Caution, Jews crossing road...

[Gob]

My apologies Sue, I was referring to comments here. The outrage expressed isn't that outrageous really.

[thestoat]

I believe that the British public is perfectly entitled to know what is going on in their own country, since Britain is a free state. Considering the Mail is not an intelligent paper (though to be fair it is a LOT better than the Sun of Mirror) it was actually a decent piece of writing. It simply reported what was happening and gave the planners point of view, so I don't know why anyone is complaining. And the comments Sue added are a LOT milder than the feeling I have heard expressed on the Streets of England. I don't see why someone should take offence.

An awful lot of Brits are getting really, really pissed off by the fact that the British state is so open, welcoming and friendly when that is not reciprocated in other nations. This happens not just in the confines of religion but other areas as well. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the case, there is a lot of anger here over it.

Personally I see it as the thin end of the wedge. Why stop there? If one area has it then others will want it too. And what about other religions?

And I know the "planners insist it will not cause traffic chaos." That is presumably because they could argue there is already traffic chaos there - this will only increase the chaos. I find it VERY difficult to believe that adding automated switches that will turn red and thus hold up traffic even when nobody is around to use them won't make things worse for the motorist and the economy as a whole.

One interesting comment made (may well be their - and my - ignorance of Jewish faith) "Didn't realise electricity was available when the 'Jewish' religious laws were invented, or did god include it then knowing that Man would eventually generate electricity."

[dgs49]

The borough where I live routinely provides traffic cops at the entrances of large churches, before and after services.

I dare say, I have occasionally had to STOP, so that cars could come out of their driveways! Outrageous.

As I think about it, though, they don't do that for my church.

Think I have a constitutional complaint?

[liberty]

It sounds like a very minor accommodation for society to make on behalf of a part of the population. I don't see that it deserves much notice.

You're just not getting it. It's a minority group with unfamiliar cultural practices receiving special consideration from the government, so outrage. From what I've seen, it's pretty much the standard story template for the UK tabloid press.

Sue, why didn’t the synagogue hire some Christian to push the button for them. Would it have not been a cheaper solution?

[dales]

Sue, why didn’t the synagogue hire some Christian to push the button for them. Would it have not been a cheaper solution?

A well-trained chimp would've done it for peanuts.

[Sue U]

I believe that the British public is perfectly entitled to know what is going on in their own country, since Britain is a free state.

No one is disputing that.

Considering the Mail is not an intelligent paper (though to be fair it is a LOT better than the Sun of Mirror) it was actually a decent piece of writing. It simply reported what was happening and gave the planners point of view, so I don't know why anyone is complaining.

It was not actually a deceent piece of writing and did not "simply report." It was expressly written to fit the narrative subtext "Look what those people are getting from your government services, bloody foreigners!"

And the comments Sue added are a LOT milder than the feeling I have heard expressed on the Streets of England. I don't see why someone should take offence.

If both those statements are true, both your countrymen's and your own bigotry is more appalling than I had ever imagined.

An awful lot of Brits are getting really, really pissed off by the fact that the British state is so open, welcoming and friendly when that is not reciprocated in other nations. This happens not just in the confines of religion but other areas as well. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the case, there is a lot of anger here over it.

What does this have to do with Jews, who have been in England since the Norman Conquest (or if you start counting after the Expulsion, since 1656)? Are the Jews of England still "foreigners" after 950 (or 350) years?

Personally I see it as the thin end of the wedge. Why stop there? If one area has it then others will want it too. And what about other religions?

WTF are you talking about? And what about other religions? If a local religious community's customs can be accommodated without any additional expense, what is your objection? Not English enough for you? England chose to make religious observance a part of its official governmental functions, and chose to expand the role of religion in public life beyond the Church of England. Are the benefits of state support now limited only to Christian sects?

And I know the "planners insist it will not cause traffic chaos." That is presumably because they could argue there is already traffic chaos there - this will only increase the chaos. I find it VERY difficult to believe that adding automated switches that will turn red and thus hold up traffic even when nobody is around to use them won't make things worse for the motorist and the economy as a whole.

They were evidently putting in a crossing signal anyway, or replacing one already there (the story isn't clear on that point). They asked the locals for input, and they simply asked to make it hands-free. What is the problem? You "find it VERY difficult to believe"? Are you a traffic engineer? Did you review the plans? Do you have any idea what the larger scope of planned improvements are or why they are being made? All you know is some Jews got something they asked for. And that's evidently enough to piss you -- and the Daily Mail readership -- off.

One interesting comment made (may well be their - and my - ignorance of Jewish faith) "Didn't realise electricity was available when the 'Jewish' religious laws were invented, or did god include it then knowing that Man would eventually generate electricity."

It's not "interesting," it's ignorant. God didn't dictate Jewish law. (There is a specific Talmudic passage that beautifully expresses the Jewish concept that the rules by which people live are to be made by people, not God.) As I said earlier, the rule concerning use of electricity arises from the idea that the sabbath is a day on which work is banned; it is not a rule that all or even most Jews follow, but the Orthodox sects do. To them, it serves as a reminder of what the day is about. As far as I can tell, the Jews of North London haven't asked the Church of England to stop ringing bells on Sundays, or asked the municipality to stop funding religious events/displays for Christmas and Easter, regardless of how useless, inconvenient and/or costly it might be to them.

Sue, why didn’t the synagogue hire some Christian to push the button for them. Would it have not been a cheaper solution?

Read the article. The transportation authorities were doing a big road improvement project. As part of it they were either installing or replacing a crossing signal. It was already part of the project. All the synagogue representatives did was ask that it be put on a timer one day a week.

[Sean]

And the comments Sue added are a LOT milder than the feeling I have heard expressed on the Streets of England. I don't see why someone should take offence.

If both those statements are true, both your countrymen's and your own bigotry is more appalling than I had ever imagined.

The thing is Sue that these days many British people are made to feel like second class citizens in their own country. They see their government continually give handouts to refugees, asylum-seekers and other immigrant and minority groups while they struggle to keep their heads above water. This leads to a great sense of frustration and that frustration is sometimes released at whoever happens to be in the firing line at the time (often thanks to the Daily Mail). Unfortunately this time it is the Jewish people. To the British public it is just another example of another minority group being afforded another consideration which would never be offered to them. The anger of course should be directed at the Government but human nature being what it is...

You are quick to describe it as appalling bigotry but trust me when I say that you might see it differently if you lived it.

[rubato]

It sounds like a very minor accommodation for society to make on behalf of a part of the population. I don't see that it deserves much notice.

You're just not getting it. It's a minority group with unfamiliar cultural practices receiving special consideration from the government, so outrage. From what I've seen, it's pretty much the standard story template for the UK tabloid press.

The Amish in the US have received 'special consideration' as to the education of their children. A much more important issue.

I still see no reason to get anyone's underwear in a knot about this.

yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

...
The thing is Sue that these days many British people are made to feel like second class citizens in their own country. They see their government continually give handouts to refugees, asylum-seekers and other immigrant and minority groups while they struggle to keep their heads above water. This leads to a great sense of frustration and that frustration is sometimes released at whoever happens to be in the firing line at the time (often thanks to the Daily Mail). Unfortunately this time it is the Jewish people. To the British public it is just another example of another minority group being afforded another consideration which would never be offered to them. The anger of course should be directed at the Government but human nature being what it is...

You are quick to describe it as appalling bigotry but trust me when I say that you might see it differently if you lived it.

So you are a nation a whingers and cry-babies.

You're boring.

yrs,
rubato

[Sean]

You're funny! Will you adopt me?

Can I call you Daddy Rubato?

[thestoat]

It was not actually a deceent piece of writing

For the Mail it most certainly was a decent piece of writing. As I say - try the Sun and the Mirror. Then you will understand what you are talking about. They put the opposing view forward and did NOT express an opinion, unless you count the very fact that they reported an opinion, but people have the right to know about these things. If they wanted to sway opinion they would not have put planners justification in the narrative.

If both those statements are true, both your countrymen's and your own bigotry is more appalling than I had ever imagined.

Wow - so much bile. Try visiting a country - indeed living there - before saying such rubbish. You might understand the way people feel about local issues then, rather than reading about it from afar. (If you have lived here recently then I can only surmise you didn't get out much). I have seen Americans express much stronger views than those expressed in the piece - does that upset you too?

What does this have to do with Jews, who have been in England since the Norman Conquest (or if you start counting after the Expulsion, since 1656)? Are the Jews of England still "foreigners" after 950 (or 350) years?

England is a Christian state - not a Jewish state. I thought you knew that. And as I said - the feeling is not directed against Jews. It is a general feeling that Britain constantly makes allowances for other religions but gets none back. There have even been instances of Muslims carrying placards saying "death the the British" on the streets of London. It pisses people off and turns people away from all other religions. Human nature.

WTF are you talking about? And what about other religions? If a local religious community's customs can be accommodated without any additional expense, what is your objection?

There IS additional expense. see next statement. And what then about the "society for god", or whatever, who insist that their religion state they must sprint across any road that has a red car on it, or insist they can take their mule to school with them. Gonna allow that too? where does it end?

They were evidently putting in a crossing signal anyway, or replacing one already there (the story isn't clear on that point). They asked the locals for input, and they simply asked to make it hands-free. What is the problem? You "find it VERY difficult to believe"? Are you a traffic engineer? Did you review the plans? Do you have any idea what the larger scope of planned improvements are or why they are being made? All you know is some Jews got something they asked for. And that's evidently enough to piss you -- and the Daily Mail readership -- off.

1. I am using common sense. If a traffic light goes red when nobody wants to cross the road then cars have to stop for no reason. That slows them down for no reason. That costs money for no reason.
2. It didn't piss me off. What does piss me off are bigots who can't stand people with an opposing view to their own.

[rubato]

"...
There IS additional expense. see next statement. And what then about the "society for god", or whatever, who insist that their religion state they must sprint across any road that has a red car on it, or insist they can take their mule to school with them. Gonna allow that too? where does it end?
... "

It ends where 'reasonable accommodation' becomes unreasonable. The expense in this case is trivial, it does not threaten public safety, the scale of the change is tiny.

Refusing to make such trivial adaptations for minority populations is evidence of hostility; racial or religious hatred.

We adapt the rules of the road to permit Amish to travel in horse-drawn buggies at greater annoyance to the general public.

There is a reason that your Muslims are more violent than ours. The Africans I know who have lived in the UK, Europe and the US all say that you are a more deeply bigoted society and they would never be accepted there as they are here and as they are in Canada.

yrs,
rubato

[thestoat]

All this from someone who believes that if you don't write in English, your work is "shit". Clearly an expert.

[Sean]

There is a reason that your Muslims are more violent than ours. The Africans I know who have lived in the UK, Europe and the US all say that you are a more deeply bigoted society and they would never be accepted there as they are here and as they are in Canada.

yrs,
rubato

You're a twat Daddy Rubato.

[rubato]

All this from someone who believes that if you don't write in English, your work is "shit". Clearly an expert.

From someone who pointed out that scientific papers not published in English will generally be ignored.

And he proved it.

You lied about what I said. But since that is your natural level of argument I will not ask you to change it.

yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

There is a reason that your Muslims are more violent than ours. The Africans I know who have lived in the UK, Europe and the US all say that you are a more deeply bigoted society and they would never be accepted there as they are here and as they are in Canada.

yrs,
rubato

You're a twat Daddy Rubato.

Those are the facts.

We attract more of the best and brightest from the rest of the world because we will accept them as "us". bigotry hurts the bigoted.

yrs,
rubato

[thestoat]

From someone who pointed out that scientific papers not published in English will generally be ignored.

In the sciences, if you don't publish in English your work is shit.

Spot the difference? No lies - YOU said non English work is shit.

I then said

This is the statement of yours that I pointed out is stupid, closed and small minded. Your subsequent comments avoid this rather like lo's. Work is most definitely NOT shit just because it is not published in English. It might not reach the widest audience, but that does NOT make it shit. Can you see the difference?

And you still avoid it. When you make a stupid, narrow minded and - dare I say bigoted - statement, why not just admit it rather than hide with your paws in your ears?

[Sue U]

The thing is Sue that these days many British people are made to feel like second class citizens in their own country. They see their government continually give handouts to refugees, asylum-seekers and other immigrant and minority groups while they struggle to keep their heads above water. This leads to a great sense of frustration and that frustration is sometimes released at whoever happens to be in the firing line at the time (often thanks to the Daily Mail). Unfortunately this time it is the Jewish people. To the British public it is just another example of another minority group being afforded another consideration which would never be offered to them. The anger of course should be directed at the Government but human nature being what it is...

You are quick to describe it as appalling bigotry but trust me when I say that you might see it differently if you lived it.

So the bigotry on display is somehow justified, because the Daily Mail? What utter bullshit. Are these Jews not British subjects? Do they not have a right to suggest how their tax money might be spent? Do they not have a right to provide some input into public works projects in their own community? As to "another consideration which would never be offered to them," you must be joking. The whole of British society is organized to the primary benefit of white Christians. Isn't the Church of England the official and established church? Isn't it guaranteed seats in the House of Lords? Doesn't the government have a hand in securing the appointment of its bishops? Aren't Christmas and Easter national holidays celebrated by the State? Don't State offices close for Christian celebrations? Ethnic minorities live in low-income households at twice the rate of "white British," yet whites have both a far lower unemployment rate AND far outnumber minorities on the dole.

For the Mail it most certainly was a decent piece of writing. As I say - try the Sun and the Mirror. Then you will understand what you are talking about. They put the opposing view forward and did NOT express an opinion, unless you count the very fact that they reported an opinion, but people have the right to know about these things. If they wanted to sway opinion they would not have put planners justification in the narrative.

Horseshit. I spent nearly 20 years in the newswriting business on U.S. dailies; I know how to slant a story. "The article presented both sides" is the easiest -- and weakest/laziest --defense. (What is "the other side" here, exactly, and where/how was it presented?) You must also believe that Fox News is "fair and balanced." Stories like this are routine in the UK tabs, and the narrative subtext is summarized as "Watch out -- that wog is stealing your biscuit!" It's one of the most repulsive features of a repulsive segment of mass media.

Wow - so much bile. Try visiting a country - indeed living there - before saying such rubbish. You might understand the way people feel about local issues then, rather than reading about it from afar. (If you have lived here recently then I can only surmise you didn't get out much). I have seen Americans express much stronger views than those expressed in the piece - does that upset you too?

I spent some time traveling the UK but it's been nearly 35 years. As for bile, did you read the comments to the story? It elicited exactly the response intended. Sort the comments by "highly rated" and all the most insulting bigoted remarks get the most approval, while those commenters seeking understanding and providing a rational explanation are rated worst.

England is a Christian state - not a Jewish state. I thought you knew that. And as I said - the feeling is not directed against Jews. It is a general feeling that Britain constantly makes allowances for other religions but gets none back.

It was most specifically directed against the Jews, as even Sean admits above. (Wasn't the story about the Jews and the "special consideration" they got? Didn't you read the comments?) As for "gets none back," You just said it's a Christian state! The entire apparatus of the State promotes the Church of England! Get a grip!

There IS additional expense. see next statement. And what then about the "society for god", or whatever, who insist that their religion state they must sprint across any road that has a red car on it, or insist they can take their mule to school with them. Gonna allow that too? where does it end?

There is no additional expense necessary; timers can be activated for those few hours over the course of one day a week that there is likely to be pedestrian traffic. This is not rocket surgery. I've got home light timers that have capabilty for more complexity than that. Even if there were some expense, it is at most a trivial accommodation FOR A COMMUNITY OF BRITISH SUBJECTS AND TAXPAYERS. And even if there were some religion whose tenets required violation of public safety and order, why would you think some accommodation must be made for that? This was a simple case of a community saying, "If it's not too much toruble, could you put a timer on the crossing signal?" Seriously, why the outrage?

It didn't piss me off. What does piss me off are bigots who can't stand people with an opposing view to their own.

Ah, I am a bigot because I am intolerant of mindless bigotry! Excellent work!

[thestoat]

Ah, I am a bigot because I am intolerant of mindless bigotry! Excellent work!

No, you are a bigot because you get really upset when someone has a view about their own country that differs with yours. People are allowed to express their own view about their own country. As I say - live here before getting so violently opposed against something you clearly have no clue about.

I know how to slant a story. "The article presented both sides" is the easiest -- and weakest/laziest --defense. (What is "the other side" here, exactly, and where/how was it presented?)

So you don't realise that papers slant a story? How naive. And as for the "other side", since you ask, "The decision to include automatic crossings was taken after leaders at Finchley United Synagogue explained their predicament to staff at Transport for London", "A spokesman said: ‘We always consult with the community over major road projects. This idea was suggested by the synagogue, whose members asked if it could be done. We thought about it and came to the conclusion that it could.’", "But one of the congregation said: ‘This is a sensible idea that will make a real difference.’", in fact, the whole bloody article was the other side. Nothing there suggesting it would cause traffic chaos, extra expense or people should rise up against it. How pathetic to assume so.

As for "gets none back," You just said it's a Christian state! The entire apparatus of the State promotes the Church of England! Get a grip!

Gets none back from other religious societies. That is the perception here.

As for bile, did you read the comments to the story? It elicited exactly the response intended. Sort the comments by "highly rated" and all the most insulting bigoted remarks get the most approval, while those commenters seeking understanding and providing a rational explanation are rated worst.

The most highly rated comment: would it not have been a lot more simple to just put a zebra crossing there?
Ouch! So much bile.
If you think that any of the 6 comments in the highest rated represent "bile" then you really need to try a Friday night in a British pub. I am shocked you have got so angry over something so limp.

[thestoat]

There is a reason that your Muslims are more violent than ours. The Africans I know who have lived in the UK, Europe and the US all say that you are a more deeply bigoted society and they would never be accepted there as they are here and as they are in Canada.

Wow. Stupidity really does know no bounds.

"The growing number of Muslims [in the UK] has resulted in the establishment of more than 1,500 mosques." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_t ... ed_Kingdom)
0.6 - 0.8% of the US population is Muslim. 3% of the UK population is Muslim. We even have nearly 100 Sharia courts!