact that the Sikh community has "special authority", dating back more than 300 years ago, to carry their weapon about?

As for the hoodie/niqab debate, teenagers are asked not to wear their hoods up in shopping centres as it conceals their identity. The niqab does exactly the same thing, in fact it covers even more than a hood does, as you can only see the wearer's eyes.

Muslim women are not obliged to wear the niqab, it is an item of choice, much like a hoodie is.

I have no problem whatsoever with Muslim women wearing the hijab, as you can quite clearly see the person's face but, in my opinion, the wearing of the niqab poses a security risk and they should therefore be banned in the UK.



I'm pretty sure Sikhs would be exempt under that Scots law as well, as it is deemed to be compulsory for a baptised Sikh to wear the kirpan at all times.

If sikhs start going around slashing folk like neds do, the law will no doubt be amended.

Muslim women do not cover themselves to protect their identity but to protect their modesty. Again, if they use the niqab etc. to facilitate shoplifting etc. then the law will no doubt be amended.

[Tomsk]

If sikhs start going around slashing folk like neds do, the law will no doubt be amended.

Muslim women do not cover themselves to protect their identity but to protect their modesty. Again, if they use the niqab etc. to facilitate shoplifting etc. then the law will no doubt be amended.

What amendments to the law would you suggest in these two instances? Bearing in mind that, like the two Jewish nutters, the very first claim the kirpan-slashing Sikh and Niqab-wearing shoplifter willl make is that their religious rights are being violated.

[Betty Boop]

Why is it a ridiculous argument?

Sikhs are exempt from laws which prohibit the carrying of a bladed object in public, because of their religious beliefs, but a teenager would be arrested for possessing basically the same item.

All baptised Sikhs were told to wear the kirpan at all times, by Guru Gobind Singh. Its original function was as a defensive weapon.

That is EXACTLY the same reason that a lot of teenagers give as to why they carry knives around with them. They're not specifically looking to use it on someone but they know that they can use it if they get picked on, in order to defend themselves.

Please tell me what the difference is between the two cases, other than the fact that the Sikh community has "special authority", dating back more than 300 years ago, to carry their weapon about?

As for the hoodie/niqab debate, teenagers are asked not to wear their hoods up in shopping centres as it conceals their identity. The niqab does exactly the same thing, in fact it covers even more than a hood does, as you can only see the wearer's eyes.

Muslim women are not obliged to wear the niqab, it is an item of choice, much like a hoodie is.

I have no problem whatsoever with Muslim women wearing the hijab, as you can quite clearly see the person's face but, in my opinion, the wearing of the niqab poses a security risk and they should therefore be banned in the UK.



I'm pretty sure Sikhs would be exempt under that Scots law as well, as it is deemed to be compulsory for a baptised Sikh to wear the kirpan at all times.
So i take it you would be in favour of banning the Skean Dhu as a security risk?

[(((Fergus)))]

What amendments to the law would you suggest in these two instances? Bearing in mind that, like the two Jewish nutters, the very first claim the kirpan-slashing Sikh and Niqab-wearing shoplifter willl make is that their religious rights are being violated.

I wouldn't suggest any amendments to the law. These people are generally self-regulating so any abuse would get dealt with rather quickly.

If the legislators got involved, I expect they would do the same thing they do when any privilege is abused: license it's use.

As for the two Jewish "nutters", it wasn't their religious rights that were being violated, it was the assurances that were made to them when they purchased their property. Like the paper, you have conveniently ignored this.

[Sir David Gray]

If sikhs start going around slashing folk like neds do, the law will no doubt be amended.

Muslim women do not cover themselves to protect their identity but to protect their modesty. Again, if they use the niqab etc. to facilitate shoplifting etc. then the law will no doubt be amended.

It's not about a fear of Sikhs going around "slashing" people. It is a criminal offence simply to possess a bladed object in public. You do not have to use the object to hurt someone, in order to get yourself arrested.

Some youngsters carry knives, not with the intention of stabbing an innocent bystander, but so that it deters others from attacking them. It is exactly the same reason, historically, why the kirpan came into use by Sikhs hundreds of years ago.

In terms of the niqab, the burqa (which is basically the same thing) has already been used to facilitate something much more serious than shoplifting (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6378863.stm).

And, despite this, the law has still not been amended...

[Sir David Gray]

So i take it you would be in favour of banning the Skean Dhu as a security risk?

Yes I would be in favour of that.

[Darth Hibbie]

What amendments to the law would you suggest in these two instances? Bearing in mind that, like the two Jewish nutters, the very first claim the kirpan-slashing Sikh and Niqab-wearing shoplifter willl make is that their religious rights are being violated.

I do not think there would require to be any change tbh if it was being used as a weapon then it is already covered so not a big deal really.

For what its worth I have had a (very) quick look through some case law and cannot find any reference to any person having been charged with either possessing a kirpan or having assaulted somebody with one :dunno:Suggests to me that there is not really a problem.

Anyway this is turning into a :hijack:

Back to the subject. If the family concerned are prepared to pay for the installation and running of the lights then I do not see the issue in it.

That said it IMO things are being taken far to far. It seems to me that it would not be possible to do anything. Something as simple as crossing the road, press the button and the WAIT light (fire) comes on and then the green man

[Tomsk]

I wouldn't suggest any amendments to the law. These people are generally self-regulating so any abuse would get dealt with rather quickly.

If the legislators got involved, I expect they would do the same thing they do when any privilege is abused: license it's use.

As for the two Jewish "nutters", it wasn't their religious rights that were being violated, it was the assurances that were made to them when they purchased their property. Like the paper, you have conveniently ignored this.


According to the report, the nutters have issued a writ against the company "saying it has discriminated against them on the grounds of religion. The claim also accuses the company of breaching their rights under the Equality Act 2006 and Human Rights Act 1998."

The Times Online report is more detailed and quotes from the nutters' letter to the other flat residents as follows:

"Faced with a situation where we could never again have full use of our flat, we were left with no alternative but to seek legal advice. We consulted solicitors and a caseworker at the Equality and Human Rights Commission and were advised that we had a strong claim.”

The Times goes on to say,

"The county court writ against the three directors of Embassy Court Management Company, who all live in the building, accuses them of breaching the couple’s rights under the Equality Act 2006 and Human Rights Act 1998."

Of course, they must just be making it up.

And on the subject of just making it up, the nutters' claim that they consulted with the Equality and Human Rights Commission is being denied by EHRC.

I hope this goes to court. I can hear the laughter already.

[CropleyWasGod]

Yes I would be in favour of that.

What about sword dancers?

[Darth Hibbie]

It's not about a fear of Sikhs going around "slashing" people. It is a criminal offence simply to possess a bladed object in public. You do not have to use the object to hurt someone, in order to get yourself arrested.

Some youngsters carry knives, not with the intention of stabbing an innocent bystander, but so that it deters others from attacking them. It is exactly the same reason, historically, why the kirpan came into use by Sikhs hundreds of years ago.

In terms of the niqab, the burqa (which is basically the same thing) has already been used to facilitate something much more serious than shoplifting (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6378863.stm).

And, despite this, the law has still not been amended...

Think the main difference here is that Sikhs is carrying it but would not intend to use it no matter the circumstances (see above post in relation to assaults). Where as ned boy even if only for defence intends to use. Where a Sikh intended to use a Kirpan then it would be an offence no matter of the religion.

[(((Fergus)))]

It's not about a fear of Sikhs going around "slashing" people. It is a criminal offence simply to possess a bladed object in public. You do not have to use the object to hurt someone, in order to get yourself arrested.

Some youngsters carry knives, not with the intention of stabbing an innocent bystander, but so that it deters others from attacking them. It is exactly the same reason, historically, why the kirpan came into use by Sikhs hundreds of years ago.

In terms of the niqab, the burqa (which is basically the same thing) has already been used to facilitate something much more serious than shoplifting (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6378863.stm).

And, despite this, the law has still not been amended...

The law on bladed weapons is discretionary otherwise people would not be able to carry knives home after buying them, use them on picnics, etc., etc.

As for the prick from the bombings, I knew someone would bring that up. What does it prove? That if you banned burqas there would be no bombs? Think for a minute how people who already have a greivance (rightly or wrongly) would feel if another slight was made against their culture. Less or more frustrated and inclined to anger?

If you don't like foreigners, for God's sake just have the courage of your convictions and say so. (Sorry if I've spoken out of turn.)

[Tomsk]

I do not think there would require to be any change tbh if it was being used as a weapon then it is already covered so not a big deal really.

For what its worth I have had a (very) quick look through some case law and cannot find any reference to any person having been charged with either possessing a kirpan or having assaulted somebody with one :dunno:Suggests to me that there is not really a problem.

Anyway this is turning into a :hijack:

Back to the subject. If the family concerned are prepared to pay for the installation and running of the lights then I do not see the issue in it.

That said it IMO things are being taken far to far. It seems to me that it would not be possible to do anything. Something as simple as crossing the road, press the button and the WAIT light (fire) comes on and then the green man

And nor should there be. It is an offense to carry a dangerous weapon and no piece of ancient literature, 'divinely' inspired or otherwise, should be allowed to alter that.

[(((Fergus)))]

I do not think there would require to be any change tbh if it was being used as a weapon then it is already covered so not a big deal really.

For what its worth I have had a (very) quick look through some case law and cannot find any reference to any person having been charged with either possessing a kirpan or having assaulted somebody with one :dunno:Suggests to me that there is not really a problem.

Anyway this is turning into a :hijack:

Back to the subject. If the family concerned are prepared to pay for the installation and running of the lights then I do not see the issue in it.

That said it IMO things are being taken far to far. It seems to me that it would not be possible to do anything. Something as simple as crossing the road, press the button and the WAIT light (fire) comes on and then the green man

That is absolutely right. It's a sacrifice/privilege (depending on your point of view) that these people have to endure/enjoy.

[Sir David Gray]

The law on bladed weapons is discretionary otherwise people would not be able to carry knives home after buying them, use them on picnics, etc., etc.

As for the prick from the bombings, I knew someone would bring that up. What does it prove? That if you banned burqas there would be no bombs? Think for a minute how people who already have a greivance (rightly or wrongly) would feel if another slight was made against their culture. Less or more frustrated and inclined to anger?

If you don't like foreigners, for God's sake just have the courage of your convictions and say so. (Sorry if I've spoken out of turn.)

Of course it wouldn't.

But you said that if burqas/niqabs began being used in order to facilitate shoplifting (i'm assuming you also mean other criminal offences as well) then the law would soon be changed.

I've provided an example of when it has been used to facilitate one of the most serious criminal offences and yet, fours years on, no change has been made to the law, regarding the wearing of burqas.

As for your last line, that is just silly. I do not have anything against foreigners, I just object to certain (not all) foreign customs being handed special dispensation when they directly contradict our legal system.

[lyonhibs]

Of course it wouldn't.

But you said that if burqas/niqabs began being used in order to facilitate shoplifting (i'm assuming you also mean other criminal offences as well) then the law would soon be changed.

I've provided an example of when it has been used to facilitate one of the most serious criminal offences and yet, fours years on, no change has been made to the law, regarding the wearing of burqas.

As for your last line, that is just silly. I do not have anything against foreigners, I just object to certain (not all) foreign customs being handed special dispensation when they directly contradict our legal system.

Short of banning them, what changes to the laws regarding burqas would you propose we put in place to protect us??

[(((Fergus)))]

Of course it wouldn't.

But you said that if burqas/niqabs began being used in order to facilitate shoplifting (i'm assuming you also mean other criminal offences as well) then the law would soon be changed.

I've provided an example of when it has been used to facilitate one of the most serious criminal offences and yet, fours years on, no change has been made to the law, regarding the wearing of burqas.

As for your last line, that is just silly. I do not have anything against foreigners, I just object to certain (not all) foreign customs being handed special dispensation when they directly contradict our legal system.

I don't know, I just sensed a certain resentment there. I mean, why shouldn't foreigners have special dispensation when the laws were obviously not introduced with those cases in mind. Other groups have special dispensation, e.g., the army and police are not only allowed to carry weapons on the streets of the UK, they are also allowed to kill people.

Re. the bloke in the burqa, there are other ways of disguising yourself such as motorcycle leathers and helmet as used in numerous crimes where CCTV is an issue. Why haven't these been banned? Funny how, with the burqa, there's just the slightest whiff of controversy and people want to whip it off. I think the issue is more iwth the burqa itself and this is just a pretext. ook at the state we let our own women out in. We cannot bear female modesty.

[hibsbollah]

Short of banning them, what changes to the laws regarding burqas would you propose we put in place to protect us??

Maybe if the burqa was made of see-through material then we could see if they were carryng explosive devices. Oh, but then we'd fall foul of the old 'modesty' argument:rolleyes:

Back to the drawing board...

[poolman]

Can we not ask the Coleman's to move here

:greengrin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have just been told that Livingston FC's electric has been cut off, including the office building attached to it, for non payment of a £35,000 outstanding bill

Source, I work for a company that uses the building

The Italian owners seem to a bit suspect

[Sir David Gray]

Short of banning them, what changes to the laws regarding burqas would you propose we put in place to protect us??

I have already said earlier in this thread that I think the wearing of burqas/niqabs should be banned in the UK.


I don't know, I just sensed a certain resentment there. I mean, why shouldn't foreigners have special dispensation when the laws were obviously not introduced with those cases in mind. Other groups have special dispensation, e.g., the army and police are not only allowed to carry weapons on the streets of the UK, they are also allowed to kill people.

Re. the bloke in the burqa, there are other ways of disguising yourself such as motorcycle leathers and helmet as used in numerous crimes where CCTV is an issue. Why haven't these been banned? Funny how, with the burqa, there's just the slightest whiff of controversy and people want to whip it off. I think the issue is more iwth the burqa itself and this is just a pretext. ook at the state we let our own women out in. We cannot bear female modesty.

Motorcyclists are told to remove their helmets when they enter places like petrol stations etc.

The difference between motorcycle helmets and burqas is that burqas are not a required piece of clothing for Muslim women but motorcyclists are required, by law, to wear a helmet.

I agree that it should be illegal for someone to wear a motorcycle helmet in public, when they are not riding their bike.

I think you might find yourself in a wee bit of bother with our female friends, with that last part.

"look at the state we let our own women out in."

I don't know about you but I don't know any women who are "let" out in any state. :wink:

As it happens, I agree with what you have said there in principle. I think a lot of young, Western women do go out much too under-dressed.

But there is surely a middle ground between a low cut top that leaves nothing to the imagination and a full body cloak that covers absolutely everything, except for a small slit for the eyes to see out of?

[RyeSloan]

Amazing...and that's just Fergus' staunch but none the less slightly bizzare defence of these deluded people!!

Fact is that if they cannot cause or be the cause of a spark for 24 hours they would pretty much have to stay locked in their house anyway.

With such a strict interpretation I cannot see how they could use any sort of powered transport, use a street crossing, walk into or past a shop that may have automatic doors, open their fridge door, use their kettle, listen to a radio or tv etc etc etc...to insist that a communal light must stay on to avoid one of hundreds of possible unintended fire raising events is just self indulgent nonsense.

I'm also curious on the connection to the 'fire'. I see how they 'cause' the fire but not how they are directly responsible for the work involved or indeed for the fire itself. It's the same as if they were walking down the road and someone flashed their lights in a car to let them cross or say hello...they have caused the event but ultimately did none of the work or had any control over the fire.

[(((Fergus)))]

Amazing...and that's just Fergus' staunch but none the less slightly bizzare defence of these deluded people!!

Fact is that if they cannot cause or be the cause of a spark for 24 hours they would pretty much have to stay locked in their house anyway.

With such a strict interpretation I cannot see how they could use any sort of powered transport, use a street crossing, walk into or past a shop that may have automatic doors, open their fridge door, use their kettle, listen to a radio or tv etc etc etc...to insist that a communal light must stay on to avoid one of hundreds of possible unintended fire raising events is just self indulgent nonsense.

I'm also curious on the connection to the 'fire'. I see how they 'cause' the fire but not how they are directly responsible for the work involved or indeed for the fire itself. It's the same as if they were walking down the road and someone flashed their lights in a car to let them cross or say hello...they have caused the event but ultimately did none of the work or had any control over the fire.

That is absolutely right. They do have to avoid all those things. The more complicated (AKA convenient) that human settlements get, the more difficult it must be for them.

If I were them, I would just say **** it let's sell and go to the ghetto, however the fact they were given assurances on this issue makes it a point of principle.

As for the fire, flicking a switch is just a more convenient form of rubbing two sticks together. No matter how miniscule the effort, the "work" is simply the act of bringing the fire into being. Unless the switch is activated, the "fire" is still latent - as it is in the pieces of wood.

When some flashes their lights at you, it is they who are doing the work as you have no power over their will whatsoever. It is their choice to flash the lights rather than use a hand gesture or whatever.

[Caversham Green]

An aspect of this case that appears to have been missed is that the management company is a residents property management company. That means that the Colemans are shareholders which in turn means that they have implicitly (and probably explicitly) agreed to abide by the decisions of the majority of other shareholders - i.e. the other residents in the block.

On that basis I would suggest they have no claim against the company and are pointing their guns in the wrong direction. If they were given assurances that such a lighting system would not be installed their claim is against the person or firm that gave them those assurances - the people they bought the flat from or the selling agents. If this is the case the claim would be for damages, but they still have no case for causing the management company to change the lighting system.

I suspect damages would be minimal since the restrictions they suffer are imposed by their beliefs rather than by the actions of anyone else.

[CropleyWasGod]

As it happens, I agree with what you have said there in principle. I think a lot of young, Western women do go out much too under-dressed.

But there is surely a middle ground between a low cut top that leaves nothing to the imagination and a full body cloak that covers absolutely everything, except for a small slit for the eyes to see out of?

FGS, man.

No-one, especially a man, has any right to decide on what is and isn't appropriate for a woman to wear. That is entirely up to each individual, based on their culture, their upbringing, their faith, their own sense of self, and many, many other reasons.

The concepts of "under dressed" and "middle ground" just have no value, other than from a very narrow perspective.

[Betty Boop]

FGS, man.

No-one, especially a man, has any right to decide on what is and isn't appropriate for a woman to wear. That is entirely up to each individual, based on their culture, their upbringing, their faith, their own sense of self, and many, many other reasons.

The concepts of "under dressed" and "middle ground" just have no value, other than from a very narrow perspective. :top marks

[CropleyWasGod]

:top marks

Will it help me to pull, you reckon? :devil:

[(((Fergus)))]

FGS, man.

No-one, especially a man, has any right to decide on what is and isn't appropriate for a woman to wear. That is entirely up to each individual, based on their culture, their upbringing, their faith, their own sense of self, and many, many other reasons.

The concepts of "under dressed" and "middle ground" just have no value, other than from a very narrow perspective.

No one should decide, however it is a father's/husband's/brother's/uncle's responsibility to protect the female members of the family and therefore "advise" them if they are dressed in an inappropriate way.

I'm sure the females would do the same if we went out in high heels and miniskirts with the haw maws hanging out.

[CropleyWasGod]

No one should decide, however it is a father's/husband's/brother's/uncle's responsibility to protect the female members of the family and therefore "advise" them if they are dressed in an inappropriate way.

I'm sure the females would do the same if we went out in high heels and miniskirts with the haw maws hanging out.

I can hear a whole new can of worms opening with that statement. I don't agree, but let's save that argument for another thread. :greengrin

That said, I would say that family opinions are covered by what I said about upbringing. Those family thoughts ARE taken into account by young women AND men, and, of course, normally ignored :wink:

[Betty Boop]

Will it help me to pull, you reckon? :devil:
Definitely! :greengrin

[RyeSloan]

That is absolutely right. They do have to avoid all those things. The more complicated (AKA convenient) that human settlements get, the more difficult it must be for them.

If I were them, I would just say **** it let's sell and go to the ghetto, however the fact they were given assurances on this issue makes it a point of principle.

As for the fire, flicking a switch is just a more convenient form of rubbing two sticks together. No matter how miniscule the effort, the "work" is simply the act of bringing the fire into being. Unless the switch is activated, the "fire" is still latent - as it is in the pieces of wood.

When some flashes their lights at you, it is they who are doing the work as you have no power over their will whatsoever. It is their choice to flash the lights rather than use a hand gesture or whatever.

Thats my point, with a switch activated merely by their presence they have no power over the will of the switch to turn on...be that a person in a car or an automatic light.

Anyway saying fire = a spark is really not true either...anyone who has tried to light a barbcue without fire lighters will tell you that!!!! :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

Definitely! :greengrin

ssssiiiiggghhhhh...... your films were always my favourite as a pre-pubescent young man.

[Hibby D]

Will it help me to pull, you reckon? :devil:


ssssiiiiggghhhhh...... your films were always my favourite as a pre-pubescent young man.

You still are I reckon :offski: :hide:

:greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

You still are I reckon :offski: :hide:

:greengrin

Cheeky non-religiously-specific creature.

However.... fancy turning a pre-pubescent young man into a man of the world? :greengrin

[Hibby D]

Cheeky non-religiously-specific creature.

However.... fancy turning a pre-pubescent young man into a man of the world? :greengrin

Happy to help - you have a PM :greengrin






ps that was a joke...... honest :angelic:

[CropleyWasGod]

ps that was a joke...... honest :angelic:

Disclaimers.... the scourge of modern life.

(disclaimer.... this is not meant to be a contribution to this thread).

[Hibby D]

Thats my point, with a switch activated merely by their presence they have no power over the will of the switch to turn on...be that a person in a car or an automatic light.

Anyway saying fire = a spark is really not true either...anyone who has tried to light a barbcue without fire lighters will tell you that!!!! :greengrin

I agree on both counts :greengrin

Seriously though I'm not jewish (as is obvious by my contributions thus far) and I like to think I'm respectful of everyone who has beliefs that differ from my own (except jambos :wink:) but I'm truly finding it difficult to make that leap in this instance.

I wonder how much of this is now down to sheer bloody-mindedness ( a human trait ) on the part of the couple? :dunno:

When I married my ex, he was a divorcee, which meant we couldn't get married in the Catholic church without going through some protracted form of annulment. So I married him in a Church of Scotland kirk. No fuss and everyone was happy. I chose not to go through the annulment process because it would have meant including and most definitely upsetting too many people that I cared and respected, who, imo. didn't need the hassle.

I've never lost any sleep over it and as an added bonus I didn't get kicked out the RC church for it either.

Sometimes it's just plain "nicer" to do the honourable thing and shut up :greengrin

[(((Fergus)))]

Thats my point, with a switch activated merely by their presence they have no power over the will of the switch to turn on...be that a person in a car or an automatic light.

Anyway saying fire = a spark is really not true either...anyone who has tried to light a barbcue without fire lighters will tell you that!!!! :greengrin

The distinction between the switch and another person operating the lights is that a switch - being non-human - is not considered to have a will (in the sense of free will) whereas the other person obviously does. Step in front of a motion sensor and it has no choice about how it reacts; the other person does.

I take your point about the barby :greengrin

[(((Fergus)))]

I agree on both counts :greengrin

Seriously though I'm not jewish (as is obvious by my contributions thus far) and I like to think I'm respectful of everyone who has beliefs that differ from my own (except jambos :wink:) but I'm truly finding it difficult to make that leap in this instance.

I wonder how much of this is now down to sheer bloody-mindedness ( a human trait ) on the part of the couple? :dunno:

When I married my ex, he was a divorcee, which meant we couldn't get married in the Catholic church without going through some protracted form of annulment. So I married in him a Church of Scotland kirk. No fuss and everyone was happy. I chose not to go through the annulment process because it would have meant including and most definitely upsetting too many people that I cared and respected, who, imo. didn't need the hassle.

I've never lost any sleep over it and as an added bonus I didn't get kicked out the RC church for it either.

Sometimes it's just plain "nicer" to do the honourable thing and shut up :greengrin


I don't know these folk personally, just seen the lady on her school's video, but if they're anything like orthodox Jews that I do know then I'd be very surprised if this was to do with bloody-mindedness. Not saying that it isn't, or that there isn't a percentage of that sentiment, I'd just be surprised that was all this was about.

Growing up as we do where most things go, it's hard to imagine the rigour with which these people adhere to their rules. Just think of something that would be totally taboo for you and imagine you lived in a house where everyone else started doing it, it was considered "normal"/"sane", and you had to do it - just a little bit mind - whenever you entered or left your flat over one particular 24-hour period. I think that is what it must feel like.

[RyeSloan]

The distinction between the switch and another person operating the lights is that a switch - being non-human - is not considered to have a will (in the sense of free will) whereas the other person obviously does. Step in front of a motion sensor and it has no choice about how it reacts; the other person does.

I take your point about the barby :greengrin

Glad it's not just me with the Barby nightmares then :greengrin

Not sure i agree though on the 'free will' angle...you could quite as easily say the motion sensor was programmed and fitted by others by their free will thus the effect on the people here is the same..Although they are responsible for both by their presence they neither have to directly intervene or make any effort for the free will of others to cause a 'fire' be that car lights or hall lights.

Frankly far from their religious rights being threatened by others their actions in forcing a type of martyrdom upon themselves by seeking to be victims does more damage to their religion than any motion sensor could ever do.

[The Modfather]

Sorry, 3 options :hnetinq: :greengrin


1) The Colemans give up Judaism
2) The Colemans sell the flat
3) The property company fit an override paid for by the Colemans

I bet there's more...:greengrin

Or the Colemans hire home help on the Sabath to walk past motion sensors, open the fridge etc.

Everyone's a winner - the hired helper gets paid for doing near enough literaly nothing, The Colemans adhere to their beliefs, and the residents have automatic lighting. Simples! :wink:

A ludicrous solution to a ludicrous issue :greengrin

[Sir David Gray]

FGS, man.

No-one, especially a man, has any right to decide on what is and isn't appropriate for a woman to wear. That is entirely up to each individual, based on their culture, their upbringing, their faith, their own sense of self, and many, many other reasons.

The concepts of "under dressed" and "middle ground" just have no value, other than from a very narrow perspective.

I think you'll find that I basically said that, by the way that I replied to Fergus' post.

I said that I didn't know of any women who are "let out" in any state. What people, and women in general, wear is entirely up to them, except when it becomes a security risk, which I believe applies to things like hoods, motorcycle helmets and burqas.

If people want to go about half naked then that's entirely their prerogative.

If anything, it was Fergus who implied that men have authority over what women wear by saying, "look at the state we let our own women out in."

I'm only giving my opinion that a middle ground between what a lot of young, Western women wear, and the clothing worn by a lot of conservative Muslim women, would be the best option.

[(((Fergus)))]

I think you'll find that I basically said that, by the way that I replied to Fergus' post.

I said that I didn't know of any women who are "let out" in any state. What people, and women in general, wear is entirely up to them, except when it becomes a security risk, which I believe applies to things like hoods, motorcycle helmets and burqas.

If people want to go about half naked then that's entirely their prerogative.

If anything, it was Fergus who implied that men have authority over what women wear by saying, "look at the state we let our own women out in."

I'm only giving my opinion that a middle ground between what a lot of young, Western women wear, and the clothing worn by a lot of conservative Muslim women, would be the best option.

I didn't mean to imply that we have authority, merely that we have a duty of care. (Incidentally, the duty of care between male and female is mutual but complementary rather than identical). Of course, in the case of a non-adult daughter, the father obviously has authority as well.

[CropleyWasGod]

Of course, in the case of a non-adult daughter, the father obviously has authority as well.

On behalf of fathers of non-adult daughters everywhere, can I just say...


:faf::faf::faf::faf:

[(((Fergus)))]

On behalf of fathers of non-adult daughters everywhere, can I just say...


:faf::faf::faf::faf:


As one myself, I concur. :greengrin

Though that doesn't mean we should let them rule the roost.

[RyeSloan]

As one myself, I concur. :greengrin

Though that doesn't mean we should let them rule the roost.

Oh jesus good luck, thats all I can say :wink: :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

I'm only giving my opinion that a middle ground between what a lot of young, Western women wear, and the clothing worn by a lot of conservative Muslim women, would be the best option.

Apologies if I am being obtuse, but best option for whom?

[Mibbes Aye]

On behalf of fathers of non-adult daughters everywhere, can I just say...


:faf::faf::faf::faf:

:agree:

Sometimes it's just better to know when you're beaten (i.e. right from the start)