Mega Mosque.........A Pack Of Lies.

[Butch]

Someone posted a link on here to sign a government petition against the building of a Mosque which was supposedly going to receive around 100 million of tax payers money.

I have just been E-mailed this. It is the governments response to over 277,000 signatories. Apparently the whole Mega Mosque thing is a load of nads, not true, lies.

To whoever started the original petition I would just like to say:-

Nice One

You have just had 1/4 of a million people.

 

[mouse77]

I had it as well Butch...

Bloody good, it should be an olympic sport.....who can get the most signitures on a practical joke.

 

[HarryOatcake]

I never signed it,
Honest. [:I] [:I] [:I] [:I] [:I] []

Harry.

 

[Dave]

Yes, but just think of the message it sends out to the PM regarding people's feelings wether true or not []

 

[mouse77]

Originally posted by Dave

Yes, but just think of the message it sends out to the PM regarding people's feelings wether true or not []

But if the petition had been to build a mosque then how many people would have signed it.

 

[norm]

what about the other 59 and 3/4 million ?

that did not sign it

that is what would win at the end of the day

 

[Butch]

You have to be a citizen to sign the register, if you are a foreigner or illegal immigrant you cant sign Norm, that explains why the remaining 59 million population didnt sign................

[][]

 

[davyr]

Sounds to me as though somebody got cold feet and pulled out, as the original intention to build the mosque seemed t obe genuine enough:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1879728,00.html

 

[gibby]

What ths country needs is a sensible, rational debate about multi-culturalism. Wind-ups like this simply play into the hands of the PC lobby who can then accuse anyone of querying whether taxpayers money should be spent on a mosque of being racist.

 

[Hatman]

Is this news? I looked at the petition and read the governments response (which was linked on the petition page) at the time of the previous thread on here & there was always a statement there pointing out it wasn't true. www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page12552.asp

So no I didn't sign it & I didn't bother putting my reasons on here since I thought everyone would read the governments response before signing. My bad.

 

[davyr]

The original thread was March 27th - the Government's response on the link at the top of this thread is 19th July. The Mayor's statement is dated 17th July. So how could you have read the Government response at the time of the previous thread? Or am I missing something?

 

[BARRYBLOKE]

Things like this are often prematurely and "accidentaly leaked" to gain info for plans already underway for something already sorted for the future.

 

[Hatman]

Originally posted by davyr

The original thread was March 27th - the Government's response on the link at the top of this thread is 19th July. The Mayor's statement is dated 17th July. So how could you have read the Government response at the time of the previous thread? Or am I missing something?

I didn't comment on the mayors statement, its date is irrelevant to my comment. Maybe a different webpage or the date is the last update? I've no way of comparing them, but there was a similar government response when the thread I saw was active on here, and that thread was started on the 4th of July.

 

[davyr]

Originally posted by Looney

I've no way of comparing them, but there was a similar government response when the thread I saw was active on here, and that thread was started on the 4th of July.

I think you're missing my point - a lot of the people on here who voted (I didn't vote, btw) would have done so when the subject was raised on here originally, which was on March 27th, as I said on my previous post. That's over 3 months before your 4th of July date. AFAIK, there was no government response back then, as the story was still relatively new.

 

[Hatman]

That would be TWO previous threads then davyr. I wasn't referring to the one i didn't know existed, theres probably a reason for that.

 

[davyr]

Originally posted by Looney

That would be TWO previous threads then davyr. I wasn't referring to the one i didn't know existed, theres probably a reason for that.

That's fine - just establishig that there's no need to criticise people for not reading the governement response before voting, then![]

 

[davyr]

I've just found the thread you were talking about, and remembered that I'd posted this comment on it:

We've been through this one before, back in March: http://www.maggotdrowning.com/forums/threads/54136&SearchTerms=mosque

 

[Hatman]

Criticise? My only negative was aimed at myself, for not bothering to point out that it wasn't 100% factual. My first post is above and unedited if you'd like to check on that!

 

[davyr]

It came across as critical to me, but then that's the disadvantage of not being able to detect "tone" on forum postings, innit?[]

 

[Hatman]

Sir, you have inferred that I am a critical blaggard, I must defend my honour. I challenge you to a duel! Choose your weapon, foil, sabre or rapier? You can't have the sniper rifle, I've got that. [}