here they go again:
(1) if the st george's reminds those pc tosser's of the BNP, they could do us all a favour by suggestin an alternative flag perhaps. the union jack then? oh yes but of course, the scot's, the welsh and the irish would whinge and moan about english imperialism and wotnot.
oh and the argument that the union jack does not exactly represent english sentiments or identity whatsoever. or reminds one of the past disgraces of the empire. make up yer minds, you twit's.
(2) it's perfectly ok for minorities to wear their religious symbol's. but the sight of a crucifix [on a christian who doesn't attend church regularly] is tantamount to a slight towards other religious practitioner's sensibilities.
sample the followin tosh uttered by the deputy head of the school:
"As a Christian I don't have to wear a crucifix but Sikhs don't have that option and we have to be understanding. We live in a multi-faith society."
i'm sorry, sir, but wee island sikh's have long shed their turban's, beard's and some, the kara. and it's really easy to identify those who are from india of course - complete with turban's, beard, and the dagger. so check yer fact's before you bleat.
and btw, may i remind you that england is a christian country after all. no wonder the archbishop of york was despairing the other day. who seems more english than some of you's.
shame on you lot.
as enscribed by the letter b @ December 6, 2005 12:57 PM | someone's pinged