[desijut]

Well the BBC story doesnt say they came to smash up the place, but it started as a peaceful protest and then went that way: "What started as a peaceful protest soon turned to violence when a minority of people started throwing missiles at officers and then forced their way inside the centre"

Im not saying that they should not be punished for the violence, but the meat and alcohol part is wrong. Read this: The main quote is "If you want to do it privately, we are not going to fight or argue with you, that's your business. But to tolerate it on holy places - we can't accept that”

[Phantom Lord]

(Original post by desijut)
Well the BBC story doesnt say they came to smash up the place, but it started as a peaceful protest and then went that way: "What started as a peaceful protest soon turned to violence when a minority of people started throwing missiles at officers and then forced their way inside the centre"

That's how most riots start.

[tidbury1415]

And yet these threads just keep starting. Any visitors here would think this is some kind of ****ing eastern media forum.

[sav91]

(Original post by DdotT)
firstly it is disrespectful to the countries inhabitants to riot and cause destruction.
If a bunch of british people rioted in sikh areas of india then i bet they would be pissed......

secondly, this seems to happen with just a few groups of religions, islam and sikhism. Thats all you here , muslims do this, muslims do that, sikhs do this...

So don't blame people for stereotyping, because if it was just a few people doing it then things wouldnt happen so often.

What is it that Sikhs do that you've heard about?

To be honest, I don't think you're able to back up that statement with any fact, so it's probably untrue.

[FSP]

how many people took part ?
strange...

[DdotT]

(Original post by sav91)
What is it that Sikhs do that you've heard about?

To be honest, I don't think you're able to back up that statement with any fact, so it's probably untrue.

i said in a subsequent post that i tried to find sources but couldnt remember what the exactly stories were but ive certainly heard some from the news.

[Killer Bean]

(Original post by meenu89)
BBC ok for you?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...ngham-15296739
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...ngham-13587198

I feel like writing a bit more about this, but not right now - in the middle of something. This comment is partly a reminder for myself, but here's something to think about: The Sun uses the word riot in the title, and the BBC the word protest. That is a VERY important distinction to make, and which paper used which word isn't too much of a surprise.

[sav91]

(Original post by DdotT)
i said in a subsequent post that i tried to find sources but couldnt remember what the exactly stories were but ive certainly heard some from the news.

No you haven't.

For the most part, British Sikhs are a pretty laid-back and unassuming bunch. I haven't heard of any stories relating to Sikhs doing this and that, unless you're talking about the many Sikhs in London and Birmingham that helped protect places of worship and stores during the riots, which I suppose is a good 'this and that'.

Other than that, you don't hear much about Sikhs in the press.

[futuredo]

(Original post by ypo)
I feel like I'm not getting the full story here. Sikhs, especially those in the West, are not known for their violence or threatening behaviour (unlike another certain group). In fact Sikhs tend to be very well-to do, educated, culturally assimilated types - I see many more soft-spoken Sikh lawyers, investment bankers or local-Dr-Singh-GP-types, than ranting and raving lunatics. Go figure.

Which other 'certain group' are we talking about ?.........

[dnumberwang]

Sikh's aren't allowed meat or alcohol? This is news to me

[wasuup]

(Original post by Einheri)
Ugh, if you want to live under the strange religious and cultural norms of your homeland . . . then **** off back there.

Ugh,you do realise it was a sikh cultural centre...stupid reaction i know but its not like they attacked a church or a random private business or something. so its not indicative of them wanting to change everybodys religious and cultural norms like you implied.....bit of a generalistic knee jerk reaction there mate.
also i thought in the UK you were able to follow whatever "strange religious and cultural norms" you liked.....i didnt know there was prescribed cultural traditions you had to follow.

[okapobcfc08]

putting all this biased media coverage aside, lets just use plain logic to look at this.

You run a religious place of worship (gurdwara) and your religion is Sikh.

OK

Now, two of the biggest sins in Sikhism is eating meat and drinking alcohol. Got me so far?

Now, just across the road, literally opposite you open a "sikh cultural centre". Fine, nothing wrong so far.

OK, now this "cultural centre",

which clearly states the word "Sikh" and has a Khanda (one of the main religious symbols of Sikhism) on the sign

uses funds donated from the congregation at the Gurdwara to fund the centre. Understood?


Now, the decision to open such a cultural centre is taken by a group of baptized and "upmost pure" Sikhs in the managment commitee of the Gurdwara. They then allow, on the weekends for parties and functions to be held, allowing meat and drink.

OK, a big campaign starts called Satkaar (respect). It's main weapon is peaceful demonstartion. The success starts in Grays when a peaceful protest yields results. Ramgharia Gurdwara in Birmingham 5hits it before a protest and changes its way. Similar story in Scotland I believe. Its just that the dirty Dudley Gurdwara commitee is more stubborn.

Now, you go there for a peaceful protest. Nothing to report. Insult to injury a party is going on with alcohol being brought past you and served up. Then, some of the partying group make provocotive suggestions. Some Sikhs, in respect of their living master, can't handle it any more and take their anger out.

LET IT BE KNOWN THAT THE MAJORITY OF SIKH POPULATION BACKED THIS PROTEST AND HAS LITTLE REGARD LEFT FOR THE JUDAS DIRTY MANAGEMENT COMMITEE WHO HAS SOLD SIKHISM FOR STELLA ARTOIS AND PORKCHOPS.

It is true, unless you have a good understanding of Sikhism, you will be dismissive of such headlines in dirty Murdoch's paper.



The only cost to the taxpayer was the police costs.

[dnumberwang]

Please, someone tell me, since when were Sikhs not allowed to eat meat!?

[Agenda Suicide]

Yawn, don't care what anybody says if this was white christian's there'd be so much hate and self repentance but because it's a minority religion we probably shoulda been more considerate and actually lock ourselves up.

[SMEGGGY]

(Original post by dnumberwang)
Please, someone tell me, since when were Sikhs not allowed to eat meat!?

You're not a Sikh are you?

In the Sikh Code of Conduct drinking/smoking and eating meat [which is an optional thing, but those that are wearing turbans, and baptised refrain from doing so]

http://vegan.wikia.com/wiki/Sikh

[callum9999]

(Original post by Einheri)
Ugh, if you want to live under the strange religious and cultural norms of your homeland . . . then **** off back there.

What a brilliant way to live our lives. I think the UK also needs to be subdivided into thousands of micro-countries so we can all split ourselves up into identical groups so we don't have to suffer being around anyone slightly different to us.

I'm a vegetarian and pretty much pacifist which is highly unusual for a British person, should I restrict myself to my house at all times (I'm 100% British so have no "homeland" to go back to)?

[meenu89]

(Original post by Killer Bean)
I feel like writing a bit more about this, but not right now - in the middle of something. This comment is partly a reminder for myself, but here's something to think about: The Sun uses the word riot in the title, and the BBC the word protest. That is a VERY important distinction to make, and which paper used which word isn't too much of a surprise.

The BBC article uses the word 'violence' so I'm assuming that it wasn't a peaceful protest.

[iqbal_harry]

(Original post by SMEGGGY)
You're not a Sikh are you?

In the Sikh Code of Conduct drinking/smoking and eating meat [which is an optional thing, but those that are wearing turbans, and baptised refrain from doing so]

http://vegan.wikia.com/wiki/Sikh

Your not Sikh either are you? infact wearing any of the 5 K's is a sign of Khalsa. And an Amritdhari Sikh can eat Jhatka meat. The Akal Takht issued a Hukamnama regarding this very fact and can be found on Google easily.

[dnumberwang]

(Original post by SMEGGGY)
You're not a Sikh are you?

In the Sikh Code of Conduct drinking/smoking and eating meat [which is an optional thing, but those that are wearing turbans, and baptised refrain from doing so]

http://vegan.wikia.com/wiki/Sikh

"In Sikhism, only vegetarian food is served in the Gurdwara, but Sikhs are not totally bound to be meat-free. "

In other words they're allowed?

[Harrifer]

(Original post by ypo)
I feel like I'm not getting the full story here. Sikhs, especially those in the West, are not known for their violence or threatening behaviour (unlike another certain group). In fact Sikhs tend to be very well-to do, educated, culturally assimilated types - I see many more soft-spoken Sikh lawyers, investment bankers or local-Dr-Singh-GP-types, than ranting and raving lunatics. Go figure.

I agree. The general lack of facts in the article, combined with the good reputation of the sikh community, the fact that most of them do drink and eat meat, and the xenophobic attitude of the Sun makes me suspicious.

I think something else went on here, and the Sun span it into a news story.