TargetTalk

shaky hands wrote:

Wynne G Oldman wrote:One reason that I took up target shooting was to get me out of the house and waste less time on the internet arguing with strangers.

But if the number of your posts in this thread is of any indication, old habits die hard.

You got me.

TomAmlie wrote:Which statements are so grossly inaccurate?

The first point about the judge & sharia law was a gross misrepresentation of the truth. He made some comments that were a lot more subtle and nuanced, related primarily to mediation in family disputes. The headline pictured was from The Sun which is not the kind of newspaper you should ever trust for fair and accurate reporting. It has a long and colourful history of printing outright lies. Even then, the actual story in the paper quoted the judge as saying: "There is no reason why sharia principles, or any other religious code, should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution. However, any sanctions for a failure to comply with the agreed terms of mediation would be drawn from the laws of England and Wales." which is a long way from suggesting what the video implies.

As for the comment that the Archbishop of Canterbury saying something similar, well, there are similar misinterpretations of that too. He later said "The Archbishop made no proposals for sharia in either the lecture or the interview, and certainly did not call for its introduction as some kind of parallel jurisdiction to the civil law."

The story that police dogs might have to wear booties to avoid insulting muslims is also false. It was discussed by the ACPO when drafting rules about cultural sensitivity but an imam from the Muslim Council of Britain said that it wasn't necessary and that "in Islamic law the dog is not regarded as impure... in the Muslim community there is a hang-up against dogs, but this is cultural.". Again, a gross misrepresentation of what actually happened.

That's all in the first minute of the "report" part of that video. Pretty much every other "fact" that was reported is similarly a misrepresentation of the truth and/or an outright lie if you do even a cursory search of the background to it. Anyone who treats The Sun or The Daily Mail as a credible source of information should simply be laughed at and ignored.

Unless I'm mistaken, that video is from CBN. That's like watching a documentary on the Yankees produced by the Red Sox. It doesn't matter which team (if any) you support, you still shouldn't believe a word of it.

I want to thank the forum members for their comments. I started the thread with a question: “USA Beware?” not “USA Beware!”. I wanted to avoid an ideological or a political discussion. On the continent the news from Britain comes in rather slowly, unless it is some presumed scandal in the Royal Family. It seems to me that the new major of London was an issue because he is a Muslim. I'm sure that if he were e.g. a Buddhist, it wouldn't have been mentioned. I'm inclined to respect the man for what he achieved: son of a bus driver, who succeeded in getting a law degree. How he will function as a major...we'll see.
I'm surprised to read that 'most of the Britishs are not religious?'. But nevertheless the Queen is the head of the Anglican Church and the overwhelming majority of the British hold on to their Queen and her picture on the pound notes. Maybe also because of tradition.
Thanks for letting me know that this video is 6 years old and is no longer up to date.
What is wrong with Anerican Christian Propaganda on American Television?
Often, when out of arguments one reaches back to the '30 and Nazi Germany. Why not to the USSR and Stalin in the same period?
Thanks to IRLConor for his comment. It was instructive.
I think that all who wanted to comment, had their say, and I propose we return to our business: shooting.

Regards.


Guy