ooooh it's a tough one...on the one hand I agree with OP and Karma...who the hell do they think they are imposing their religious 'zones' on the general public.  But I'm wondering are they 'keep out' zones, or are they, these are the kind of practices we observe here, so just be warned and in order to keep the peace, don't stir the pot.

On the other hand I kind of think of all the laws and intrusion Christianity has imposed on people and I think...who the hell are we to judge anyone   I like the French idea of State first, religion the dirt on the bottom of someone's shoe

ooh it all went political..!

i got lost and confused

I was commenting on the post GL made, it was quite impressive. I wasnt agreeing or disagreeing with the content. Nor was i siding with GL against GJ .  
Thought i would say 

I felt the same Skylark, very impressive post.

But even if that were the case (and if I am perceiving the post and the law sticker correctly) - what right would they, let alone any faith, have to impose such restrictions? I don't know of any town or county in the UK that is 'owned' by any particular faith and as far as I am aware one is free to roam at will. There are plenty of places of worship in this country for people to go, where they can pray to their heart's content to their God of choice within a sanctuary of like-minded individuals. I will never agree or abide by any religious behavioural warnings or observations whilst on council pavements.

It just got talking about journalists and religions and stuff. No need to worry, dear. The world is still turning and the price of petrol is still a piss take *pats head*

They don't have any right at all.  You're right, they have places of worship and it shouldn't bleed into street types etc.  But christianity has bled into legislation in a lot of countries, where religious beliefs are made actual law, whether you believe in that religion or not.  So I don't think we're anyone to judge.  Presumably you need planning permission over there for any legal sign to be erected, like you do over here, so anyone who doesn't agree with them could complain to the local council and have them removed?

They're not legal signs though, are they? Just stickers put up by some idiot, like the "gay free zone" ones that were stuck up in Tower Hamlets.

For what it's worth, I think that all 3 of the major Abrahamic religions have caused more trouble than they're worth and should be encouraged to die out.

I'm going to impersonate Boris 'the mayor' Johnson and say cotswallop to this. We have a British judicial system and I don't appreciate people whipping up nonsense about us being over-run by the dastardly muslims. This country went on Crusades for centuaries, killing children, women and old people (apart from so-called enemies). We, as any other country, have a policy for immigration, it's been going on since time immemorial. The only reason this is being brought to the forefront is that the whole world has money problems. Pathetic. Get a grip and enjoy that we have a multi cultural society.

No....it would make you Bill Stickers and you'd be prosecuted

And that was one heck of a post GL

I'm loving the new Avatar Kaytee  cool. 

Blimey! 

A slight over-reaction, GL, imo. 

All GJ said was that, basically, he likes Sarah Millican and doesn't like the Daily Mail. 

Oh, and he always says OAP instead of OP. 

basically, he dismissed everything someone else wanted to discuss as a load of bolleaux and basically he got basically bitch slapped 

Basically, there were no Sharia Law zones 'set up' in Britain, as the DM would have you believe, but a few tossers sticking some posters up, which were then taken down by the council, basically.

So, it was, basically, bolleaux! 

that's alright then. it's not like putting up stickers can lead to other more proactive methods of dissent. no point even discussing it and allowing people to be reassured or heard.

Well, we could discuss whether the DM's article was specifically designed to play on people's fear and actually just plays into the hands of tossers like Choudary, or could even provoke a similar incident to the Norwegian massacre?

that's better than what garage said.

 Phew!

I suppose I'm used to his style, but I know GJ would never set out to offend anyone on here.

has it been mentioned yet that 'us' christians invaded other lands  and imposed our standards on the local populace?

so all the ' how dare they!! we don't behave like that' is total bolleaux GL...

I don't think so.  You can't undo the past but you can oppose the same mistakes being made in the present and future.  Islam has also had its historical fair share of invading and imposing standards on the local populace.

I'm not saying the DM's article isn't the typical sensationalist fear-mongering bolleaux, that is the right wing press's stock in trade. I just don't agree with the "what goes around, comes around" argument.  The present generation can't do anything about the legacy of their ancient forebears and their forebear's behaviour should not be an excuse to excuse similar behaviour by others.

..well said..I'm sick to death of hearing..your grt grt grt grt grandad did this to my grt grt grt grt grandad....If we hold onto the past to tightly, there's no room for the future....

Toatally agree with Carnelian and stonks post and have to agree GL post was impressive........

It's not the past though, as the Cloyne Report has revealed here. 

He does. It`s always makes me laugh. 

I agree with the rest of your post Blizzie and Veggie`s over the page.  

Same here. GJ is one of the most respectful and respected fms on here. 

who decides these things? was there a poll or something?

I can't believe we're the only ones who have noticed! 

Oh, and 'bolleaux' was indeed used to get past the swear word censorship (as is bar steward), and 'faux' is widely used in the English language, as are many other French words. 

Whats the Cloyne report got to do with invading?....

I agree too.... GJ often holds strong views about things, but then so do a lot of FM's..... it's what make the forum go round, so to speak....

The discussion was about christians invading lands and imposing standards on the local populace.  You said 'I'm sick to death of hearing..your grt grt grt grt grandad did this to my grt grt grt grt grandad..If we hold onto the past to tightly, there's no room for the future....', and I was responding to that

So all soldiers of the past were christians?..and the Cloyne report is about invading?....

Huh? I read your post in the context of the thread, and the posts which you quoted relating to Christian invasions (I've highlighted Jacksonb's post to help you).  Skip on to your post which says these were all in the past, and my point was that it's not in the past Christianity (well the vatican at least) still thinks they can overrule the laws or guidelines of a government and tell their priests to ignore them.

I hope that makes it clearer for you

I never read jacksons and I think I should know what I'm on about it came from my head and none of it was about christians or catholics or priests or peados....

ah right, as I say I thought you were replying to the thread and read your posts in that context and in the context of the posts you'd quoted.  Hardly the biggest forum faux pas

And I never tried to tell you what you were thinking, just tried to explain where my post was coming from.

Anyhow back to the discussion

Excuse your French!! 

Just kind of obvious over the years MQ. 

Imo, of course.