Paris restaurant refuses to serve Muslim women
Scroll to see replies
Original post by scrotgrot
You complete idiot, restaurants don't exist for a religious purpose do they. They don't belong to the white "Christian" majority, they belong to all those citizens who enjoy eating socially and who thus comprise the market for the restaurant.
Religious establishments such as mosques and churches clearly do belong to the relevant religious group - although of course they are not to my knowledge so petty and pathetic as to refuse entry or service to someone with a different religious belief to them.
You seem to see Muslims as existing as a society within a society, who should presumably have their own segregated establishments. But no matter how much it might piss you off, Muslims and those of other religious, racial, etc persuasions are fully paid-up members of our Western society just the same as you are.
Religious establishments such as mosques and churches clearly do belong to the relevant religious group - although of course they are not to my knowledge so petty and pathetic as to refuse entry or service to someone with a different religious belief to them.
You seem to see Muslims as existing as a society within a society, who should presumably have their own segregated establishments. But no matter how much it might piss you off, Muslims and those of other religious, racial, etc persuasions are fully paid-up members of our Western society just the same as you are.
You are telling me if I open a restaurant, it doesn't belong to me but everyone? If I want to restrict the market my restaurant operates in, that is very well my choice, isn't it? Certainly not some arrogant, filthy mouthed kid on the internet.
And Muslims will never be fully integrated members of western society. By definition of their current ideology, they cannot be. I have no problem if they would finally actually do something other than spout #ReligionOfPeace #NotOneOfUs, and make a new, improved, modern interpretation of Islam. But they don't. Because at the end of the day, the majority of them likes it just the way it is.
Original post by inhuman
Discriminate from the dictionary:
Do note that:
a) It does not mention religion
b) All the things it does mention are things you cannot choose
Religion is nothing more than ideology and should not be free from criticism or discrimination.
Do note that:
a) It does not mention religion
b) All the things it does mention are things you cannot choose
Religion is nothing more than ideology and should not be free from criticism or discrimination.
Good job choosing one of a myriad of definitions - the idea behind discrimination in lawful terms is prejudice against a person or group based on the perception of someone belonging to a certain type of people. Doesn't matter if you can choose it or not, which is why religious discrimination is a thing and unlawful in France for employment, housing etc.
"In France, article 225-1 of the Penal Code10 defines a list of criteria which enter into the
constitution of an act of discrimination:
Constituting a discrimination is any distinction made between physical persons on grounds of their origin, their familial situation, pregnancy, their physical appearance, their family name, state of health, handicap, genetic characteristics, mores, sexual orientation, age, political opinions, union activities, belonging or non-belonging—real or supposed—to an ethnicity, a nation, a race or a determinate religion."
The law doesn't agree with you.
Original post by candyaljamila
That's exactly what I was saying! 
It's that Muslims come in all shapes and forms (and colours), but that, if this restaurant owner decided to ban Muslims, that means he's got a clear idea of how a Muslim looks. Whether his idea is right or wrong is another matter. He may well be banning christian Arabs or Hindu Indians because to him they look Muslim.
Like I said before, since I doubt he will be asking every person coming to his restaurant if they're Muslim or not, the only thing he can base his decision on is how they look!
You clearly have lost the plot by comparing a normal practicing Muslim to a Nazi. I am not going down the route of explaining to you the difference between a normal practicing Muslim and an extremist (or terrorist). [The second being the what you could compare to a Nazi].
It's that Muslims come in all shapes and forms (and colours), but that, if this restaurant owner decided to ban Muslims, that means he's got a clear idea of how a Muslim looks. Whether his idea is right or wrong is another matter. He may well be banning christian Arabs or Hindu Indians because to him they look Muslim. Like I said before, since I doubt he will be asking every person coming to his restaurant if they're Muslim or not, the only thing he can base his decision on is how they look!
You clearly have lost the plot by comparing a normal practicing Muslim to a Nazi. I am not going down the route of explaining to you the difference between a normal practicing Muslim and an extremist (or terrorist). [The second being the what you could compare to a Nazi].
A normal practicing Muslim woman wearing the hijab is sending the message to people "I only feel comfortable in public hiding most my body because my religion has taught me that women are sex objects and we tempt men into rape if we don't cover up".
And as I said in my other post, Muslims will never fully integrate into countries because their ideology is in contrast with our believes and for them, Allah and Mohammed always come first.
Original post by inhuman
You are telling me if I open a restaurant, it doesn't belong to me but everyone? If I want to restrict the market my restaurant operates in, that is very well my choice, isn't it? Certainly not some arrogant, filthy mouthed kid on the internet.
And Muslims will never be fully integrated members of western society. By definition of their current ideology, they cannot be. I have no problem if they would finally actually do something other than spout #ReligionOfPeace #NotOneOfUs, and make a new, improved, modern interpretation of Islam. But they don't. Because at the end of the day, the majority of them likes it just the way it is.
And Muslims will never be fully integrated members of western society. By definition of their current ideology, they cannot be. I have no problem if they would finally actually do something other than spout #ReligionOfPeace #NotOneOfUs, and make a new, improved, modern interpretation of Islam. But they don't. Because at the end of the day, the majority of them likes it just the way it is.
Correct. Businesses ought not to be allowed to discriminate between customers for anything other than an economic reason, because of the nature of what a business is. The business is not a vehicle through which you can project your political beliefs on the world; if you want to do that then form a pressure group, political party, or write for a newspaper.
The business is a component of the wider economy which is obliged to operate, not according to the will of some filthy-mouthed kid on the Internet, but instead according to the democratically legislated law of the land. And the law says you are not allowed to refuse service to customers just because you don't like their religion, unless the business or organisation is of such a nature that religion is an integral part of the customer base, such as with a religious building.
Your final paragraph reveals that you will not brook any interpretation of Islam that does not contort itself to fit around your own rigidly held values. This is exactly the kind of thing that drives Muslims into the arms of Islamic extremists, and is the reason why the rigidly assimiliationist France gets more ethnic strife and terror attacks than the integrationist multiculti UK.
Again, you are stoking division: there is no reason why Muslims cannot observe the particulars of their faith while living happily according to the tenets of Western civilisation. It's only the radical literalists who form the base of Islamic terrorist networks who are incompatible with Western society, and that's not because they're Muslims, it's because they think we should be slaughtered for our blasphemous ways. Anyone who believes in and implements such an ideology would be at odds with Western freedoms.
Put your hatred to bed, stop helping ISIS destabilise the Western world.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Spatial_Void
Good job choosing one of a myriad of definitions - the idea behind discrimination in lawful terms is prejudice against a person or group based on the perception of someone belonging to a certain type of people. Doesn't matter if you can choose it or not, which is why religious discrimination is a thing and unlawful in France for employment, housing etc.
"In France, article 225-1 of the Penal Code10 defines a list of criteria which enter into the
constitution of an act of discrimination:
Constituting a discrimination is any distinction made between physical persons on grounds of their origin, their familial situation, pregnancy, their physical appearance, their family name, state of health, handicap, genetic characteristics, mores, sexual orientation, age, political opinions, union activities, belonging or non-belonging—real or supposed—to an ethnicity, a nation, a race or a determinate religion."
The law doesn't agree with you.
"In France, article 225-1 of the Penal Code10 defines a list of criteria which enter into the
constitution of an act of discrimination:
Constituting a discrimination is any distinction made between physical persons on grounds of their origin, their familial situation, pregnancy, their physical appearance, their family name, state of health, handicap, genetic characteristics, mores, sexual orientation, age, political opinions, union activities, belonging or non-belonging—real or supposed—to an ethnicity, a nation, a race or a determinate religion."
The law doesn't agree with you.
The Human Rights Convention also disagrees with me. Doesn't make it the moral standard that will prevail for all eternity.
And yes, employment. This wasn't about employment though.
Original post by KingBradly
Islam is an ideology which people choose to follow. Homosexuality is genetic and can't be changed.
I'm gay and an ex-muslim, so whilst I'd like to agree with you, I'd urge you to not be intellectually dishonest. There is no current scientific consensus on whether sexual orientation is genetic or not. We are not even close to making that assertion. The genetic argument has been adopted as a means of silencing religious bigots who would otherwise argue it's a choice; despite that, we don't need to encourage dishonesty to argue that homosexuality is completely fine. Discriminating against people on the basis that you disagree with their ideology is presumptuous and bigoted.
Original post by inhuman
The Human Rights Convention also disagrees with me. Doesn't make it the moral standard that will prevail for all eternity.
And yes, employment. This wasn't about employment though.
And yes, employment. This wasn't about employment though.
Acidentally repped you :unimpresses:
Original post by inhuman
The Human Rights Convention also disagrees with me. Doesn't make it the moral standard that will prevail for all eternity.
And yes, employment. This wasn't about employment though.
And yes, employment. This wasn't about employment though.
"Our rules, follow them or piss off."
Sorry try again, article 225-2:
"Discrimination defined by article 225-1, committed against a natural or legal person, is punished by three years'
imprisonment and a fine of €45,000 where it consists:
1° of the refusal to supply goods or services;
2° of obstructing the normal exercise of any given economic activity;
3° of the refusal to hire, to sanction or to dismiss a person;
4° of subjecting the supply of goods or services to a condition based on one of the factors referred to under article
225-1;
5° of subjecting an offer of employment, an application for a course or a training period to a condition based on one
of the factors referred to under article 225-1;
6 ° of refusing to accept a person onto one of the courses referred to under 2 ° of article L.412-8 of the Social
Security Code.
Where the discriminatory refusal referred to under 1 ° is committed in a public place or in order to bar the access to
this place, the penalties are increased to five years' imprisonment and to a fine of €75,000."
Original post by scrotgrot
Correct. Businesses ought not to be allowed to discriminate between customers for anything other than an economic reason, because of the nature of what a business is. The business is not a vehicle through which you can project your political beliefs on the world; if you want to do that then form a pressure group, political party, or write for a newspaper.
The business is a component of the wider economy which is obliged to operate, not according to the will of some filthy-mouthed kid on the Internet, but instead according to the democratically legislated law of the land. And the law says you are not allowed to refuse service to customers just because you don't like their religion, unless the business or organisation is of such a nature that religion is an integral part of the customer base, such as with a religious building.
Your final paragraph reveals that you will not brook any interpretation of Islam that does not contort itself to fit around your own rigidly held values. This is exactly the kind of thing that drives Muslims into the arms of Islamic extremists, and is the reason why the rigidly assimiliationist France gets more ethnic strife and terror attacks than the integrationist multiculti UK.
Again, you are stoking division: there is no reason why Muslims cannot observe the particulars of their faith while living happily according to the tenets of Western civilisation. It's only the radical literalists who form the base of Islamic terrorist networks who are incompatible with Western society, and that's not because they're Muslims, it's because they think we should be slaughtered for our blasphemous ways. Anyone who believes in and implements such an ideology would be at odds with Western freedoms.
Put your hatred to bed, stop helping ISIS destabilise the Western world.
The business is a component of the wider economy which is obliged to operate, not according to the will of some filthy-mouthed kid on the Internet, but instead according to the democratically legislated law of the land. And the law says you are not allowed to refuse service to customers just because you don't like their religion, unless the business or organisation is of such a nature that religion is an integral part of the customer base, such as with a religious building.
Your final paragraph reveals that you will not brook any interpretation of Islam that does not contort itself to fit around your own rigidly held values. This is exactly the kind of thing that drives Muslims into the arms of Islamic extremists, and is the reason why the rigidly assimiliationist France gets more ethnic strife and terror attacks than the integrationist multiculti UK.
Again, you are stoking division: there is no reason why Muslims cannot observe the particulars of their faith while living happily according to the tenets of Western civilisation. It's only the radical literalists who form the base of Islamic terrorist networks who are incompatible with Western society, and that's not because they're Muslims, it's because they think we should be slaughtered for our blasphemous ways. Anyone who believes in and implements such an ideology would be at odds with Western freedoms.
Put your hatred to bed, stop helping ISIS destabilise the Western world.
What complete nonsense. Do you actually believe this drivel or did you just write it because it makes you look right? And you ought to come up with some better insults and not regurgitate material I used. That's so child-like. "Idiot" "No, you're the idiot". Not to mention ironic, because I never insulted you, but you insulted me.
My final paragraph would be strongly echoed if you bothered to look into the posting history of the TSR's very own ISOC. The religion is inherently intolerant and we are fools to accept it just because the majority of people following it in our countries appear to ignore it.
Your final paragraph shows you are nothing more than an Islamopologist that will forever be blind to the truth because he thinks of himself as a fighter for social justice. You wonder why parties like AfD are rising? A large part is because people like you represent the regressive, PC brigade that are mainstream parties. And they are sick of them.
Original post by Spatial_Void
"Our rules, follow them or piss off."
Sorry try again, article 225-2:
"Discrimination defined by article 225-1, committed against a natural or legal person, is punished by three years'
imprisonment and a fine of €45,000 where it consists:
1° of the refusal to supply goods or services;
2° of obstructing the normal exercise of any given economic activity;
3° of the refusal to hire, to sanction or to dismiss a person;
4° of subjecting the supply of goods or services to a condition based on one of the factors referred to under article
225-1;
5° of subjecting an offer of employment, an application for a course or a training period to a condition based on one
of the factors referred to under article 225-1;
6 ° of refusing to accept a person onto one of the courses referred to under 2 ° of article L.412-8 of the Social
Security Code.
Where the discriminatory refusal referred to under 1 ° is committed in a public place or in order to bar the access to
this place, the penalties are increased to five years' imprisonment and to a fine of €75,000."
Sorry try again, article 225-2:
"Discrimination defined by article 225-1, committed against a natural or legal person, is punished by three years'
imprisonment and a fine of €45,000 where it consists:
1° of the refusal to supply goods or services;
2° of obstructing the normal exercise of any given economic activity;
3° of the refusal to hire, to sanction or to dismiss a person;
4° of subjecting the supply of goods or services to a condition based on one of the factors referred to under article
225-1;
5° of subjecting an offer of employment, an application for a course or a training period to a condition based on one
of the factors referred to under article 225-1;
6 ° of refusing to accept a person onto one of the courses referred to under 2 ° of article L.412-8 of the Social
Security Code.
Where the discriminatory refusal referred to under 1 ° is committed in a public place or in order to bar the access to
this place, the penalties are increased to five years' imprisonment and to a fine of €75,000."
So how come clubs get to employ bouncers and get to choose who can enter based on gender and looks?
Original post by inhuman
Rational means based on logic.
Looking at Muslims makes me feel upset. I don't want to feel upset. I will not serve Muslims.
You are pointing to the fact that the first sentence is irrational. But that is irrelevant. He cannot change how he feels. And based on his feelings, the rational choice is to not serve Muslims. Note that I was lazy so just wrote Muslims, when in reality I should write women in hijabs because they represent the oppressive nature of the Islamic ideology.
Looking at Muslims makes me feel upset. I don't want to feel upset. I will not serve Muslims.
You are pointing to the fact that the first sentence is irrational. But that is irrelevant. He cannot change how he feels. And based on his feelings, the rational choice is to not serve Muslims. Note that I was lazy so just wrote Muslims, when in reality I should write women in hijabs because they represent the oppressive nature of the Islamic ideology.
Then you need to examine why you feel upset when you look at Muslims, since there is no particular reason why this should be the case. You cannot meaningfully say that his actions were rational based on his feelings. The failure of rationality occurred when he allowed his feelings to be the basis for his "policy decision". This is indefensible; and so it is with law-making in wider society.
You have sharpened your argument considerably with the reference to hijabi women rather than Muslims, and I would counsel you to be as precise with your language in future posts. (By the way, this is where the "PC language police" thing comes from, it really helps the argument if you can refer more specifically to the thing you're talking about, and prevents others with other concerns, such as blood and soil Muslim haters, allying with you unduly).
But even here, the argument is fatally hampered by the fact that that reaction to seeing the hijab is mainly your own interpretation of what it symbolises. To someone else, the hijab might symbolise the happy tolerance of religious expression that we enjoy in the Western world.
It is high time you gained enough self-awareness to dissociate yourself and your political beliefs from your own feelings. If we collectively allow our instincts to overcome our cooler heads then we can say goodbye to Western civilisation, without a single ISIS operative having to set foot on our soil.
Original post by Zeus007
I'm sure they made these kind of excuses to the fascism back in the Hitler days of the Nazi's discriminating against Jewish people. If you want to be a discriminating bigot i want you to know that this is 2016 and people will not accept it.
You want Muslims to integrate into western societies yet you berate all of them and compare them to rapists and murderers. The only thing you're doing is cycling hate, this is how them ISIS extremists brainwash people to join terrorist groups. "Look how they hate us and you side with them, join us".
Stop with the division and hate. You're NOT helping anyone.
You want Muslims to integrate into western societies yet you berate all of them and compare them to rapists and murderers. The only thing you're doing is cycling hate, this is how them ISIS extremists brainwash people to join terrorist groups. "Look how they hate us and you side with them, join us".
Stop with the division and hate. You're NOT helping anyone.
I am annoyed by those comparing the treatment of Jews by the Nazis with that of Muslims today.
In the 19th century, Jews tried to conceal their identity and integrate as much as possible. They changed their names, left the ghettos to mix with other people, also marrying them, wore plain clothes, many also left their religion for Christianity or atheism, etc. This visual "disparition" of the Jews combined with their amazing economic and intellectual success led to conspiracy theories about the "Jewish plot". The Nazis wanted to reverse all the progress they had done by making them visible again: they send them back in the ghettos, forbade mixed marriage, forced them to wear a yellow David star, labelled their businesses as "Jewish", etc.
Nowadays, many Muslims chose to differentiate themselves from the rest of society by wearing specific clothes in all occasions, loudly claim a specific diet, live in specific neighbourhoods, reject mixed marriages, brand all their businesses as "halal", ostracise converts, etc.
The rest of society would like them to adopt the same attitude as the Jews in the 19th century, but they unfortunately choose to segregate themselves!
This attitude is the real vector of division, don't put the blame on people that don't accept that.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by champ_mc99
Of course! No religion in France. They can kick out every religious person they want.
Maybe they should to truly exemplify their secular values.
Maybe they should to truly exemplify their secular values.
Let's me honest, it has got little to do with secularism.
Original post by inhuman
So how come clubs get to employ bouncers and get to choose who can enter based on gender and looks?
That is unlawful too, or should be. The problem is the nature of the business. It's hard to prove discrimination. There are all manner of excuses that can be used, such as "you looked drunk" or "the club was full" which cannot be disproven. Nightclubs are constantly closing down and staff are constantly on rotation. Finally you have the fact that discrimination on gender is against men, not women, so it is not politically recognised.
Happily for you, you are still allowed to discriminate on ugliness, because it's not a protected characteristic, which is why Hollister can insist on having chiselled models on the shop floor. This kind of thing is a disgusting affront to the notion of equality, a stain on the face of Western civilisation, and a strong reminder of why the discrimination laws we do have are so desperately needed.
Original post by squish562
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37209605
The owner says that he won't serve Muslims because they are committing terror attacks in France.
Tbh he's ruined his own business- I doubt a lot of customers are going to go to it now that the owner is famous for being an Islamophobe...
The owner says that he won't serve Muslims because they are committing terror attacks in France.
Tbh he's ruined his own business- I doubt a lot of customers are going to go to it now that the owner is famous for being an Islamophobe...
Original post by Akamega
I'm gay and an ex-muslim, so whilst I'd like to agree with you, I'd urge you to not be intellectually dishonest. There is no current scientific consensus on whether sexual orientation is genetic or not. We are not even close to making that assertion. The genetic argument has been adopted as a means of silencing religious bigots who would otherwise argue it's a choice; despite that, we don't need to encourage dishonesty to argue that homosexuality is completely fine. Discriminating against people on the basis that you disagree with their ideology is presumptuous and bigoted.
The scientific consensus about homosexuality is the same as with global warming. There are minor disagreements between scientists, but a general overall agreement (that homosexuality is certainly not a choice and that global warming is caused by humans). Only a group of scientific outcasts go against the popular academic opinion.
People on both opinions about homosexuality and global warming would agree with that.
Original post by inhuman
What complete nonsense. Do you actually believe this drivel or did you just write it because it makes you look right? And you ought to come up with some better insults and not regurgitate material I used. That's so child-like. "Idiot" "No, you're the idiot". Not to mention ironic, because I never insulted you, but you insulted me.
Of course I didn't write it because it makes me "look right" (I suppose this means it looks well argued?) But maybe if it makes me "look right" I might well be right, and you might be wrong. It is up to you to mount a coherent counter-argument rather than impotently carping about how I insulted you. Get on with the job in hand and argue back. And make it a reasoned argument, try not to go bringing your precious feeeeeelings into it this time.
My final paragraph would be strongly echoed if you bothered to look into the posting history of the TSR's very own ISOC. The religion is inherently intolerant and we are fools to accept it just because the majority of people following it in our countries appear to ignore it.
If you are basing your opinion of Islam on a few people talking on an online forum then heaven knows what we're going to do with you. By the way, online discourses on all sides of politics are always more radical than in real life because if you're enough of a loser to spend that much time online you have not properly engaged with mainstream society, and because the medium lends itself to saying the most outrageous things.
Your final paragraph shows you are nothing more than an Islamopologist that will forever be blind to the truth because he thinks of himself as a fighter for social justice. You wonder why parties like AfD are rising? A large part is because people like you represent the regressive, PC brigade that are mainstream parties. And they are sick of them.
No, I don't think of myself as a fighter for social justice, especially not if by that you mean a Social Justice Warrior type. I abhor them. I argue for the rule of law and for tolerance, more individualist Liberal than identity politics Labour. UKIP, AfD etc are, by the way, just as invested in identity politics as Labour-type parties, it's just that they have chosen the hitherto ignored white working class identity to champion. They are both as contemptible, and regressive, as each other and both responsible for fomenting ethnic, religious divisions.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by scrotgrot
That is unlawful too, or should be. The problem is the nature of the business. It's hard to prove discrimination. There are all manner of excuses that can be used, such as "you looked drunk" or "the club was full" which cannot be disproven. Nightclubs are constantly closing down and staff are constantly on rotation. Finally you have the fact that discrimination on gender is against men, not women, so it is not politically recognised.
Happily for you, you are still allowed to discriminate on ugliness, because it's not a protected characteristic, which is why Hollister can insist on having chiselled models on the shop floor. This kind of thing is a disgusting affront to the notion of equality, a stain on the face of Western civilisation, and a strong reminder of why the discrimination laws we do have are so desperately needed.
Happily for you, you are still allowed to discriminate on ugliness, because it's not a protected characteristic, which is why Hollister can insist on having chiselled models on the shop floor. This kind of thing is a disgusting affront to the notion of equality, a stain on the face of Western civilisation, and a strong reminder of why the discrimination laws we do have are so desperately needed.
And the cafe/restaurant owner just needs one guest saying the hijabs made them feel uncomfortable.
Which brings me to my next point. I do agree that it is completely ridiculous to have a ban on all Muslims (not least because it's infeasible). But someone wearing a symbol their ideology, one should not be forced to accommodate them if you find that ideology hateful.
On a different note, in Britain you call it Season's Greetings, you had Xmas decoration taken from some hospitals because it offended Muslims. Why is the entire society so PC regarding them and yet they don't have to PC towards us?
Original post by The Epicurean
Let's me honest, it has got little to do with secularism.
True. But it's been the typical response nowadays.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Out of all the universities that have been listed, which are more Muslim friendly?
- travel to Paris recommendations
- Any sisters going to RHUL
- GCSE English Lit Romeo and Juliet
- Can someone please mark my GCSE AQA Religious studies 12 marker :)
- english lit
- Black girl and Pakistani guy
- who is donald trump
- I hate being religious and it's making me depressed
- Advice
- De-banked for expressing alternative social views
- Top 5 Places to Eat in Coventry
- Top 5 Places to Eat in Coventry
- Wedding at restaurant!
- Am I being a brat or is this abusive?
- Muslims please
- Do black guys like arab looking girls?
- How would most Muslims react if a Muslim girl got married to a non-Muslim?
- Who am I supposed to date/marry?
- Muslim Man and causal sex?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
