Turn on thread page Beta

If Islam is a religion that opposes murder, then what's with all the killings? watch

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by i<3milkshake)
    You raise a good point in terms of condemnation of views. I personally find is strange how it is always the West leading the fight against Islamic extremism. Why don't other Muslim nations make more of an effort? Some are busy trying to defend themselves and don't have the resources-the oil rich states do. Also, why don't people stop selling arms to these people and buying their oil? The West has a terrible record in doing the above as well mind-both selling arms and dealing with immoral regimes..
    the answer to your above question is that 'many muslim countries are funding IS, thats pretty obvious- the sunni muslim gulf states have an interest in IS knocking over shia led iraqi and syrian governments. they dont really care what happens to millions of killed or displaced muslims, this is a an islamic war of doctrine ( ie 'our islamic doctrine is better than your pseudo islamic doctrine and if you dont agree we will kill you'). Do they want to attack the islamic ideology they are pushing ? of course not. to them the doctrine is more important that all the lives of muslims on this planet.

    All islamic terrorist groups have sectarian ties either to suni isalm or shia. the crux of the problem is not countries or muslims or even governmets - its with islam itself. it is inherently a violent and imperialistic ideology . you ony need to see from where it arose and its history to recognise that. is it a surprise that millions of muslism are involved in civilwar terrorism or mass displacements? No, because they have grown up in islamic mentality, its no mystery at all

    (Original post by i<3milkshake)
    My Tunisia point was that many Muslims and ISIS are completely different.
    IS are simply a groups trying to implement the ideology. but there are millions more muslims that agree with the ideology, if not act upon it.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TM23)
    Isis are not counted as muslims because they break the rule that no man has a right to take the life of another because Allah gave us life so only Allah can take itPosted from TSR Mobile
    this has been debunked many times before bit one more time - mohammed and the caliphates all had killed numerous people - it didnt stop them being muslims, infact they are the most islamic people that ever lived :rolleyes:

    you again are just making apologies for incitement to murder via indcotrination
    (Original post by TM23)

    What they do is wrong and I'd say 95% of muslims would agree with me
    The 5%who disagree with me are those who may have been brainwashed by isis propaganda

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    its called islamic propaganda
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    If you're confused that islam says one thing but does another, it can easily be explained by taqiyya. It's in the qoran and used to deceive non muslims (kufirs) into believing islam is the 'religion of peace' so they can carry on doing what they're doing (growing exponentially and shrinking kufirs territory and seeing/helping our numbers decline) without interference. It is less convincing these days than it has ever been because people are researching the religion more and more. The reason it's used is because there are a lot of people out there who believe everything they hear and will excuse anything on their behalf and shout down those who think critically. For instance, Ed Miliband. If he had been made prime minister back in May this year, he had promised us that anyone mentioning islam by way of critical discussion would be accused and jailed for islamophobia. The end of free speech. People like him make excuse after excuse for the terrible behaviour of groups like isis and even turn the blame onto innocent people. For example, it's all our fault because of the crusades/our empires, what do we expect. Obviously the crusades were nothing like what they're suggesting and they're probably of such low information they've never heard of the Ottoman Empire. Regarding our empire, we took civilisation to many countries and did a lot of good.

    That is why it gets confusing, and that's because of taqiyya. It is expected of them. Don't forget these people have very little to do with the outside world, especially as children. They only learn from the qoran and the violence and hatred towards kufirs is very real to them. What with so many radicals around - and the number is growing by the day - even worldwide - they're on a mission and they're not going to stop any time soon.

    Our lives are going to change over the next few years and it's not going to be easy. Isis promised us last year that they were going to send thousands of their soldiers to Europe. When you look at the news reports and pictures, you can see there are a lot more working aged men than there are women and children. These men could easily stop and fight for their country but refuse to. Today they're rioting outside the Hungary border, shouting allahu akbar and throwing rocks and missiles at the police/military for not opening the gates. Hungary has declared themselves to be in a state of emergency. Some would excuse this behaviour by saying they're hungry, they're tired, they're desperate - other's might look closer and say they're safe from war, they're being fed - but many of them are literally throwing food and bottles of water etc back at the people who are giving it out. Germany has now said that 95% of the 'Syrian refugees' they've taken in are on fake Syrian passports. They're clearly migrants of another kind and only time will tell but maybe isis are laughing at the West right now.

    I've just seen this video which underpins my post above. I would urge anyone who thinks the migrants are simply oppressed and fleeing for their lives to view this. This is where videos beat still photos any time because you can see the full story and not just what msm want us to see. https://www.facebook.com/paul.j.wats...3658823671171/
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SadLemon)
    Sorry the problem is I can't Get. Over. It.because that is how peaceful it is :yep:
    Islam is a violent religion I'm afraid..
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TM23)
    Isis are not counted as muslims because they break the rule that no man has a right to take the life of another because Allah gave us life so only Allah can take it
    That's not true the quran proscribes murder for various offenses. It even mentions crucifixion as a punishment and ISIS are crucifying people so simply following the quran

    (Original post by TM23)
    Isis claim to be muslims but they are just stupod people with no brains and take every islamic rule to the extreme
    you contradict yourself here how can they be taking Islamic rules to the extreme if they are not muslim?

    (Original post by TM23)
    What they do is wrong and I'd say 95% of muslims would agree with me
    The 5%who disagree with me are those who may have been brainwashed by isis propaganda
    Odd it's 1 in 5 support for ISIS in Syria alone
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ascend)
    Do you consider the stoning of adulterers an extremist belief? And is someone who doesn't respect that belief just as immoral as the person holding it?
    It's not as black and white as that. And no, I wouldn't necessarily ALWAYS consider that extreme. Going above and beyond to enforce that in the UK, for example, would be extreme. A manipulative poll simply does not tell the story for a myriad of reasons. Stoning adulterers would prevent me from cheating if I otherwise did. I don't support it because I, like others, have gotten used to a society that accepts adulterers. Such things depends on the times and the way someone has been brought up to think. I hope you are open-minded enough to realise that they were severe punishments in England for adulterers in previous generations. Britain is a very old country with no obstacles to development. With such development, we are bound to be more liberal. That's the way things have been since all of civilisation that we know.

    These days, a very high percentage of people in the UK cheat. We still think this is a morally bad thing to do, however we no longer feel so strongly about it, even though doing so in a relationship/marriage ruins lives and families.. If very few people cheated and it was still considered as bad as it used to be, then we would also probably support the stoning of people.

    Now, if Muslims would support the stoning of adulterers, it stems from the belief that no one should cheat. Muslims who support it are not looking to hurt people for the sake of it, but because they still believe cheating is a terrible act that deserves punishment. If we stoned adulterers, no one would cheat. Is that necessarily a bad thing? We used to have terrible punishments only 1-2 generations ago. 20 years ago, it was illegal. Where does the threshold end? Many people want to bring back the death penalty for certain cases of murder. Why does someone who kills a dog only get away with a tap on the shoulder and a fine?

    The question is also not whether you respect their views. You don't need to. Just realise why it is the case and the impact your education has on you. I believe all forms of bigotry is shameful. Most don't realise why they believe the way they do.

    But those who would support stoning are generally first or second generation immigrants. With proper integration, which is currently not always optimal due to conservative elements on both sides and the refusal to enforce social cohesion to all immigrants who in my opinion, just as Islam says, fully respect and adhere to the law and general values of the land you are living in. Those that don't do this are extremists and by all means should be opposed. Islam is generalised entirely and people claim up to 70% of the population is extreme. That is absurd considering there is 2 billion Muslims in the world. If even 2% were extreme, I don't think any of us would be alive. As it happens, and thankfully, there have only been very few extremist attacks in the UK since this media hoo-ha on Islam began. In turn, this has led to widespread alienation and a lack of identity. Human extremism is almost always political... if you don't feel part of something, you tend to go against it.

    So why not grow up and stop the hatred? People sacrifice those that are innocent and put them under the same bracket as extremists and this act itself is so devoid 'British values'.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    I think there's a distinction to be made here. You may demand that people tolerate Muslims but Islam, like most religions, is very difficult to respect. This is what people need to realise: tolerance and respect are quite different things and to grant one is not necessarily to grant the other.

    If you were being fair, you would have to mention the concerted effort, from within the so-called moderate Muslim community, to stigmatise criticism of Islam by inventing a meaningless word like 'Islamophobia' - which is simultaneously an insult and a non-insult. An insult because it refers to dislike of Islam as a phobia, which is an irrational fear/dislike, whereas most people who criticise Islam have perfectly rational reasons for doing so. And a non-insult because it literally means a 'dislike of Islam', which is hardly an objectionable offence (although, of course, most of the public misunderstands it as the the dislike of Muslims as a group) - nobody would be shocked if you said that you don't like Communism or Nazism or libertarianism.

    Most Muslims, in my experience, take exceptional offence if you say that Islam has some pretty violent ideas in its scripture and try to make you out to be a bigot who doesn't understand the religion (because apparently you need to be born to Muslim parents to understand the religion) if you do that. I hope you can see why that might not be acceptable to people. That's the sort of manipulation and deliberate self-victimising that I and those who agree with me won't put up with.
    You have gone on the dictionary meaning of Islamophobia, which is somewhat irrelevant. In reality, Battling Islamophobia concerns the feeling of fear Muslims have felt due to conceptions on people who look like they might be Muslim and the way people treat them, despite these Muslims largely cooperating and living by the law of the land. All this has led to is alienation, which leads to extremism. Terrorism is almost always political after all (7/7 terrorirsts were all from a deprived, closed-off community and Lee Rigby's murderers were severely alienated to the point that they felt they had nothing to lose - these are the more important issues). There has been a consistent rise in attacks on Muslims and denying this, and not wanting to do something about it is abhorrent. Just because you think what they believe in is stupid, doesn't mean you should not stand in the way of unfair, unlawful persecution. Instead, too many people choose to harm people's conscious just because they disagree with what they have been told from an early age,so it becomes an ego related battle as opposed to anything of importance. Most don't have the free-spritedness to make their own minds up, but this is a separate problem.

    I also think it is a little bit cynical to suggest 'so-called moderate Muslims', firstly by virtue of the wording (if they weren't true Muslims then barely anyone who claims to be Christian can be a Christian), but also by the thought that Islamophobia was a concept brought up in order for Muslims to be protected from their beliefs.

    Why should we create a tense environment for those who are Muslim in-name and identity? We should only bend liberal principles if breaking point is reached. Currently, we are nowhere near that despite the agenda certain people are trying to push... especially in the internet as these people always tend to be people who achieve little (a lack of satisfaction and belonging breeds hatred of 'aliens', from small-scale unrest we have right to the daddy of them all in Nazi Germany).

    I do agree with some of what you say though and I get the gist. Taking offence to someone attacking your identity is natural. This leads to another issue I have. Islam is focussed on, but why do Christians and Jews get away with similar things in their faith? People should be taken on face value. In reality, people only follow what they have been told to follow by their parents/local community and old scriptures have very little relevance. Why do you take such offence at people trying to defend what they hold dear to them, if they are not doing anything to harm you? Why not just let them be for the meantime? Time has shown that religion is on the decline in Western democracies, so why not let time run it's course instead? At some point, these communities will be broke up and integrated. This should have been our focus in the first place.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    how can you be so unintelligent to think that. Do you even know what ISIS stands for? and it is the smallest minority of Muslims, this is the misconception of society in this day and age
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ZolaCFC25)
    It's not as black and white as that. And no, I wouldn't necessarily ALWAYS consider that extreme.
    Ladies and gentlemen I give you an example of an extremist
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    Ladies and gentlemen I give you an example of an extremist
    Lol. Internet warrior. By your logic, I could deduce that you think adultery is something which should be lauded and rewarded. And that Jeremy Corbin is an extremist.

    I don't follow a religion, but go ahead. Live your life of distorted hatred.

    :congrats::ciao:
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by ZolaCFC25)
    You have gone on the dictionary meaning of Islamophobia, which is somewhat irrelevant. In reality, Battling Islamophobia concerns the feeling of fear Muslims have felt due to conceptions on people who look like they might be Muslim and the way people treat them, despite these Muslims largely cooperating and living by the law of the land.
    The dictionary definition, as you put it, is the only one that matters. The word, as it stands, seeks to stigmatise criticism of Islam, whether you like it or not. This confusion of meaning may not matter to you but it has widespread ramifications: for instance, Ed Miliband promised, before the election, to make Islamophobia a crime on par with inciting hatred - which is funny, given that the people who actually incite hatred often get put up in cushy council houses and have their legal fees (to avoid deportation) paid for by the government.

    I'll say it again: don't try to change the meaning of the word to suit your agenda. I won't put up with free speech being trampled on in this country to save the hurt feelings of any group, be it Christian, Muslim, Jewish, communist, capitalist or anything else.

    You rightly condemn attacks on innocent Muslims but the mistake you make is that you go too far in your solution to these problems. We must not perpetuate the idea that it's somehow bad to dislike Islam. That is going too far and I will resist it if anyone tries to enshrine this nonsense in law or make people feel guilty for criticising someone's god or drawing a picture of someone's prophet.

    All this has led to is alienation, which leads to extremism. Terrorism is almost always political after all (7/7 terrorirsts were all from a deprived, closed-off community and Lee Rigby's murderers were severely alienated to the point that they felt they had nothing to lose - these are the more important issues).
    If special treatment is what it takes to avoid alienating Muslims, sorry, but the answer's no. Religion and politics aren't mutually exclusive, you know. So when terrorists talk about getting non-Muslims out of 'Muslim lands' that is both political and religious. It's more to do with tribalism and intolerance on their part. You are treading on thin ice though - if you turn out to be one of those people who start arguing that terrorism is the fault of or is a justified consequence of US foreign policy, I won't bother responding.

    There has been a consistent rise in attacks on Muslims and denying this, and not wanting to do something about it is abhorrent.
    You've worded that in a way that makes it sound agreeable if I just skim it but less so if I think about it. The goal should be to stop vigilante attacks. Not wanting to 'do something about it' implies all sorts of things, including criminalising Islamophobia (the dictionary definition of it, which is what will be used in legislation, not this special one you've got) and is most certainly not abhorrent.

    Just because you think what they believe in is stupid, doesn't mean you should not stand in the way of unfair, unlawful persecution.
    Didn't say I wouldn't. Although I suspect we differ on what exactly constitutes persecution (having your religion criticised is not persecution, in my view).

    Instead, too many people choose to harm people's conscious just because they disagree with what they have been told from an early age,so it becomes an ego related battle as opposed to anything of importance. Most don't have the free-spritedness to make their own minds up, but this is a separate problem.
    Freedom of speech must include the licence to offend (especially when offence can be taken without being intended, as is the case at the present time). Nobody has the right not to be offended. It may not always be nice but that's the way a free society operates. Muslims, and anybody else who disagrees with this, are free to go somewhere with fewer freedoms if they don't like it. I say that this is abhorrent - wanting to punish people if they say or draw the wrong thing.

    I also think it is a little bit cynical to suggest 'so-called moderate Muslims', firstly by virtue of the wording (if they weren't true Muslims then barely anyone who claims to be Christian can be a Christian),
    I called them so-called moderate Muslims because they claim to be moderate and yet, when polled, a surprising proportion of them have views that are anything but moderate. Have you had a look at what percentage of British Muslims thought that the Charlie Hebdo attacks were justified? Sure, it's not a majority, but it's over a quarter and that should tell you something about so-called moderate Muslims. They're only moderates because they call themselves that - the same sort of people who insisted, for years after 9/11, that the word Islam means 'peace' despite knowing that it actually means 'submission.' So I'd take the words of so-called moderates with a pinch of salt.

    What you need to understand about what makes a 'true Muslim' is this: there isn't such a thing. This is why my critique focuses on Islam and not Muslims in particular. The problem with Muslims (and Christians and Jews and most others that follow violent religions) is that they both insist that they follow the Koran and the teachings of Muhammad while at the same time refusing to believe what it actually says in the Koran and the teachings of Muhammad, usually coming out with all manner of abuse against the person pointing it out - yes, 'Islamophobe' included - and doing so quite successfully. This has to be fought and fought hard. They can't stand being criticised so they pull the 'I'm a Muslim so I know better' card, and that's just not on.

    but also by the thought that Islamophobia was a concept brought up in order for Muslims to be protected from their beliefs.
    And you're denying that this is the case? I really don't know how you could: it's a recent term created solely to stigmatise dislike of Islam despite there being nothing wrong with disliking Islam.

    Why should we create a tense environment for those who are Muslim in-name and identity?
    Why indeed? I haven't said that we should. I've merely said we shouldn't put up with religious and clerical bullying that seeks to deprive us of our freedom of speech. I also don't know what you mean by a 'tense environment.' If you mean maintaining a free society, then yes, we should keep it regardless of whether Muslims like it or not. If they don't like it, there are plenty of countries where blasphemy and hurting people's feelings are punishable by death for them to emigrate to. Don't expect me to give up my freedoms for other people's feelings.

    We should only bend liberal principles if breaking point is reached. Currently, we are nowhere near that despite the agenda certain people are trying to push... especially in the internet as these people always tend to be people who achieve little (a lack of satisfaction and belonging breeds hatred of 'aliens', from small-scale unrest we have right to the daddy of them all in Nazi Germany).
    What planet do you live on? There is a rogue state straddling Syria and Iraq to which hundreds if not thousands of Brits have emigrated. Some of these now want to come back and, under your sort of policy, we would be letting them come back in the name of compassion. Liberal principles should be maintained but, ironically, it is you who is arguing in favour of using words like 'Islamophobia' as if it's a bad thing and appeasing the feelings of a single group at the expense of freedom. The 'breaking point' has long since passed, although that's no reason to suspend liberal principles.

    I see what you mean by the agenda though (finally, some agreement). The extreme right of politics in this country is being very hysterical about this. But again, that's no reason to concede to your view, which is the opposite extreme.

    I do agree with some of what you say though and I get the gist. Taking offence to someone attacking your identity is natural. This leads to another issue I have. Islam is focussed on, but why do Christians and Jews get away with similar things in their faith?
    Christians and Jews get their fair share too. The important difference is that they whine and moan and complain peacefully. Take the equal marriage legislation for an example - they threw their toys out of the pram, they stamped their feet, they cried out as if they were the victims of some great injustice, but they did so without so much as a single bomb going off or a single embassy being ransacked. That is the difference. To say that the followers of all religions are equally violent is to make a very stupid mistake. Also, if they take offence, well, tough. That is the price of living in a free society. Nobody gets the right to shut people up because they're offended by things. (I personally hate the word 'offended' with a passion now.)

    Why do you take such offence at people trying to defend what they hold dear to them, if they are not doing anything to harm you? Why not just let them be for the meantime?
    If 'trying to defend' includes trying to stifle my speech through legislation and nonsense words like 'Islamophobia', I have every right to be offended. If they don't like what they hear, they don't have to listen to it. It's as simple as that. Their feelings are not more important than our freedoms.

    Time has shown that religion is on the decline in Western democracies, so why not let time run it's course instead? At some point, these communities will be broke up and integrated. This should have been our focus in the first place.
    Like I've said a dozen times in this post: I'm not going to trade my freedoms for some half-certain promise that they'll let up with their demands for restrictions on people's speech at some point in the future.

    As for whether it will decline, I doubt it but I certainly hope so.

    Sorry for the length of this post.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ZolaCFC25)
    If we stoned adulterers, no one would cheat. Is that necessarily a bad thing? We used to have terrible punishments only 1-2 generations ago. 20 years ago, it was illegal.
    Adultery hasn't been criminalised in England since the ecclesiastical courts lost their power in the 17th century - the beginning of secularism.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Adultery hasn't been criminalised in England since the ecclesiastical courts lost their power in the 17th century - the beginning of secularism.
    Cut my sentence short and didn't bother to check my posts (I never do). Meant to say that it wasn't illegal for a husband to rape his wife, as an example.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ZolaCFC25)
    Cut my sentence short and didn't bother to check my posts (I never do). Meant to say that it wasn't illegal for a husband to rape his wife, as an example.
    Marital rape is quite all right in most Moslem countries, and one hears of women being either convicted of adultery or lynched by stoning if they are the victims of rape outside marriage in the more backward (meaning, still in the 8th century) areas.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ZolaCFC25)
    Cut my sentence short and didn't bother to check my posts (I never do). Meant to say that it wasn't illegal for a husband to rape his wife, as an example.
    Oh, bananas. Infidelity still exists in countries where the punishment is stoning, as do murderers in countries and states where the punishment is execution. So it's clearly not a deterrent.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Oh, bananas. Infidelity still exists in countries where the punishment is stoning, as do murderers in countries and states where the punishment is execution. So it's clearly not a deterrent.
    If the Sharia is meant to be a implemented wholly, as opposed to partially like it is in some countries, then surely that would mean that it's deterrent effect is limited somewhat.

    Parallels can be drawn with our own justice system. If we just carry out punishments all day without bothering to pay particular attention on the reformation of the convicted, then one would expect our re-offending rate to be what it is (around 65%).

    Does that mean that we need to hand out longer sentences or is it a simple fact that aspects which would enable the convicted to re-offend are simply non-existent?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ZolaCFC25)
    Lol. Internet warrior. By your logic, I could deduce that you think adultery is something which should be lauded and rewarded. And that Jeremy Corbin is an extremist.

    I don't follow a religion, but go ahead. Live your life of distorted hatred.

    :congrats::ciao:
    You are an extremist.

    You believe that it is possible to excuse murder because of what someone gets up to in the bedroom

    You believe there are times when the correct punishment is for people to be STONED TO DEATH

    But yes I'm the one with a 'distorted hatred'
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mattinfenwa)
    What I struggle to understand about the religion is that ISIS claim to be creating an Islamic state across Syria and Turkey and other countries in that region, they are doing so by killing and slaughtering innocent people and anyone that stands up to them. They say they do this in the name of Allah, yet the Quran states that murder is wrong.

    It sounds odd to me because I know about these extremists trying to radicalise all these good and normal Muslims, yet somehow, even with all the praying they do and reading of the Quran they do, some will still become terrorists knowing full well that murder in their religion is wrong.

    Sorry if this didn't make too much sense, I just don't have enough time to write everything I felt like saying on this topic so I had to compact it all.

    I should probably apologise in advance if anything I have said turns out to be wrong and also in case anyone of the Islam religion is offended by this as from reading it back, it sounds a bit blunt to me.
    the thing is that the mdia is manipulating everyone and has all propaganda and makes islam loook bad and by the way this isis thingy is all fake whjo knows islam dosent teach this infact if u kill ac person is like u have killed the whole o humanity nless it be for defense murder and rape also the tjhing is that the leader iof isis who they say is abu bakr al baghdsdi he is really simon elliowho is a jew now im not saying i hate jews but im saying that is he a muslim islam dont teach this so yh
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Errm39)
    If the Sharia is meant to be a implemented wholly, as opposed to partially like it is in some countries, then surely that would mean that it's deterrent effect is limited somewhat.

    Parallels can be drawn with our own justice system. If we just carry out punishments all day without bothering to pay particular attention on the reformation of the convicted, then one would expect our re-offending rate to be what it is (around 65%).

    Does that mean that we need to hand out longer sentences or is it a simple fact that aspects which would enable the convicted to re-offend are simply non-existent?
    This is just a load of waffle. Would you mind getting to the point and clearly stating your argument?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Catholics are Christians... In any case, they were shooting each other down not so long ago in Northern Ireland and, even today, there are some walls and things which separate communities in Northern Ireland.

    And that's just the recent stuff. Wait 'til you get to the good old Middle Ages...
    Are you stupid? Northern Ireland wasn't over religion, it was over nationalism/politics.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.