Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Mob of 40-50 Sikhs attack restaurant in Leicester

Scroll to see replies

Reply 60

OMG TOOTHBRUSH

Original post by Scumbaggio

No idea how I would do that.

Just tell me what is was.

It's right under my name:

Re: Mob of 40-50 men attack restaurant in Leicester

Reply 61

OMG TOOTHBRUSH

Original post by m-s-96

Funny, isn't it? How as soon as a race or religion is brought up, everyone who follows that race or religion is instanlty branded as being exactly the same. Look at the bombings in Boston. Everyone was jumping up and down screaming it was the Muslims with no real proof that it was by Muslims. This just goes to show just how narrow-minded society can be. Those men deserve whatever they get for their actions, all other Sikhs shouldn't be branded as the same as them.

That's a bad example seeing as how they did turn out to be Muslims.

Reply 62

Scumbaggio

Original post by Skip_Snip

But Sikhism isn't mentioned in the thread title

Re: Mob of 40-50 Sikhs attack restaurant in Leicester

Reply 63

Skip_Snip

Original post by Scumbaggio

Re: Mob of 40-50 Sikhs attack restaurant in Leicester

Adding the word "Sikhs" yourself isn't big or clever

Reply 64

ESPORTIVA

Original post by Skip_Snip

Adding the word "Sikhs" yourself isn't big or clever

Scumbaggio is right. It did say SIKHS in the title, but it looks like op changed it to mob

Reply 65

Skip_Snip

Original post by ESPORTIVA

Scumbaggio is right. It did say SIKHS in the title, but it looks like op changed it to mob

Ah my mistake :smile:

Reply 66

lumberjack77

Original post by OMG TOOTHBRUSH

I saw the link and thought they would be south Asian, saw the names and was proven correct.

Sikhs by the look of it.

Nick Griffin is silent on this matter...

Reply 67

FATchristopher

2 years is not enough for these savages.

Reply 68

Scumbaggio

Original post by Skip_Snip

Adding the word "Sikhs" yourself isn't big or clever

The title has been changed twice since I COPIED AND PASTED the thread title.

It was.... 40-50 Sikhs
Then..... 40-50 men
Now just 40-50.

Reply 69

Phantom Lord

Original post by Scumbaggio

The title has been changed twice since I COPIED AND PASTED the thread title.

It was.... 40-50 Sikhs
Then..... 40-50 men
Now just 40-50.

Wrong, it was men then Sikhs :cool:

I got rid of sikhs because people were accusing me of stereotyping them somehow.

Reply 70

Scumbaggio

Original post by Phantom Lord

Wrong, it was men then Sikhs :cool:

I got rid of sikhs because people were accusing me of stereotyping them somehow.

Ok.

Pretty ridiculous really, if they were all sikhs then why isn't it acceptable to describe them as such?

Reply 71

Skip_Snip

Original post by Scumbaggio

The title has been changed twice since I COPIED AND PASTED the thread title.

It was.... 40-50 Sikhs
Then..... 40-50 men
Now just 40-50.

My bad

Original post by Scumbaggio

Ok.

Pretty ridiculous really, if they were all sikhs then why isn't it acceptable to describe them as such?

This

Reply 72

m-s-96

Original post by OMG TOOTHBRUSH

That's a bad example seeing as how they did turn out to be Muslims.

The point is that people instantly assumed it was them just because of the high profile attacks Islamic extremists have performed.

Reply 73

Amanbabbar./

Original post by Fusion

How reassuring :rolleyes:

It is rather reassuring, isn't it?
Funny how you pointed that out when I clearly said I'm against the fact that they're allowed to wear them :rolleyes:

Reply 74

Skip_Snip

Original post by m-s-96

The point is that people instantly assumed it was them just because of the high profile attacks Islamic extremists have performed.

And they were right :wink:

Reply 75

slade p

Original post by Phantom Lord

Wrong, it was men then Sikhs :cool:

I got rid of sikhs because people were accusing me of stereotyping them somehow.

if you took down sikhs from the title then it shows what a weasel you are since it was establieshed that the 40-50 men were sikhs. pointing out a fact doesnt stereotype anyone even if ignorant ppl or racists subsequently use it to stereotype them.

Reply 76

m-s-96

Original post by Skip_Snip

And they were right :wink:

Yes they were right. The point is.... oh never mind.

Reply 77

Skip_Snip

Original post by m-s-96

Yes they were right. The point is.... oh never mind.

I know what your point is; they say a leopard never changes its spots, but sometimes the spots stick to the same leopard

Reply 78

Amanbabbar./

Original post by slade p

How does it show him to be a 'weasel'?
I just think that pointing out their religion is unnecessary.
The details are always given when a crime involves ethnic minorities from what I have seen.

Reply 79

slade p

Original post by Amanbabbar./

How does it show him to be a 'weasel'?
I just think that pointing out their religion is unnecessary.
The details are always given when a crime involves ethnic minorities from what Ive seen.

its needed to point out the specific community, its unfair to say it was "asians" and theres nothing wrong in pointing out the specific community. and mentioning it was sikhs was right because it was in retaliation to an abuse on a sikh, so the attack was ethnicity/religiously motivated. the reason y you dont want it to say sikhs is the same why any other group wouldnt want to be specifically mentioned which is simply it brings negative attention to your group, nothing to do with it been unnecessary.