Tuesday 4 December 2012

Promoting ‘Peace, Harmony And Diversity’..?

Well, keep doing this:
The Karimia Institute took over a former children's care home in Radford Bridge Road and have developed it into a prayer centre.
Nottingham City Council looked at the development in June last year and decided to give it planning permission for a year's trial.
Since then, more than 20 neighbours have sent letters to the council complaining about traffic problems. They claimed that allowing the institute to continue would make the problem worse.
One resident, who didn't wish to be named, said: "It has caused a lot of traffic build-up near the Crown Island and there's a lot of on-street parking caused by the centre, too.
"Some of the drivers turn in people's drives, slam doors late at night and I feel quite let down that the council have given this permission."
And then don’t be too surprised at more instances of this:
A muslim family who had just moved into a new home are "disgusted" after a cross wrapped in ham was set alight and left on their doorstep.
Always assuming, of course, that it’s not a hoax, as so many other such incidents have proven to be in the past.

And no, that’s not to condone such an act, but merely to point out that you favour one group over another at your peril. Sooner or later, people start kicking back.


Woman on a Raft said...

Erm...family separating and two sticks wrapped in ham appear at that address just when the husband is there, although the neighbours are amazed since they can recall nothing like this before.

Cue arrestable joke about a hambush and if there was any juice, and then ask if somebody else might have reason to threaten a Muslim lady who was no longer proposing to live with her husband.

Somebody who might want to argue that the children at least should be removed if the woman won't return.

Anonymous said...

a cross wrapped in ham was set alight and left on their doorstep

Are they vampires as well as moslem?

Ian Hills said...

Ham hatecrime seems to be spreading -


Farenheit211 said...

Firstly, "a cross wrapped in ham was set alight and left on their doorstep"

I find that difficult to believe. It would take an awful lot of accellerant to get ham to ignite, it might smoulder in a bacon-y sort of way but not flare up. This reminds me of an occasion 30 odd years ago when the KKK tried to set up in the area where I was living. Unfortunately IIRC they hadn't bargained with the British weather and their flaming cross failed to, well, flame.

Back to the topic, I'm not going to comment on the veracity of the 'flaming ham' incident. But if it did happen as reported, bears out that which I so often bang on about, which is if the organs of the state, police, law, elected representatives, public sector etc, don't recognise that a lot of Islam is a problem, then more unpleasant ways of expressing displeasure at the values of Islam would manifest themselves.

I also don't condone things like 'flaming ham' incidents and to prevent them freedom of speech regarding the negative aspects of Islam needs to be reinstated. 'Flaming Ham' incidents are a symptom that something has gone terribly wrong with multiculturalism and that there is a growing level of anger about the state pandering to Islam.

Stop the pandering, recognise that Islam is not as other religious paths, and the innocent 'Joe Mohammed' will not end up rolled up with the guilty shariah promoters.

David Gillies said...

Who dares profane the sacred meat of the pig by attempting to set it on fire? The only sacramental rite that is sanctioned for ham is its transubstantiation in the bodies of the faithful after being eaten, possibly with mustard.

Anonymous said...

I regularly burn ham on my own, as well as neighbours lawns! (and beef, fish,... and you really don't want to know what I can do with chicken - I mean two fire appliances just for 'slightly crispy' drumstick, overkill or what?)

SadButMadLad said...

Seems like a lot of people didn't want it and still the council went ahead.

In total 33 letters of objection and two petitions signed by 376 persons against the
proposal have been received.
Grounds of objections are:
• No need for the use in this area; there are enough prayer centres; use not suitable for this large residential area which is served by a single vehicular access; other existing community centres are available and struggling to find users; site should be used for residential; detrimental impact on property prices.
• Insufficient off street parking provided; would generate increased on-street parking problems in the wider area; increased traffic generation would cause a longer traffic queue when exiting Radford Bridge Road; the dangerous nature of the junction with the Ring Road/Crown Island.
• The submitted Transport Statement’s use of the Berridge Road Centre as a
comparison site is not appropriate.
• Parked cars potentially blocking drives, restricting access to emergency
vehicles particularly to the elderly residents at Westhay Court which is regularly visited by doctors, nurses, carers and ambulances.
• On street parking restrictions and a residents parking permit scheme needs to be introduced, university staff and students park in the area.
• On street parking would cause obstruction and danger to the safety of
children and the elderly particularly with playground and Westhay Court adjacent.
• Increased noise and disturbance and light pollution.
• Potentially large groups of intimidating youths leaving the centre, in close proximity to the public house; possible vandalism.
• Lack of information/consideration by the applicant about the proposed use; the number of people, how they would get to the site and the hours of use.
• The prayer and learning centre use would not serve/involve the whole
community as the applicant claims or be multi cultural; proposal would segregate rather than integrate.
• Concern that work has already started on site.
• Conflict of interest with the site being formerly owned by the Council.
• Application should have been submitted with an Environmental Impact
• Neighbouring playground/park was supposed to be improved but is not even
locked at night anymore.
• Lack of consultation.

There were nearly a similar number in favour of the proposal, but their issues seemed a lot more vague and more in the line of "We demand to be treated as a minority" and "We have more rights than people living on road".

A total of 27 letters supporting the application and four petitions signed by 236 persons have also been received stating that the proposal is needed in Wollaton; would be within walking distance of the users; avoids the need to drive to similar centres in Lenton and Sneinton; would provide many benefits to the local residents; that similar objections/concerns about traffic generation and parking were raised against the planning application for the Medical Centre on Harrow Road, but have since been found not to be a problem

farenheit211 said...

Sad but mad lad. I think that this situation where there are a majority of opponents to the building of Islamic Propaganda Centres being ignored isn't unique. I'm keeping an eye on the situation in East London where there are plans for a mega mosque in Newham East London.

There are many objectoins to this plan, based on the size and intrusiveness of the project but also due to the nature of the group behind it - separatist extremist islam.

Although Newham appears to have made noises about use of the land concerned without planning permission, I believe that Newham will let this go through despite objections from locals both Muslim and non muslim.

It seems that councils are terrified to refuse permission for divisive groups for fear of either being called 'racist' or 'islamophobic' or more worryingly fear of thwarted Islamic groups kicking off violently.

Anonymous said...

"a cross wrapped in ham was set alight and left on their doorstep"


Where was the bloody cheese ?

Jim said...

Its strange, isn't it, that we in the West are constantly told that we must show 'restraint' and 'respect' to religions, and if we practise our long held rights to free speech, and certain people respond violently, then its our fault for having provoked them. (Actually only if the adherents of the religion are predominantly non-white. I don't think there would be much support for the Archbishop of Canterbury if he launched a campaign of violence against any perceived 'disrespect' for Christianity).

I wonder if the same holds true in reverse? If a community responded with violence to a religion demanding its right to practise its faith freely (as indeed it does have), would the PC brigade say it was the religions fault for having provoked the community?

Thought not.

Farenheit211 said...

Diversity policies although they purport to bring people together only appear to be creating hostile antagonistic ghettos.

James Higham said...

First question was - prayer to whom?

JuliaM said...

"Cue arrestable joke about a hambush.."


"Ham hatecrime seems to be spreading"

BAN HAM! You know it makes sense...

"It would take an awful lot of accellerant to get ham to ignite..."

But it would smell delicious... ;)

JuliaM said...

"Seems like a lot of people didn't want it and still the council went ahead."

Maybe that trend is now reversing?

"...I believe that Newham will let this go through despite objections from locals both Muslim and non muslim."

For once, I'm happy to see a fellow blogger get it wrong.. ;)

farenheit211 said...

bloody hell Newham does something right for once.