Camberley Mosque Thrown Out

geordieracer

ifonlyitwaseasier wrote: »

i think its actually a relevant issue, why shouldn't we look at how things are abroad and discuss how issues are dealt with there?

yes in this country we have our own laws, and you know what? the plans haven't been approved, yet again.

this is something that a large portion of the community round here have discussed and in great detail. there is no objection to a mosque being built, just not on a main road and not at the expense of a listed property.

So you have just proved my point. Why bring up about the possibility of building a church in an Islamic country if it was only about the tearing down of the existing building to build something in its place?

Stick to the facts and not what may happen somewhere else in the world as it has NOTHING to do with the matter in hand - which is the issue of a building being torn down.

ifonlyitwaseasier

geordieracer wrote: »

So you have just proved my point. Why bring up about the possibility of building a church in an Islamic country if it was only about the tearing down of the existing building to build something in its place?

Stick to the facts and not what may happen somewhere else in the world as it has NOTHING to do with the matter in hand - which is the issue of a building being torn down.

where did i say it was only about tearing down a building?

note that i made several points in my posts, which i have to admit i wish i hadn't bothered now as all i'm getting is some weird comments which neither relate to the plans as they were made or the rest of the information regarding the proposals.

have you even looked at the articles about this? or the submitted plans? or are you making ill-informed rants just because you can be anonymous on the internet?

geordieracer

ifonlyitwaseasier wrote: »

where did i say it was only about tearing down a building?

note that i made several points in my posts, which i have to admit i wish i hadn't bothered now as all i'm getting is some weird comments which neither relate to the plans as they were made or the rest of the information regarding the proposals.

have you even looked at the articles about this? or the submitted plans? or are you making ill-informed rants just because you can be anonymous on the internet?

I think you will find your the one making ill informed rants about things that have relevance to the actual thread, this one for instance

ifonlyitwaseasier wrote: »

and last but not least, a mosque next to a military academy, would we be allowed to build a church next door to one in any of the predominately muslim countries around the world?
.

The place is already next to a military academy and is already being used as a Mosque so why does it actually matter if the new building(if it got planning approval) was being built next to the same academy on the same plot?

It makes no sense. And neither does the question of being allowed to build a church next to a military academy in an islamic country.

ifonlyitwaseasier

geordieracer wrote: »

I think you will find your the one making ill informed rants about things that have relevance to the actual thread, this one for instance

the place is already next to a military academy and is already being used as a Mosque so why does it actually matter if the new building(if it got planning approval) was being built next to the same academy on the same plot?

It makes no sense. And neither does the question of being allowed to build a church next to a military academy in an islamic country.

i know the area, have looked at the plans and discussed them with local councillors, hmm i'm so ill informed with that......

geordie thanks for the entertainment, i can't be faffed reading anything else you have to say.

geordieracer

ifonlyitwaseasier wrote: »

i know the area, have looked at the plans and discussed them with local councillors, hmm i'm so ill informed with that......

geordie thanks for the entertainment, i can't be faffed reading anything else you have to say.

I'm not talking about the plans though and you must be a bit mental if you cant understand what im getting across to you- if you bothered to read the thread then you will see that im pleased that an old building isn't being torn down just to be replaced with another as I believe that old buildings should be preserved.


It doesn't matter whether or not you can build a church in another country or not.It doesn't matter one little bit and it should not form part of your argument because its futile and this is my point to you.

And if it is already being used as a Mosque and they wanted it to be replaced with another then the fact it is already by a Military academy shouldn't come into the argument for it to be passed or not either there is no need for it.

And as for you not 'being faffed' shows that you are to scared to actually have a decent conversation about it because you know what the outcome will be and your fear of Muslims all being terrorists will come to the fore and how you think they may somehow steal the special ways our soldiers sailors and airmen are taught how to march and spin their weapons and play their instruments.

most people would come straight out with calling you a bigot but as i believe your not quite there yet on this thread im willing to engage in conversation about you with it.

Enterprise_1701C

The BWA is indeed the Bengali Welfare Associate - A lot of the moslems I know are Bengali and would NEVER call themselves British.

PI is Planning Inspectorate - thought this would be assumed as it is a planning issue.

The A30 is gradually being redeveloped and is certainly no longer a dump, it is my local shopping town and a place I value, I love looking at the old school, as do many others, as it reminds me we still have a heritage to value, equally I love looking at our old churches in the area and other valued old buildings.

The concern of many local residents, and I do mean many, was that the 100ft minarets would be overlooking the RMA. The current building does not have minarets, and indeed blends in with the current environs quite nicely, considering a lot of Camberley was built after it.

As mentioned before, the BWA have been offered more suitable sites which they have turned down. If the vast majority of local people do not want a building then that building should not be built, regardless of whether the building is a five domed minaret toting mosque, or an ugly glass monstrosity.

Incidentally, the PI did not turn down the appeal because of the RMA, that was of local concern to residents but disregarded by the PI and the RMA, after they were informed that the minarets would have been solid and inaccessable. It was refused because it simply would not fit in with the local area, especially as they did not take any account of it being a conservation area in the plans.

One of the points that has been made locally was that they could have maintained the current building instead of letting it deteriorate to an unusable condition, and they could have finished the extension that would have given them more floor space than the designed mosque. Strangely, they could not afford it.

I await a further barrage.

Leif

I must admit your posts do have a whiff of casual racism about them, even if as you claim you are not at all racist, and that might well be the case, I have no idea. The problem is that you seem to have set out to prove that you are not racist in the "I'm not racist but" style as so many people here have noted.

You make criticisms of these people for doing what they would be expected to do. You say it is wrong that they run down the old building, but they can get funding for a new mosque. What a surprise. They probably have little money because noone wants to maintain a crappy old building, but benefactors will pay for a mosque. Your comment on a proposed mosque overlooking Sandhurst is weird. And the PI comment about the mosque is weird. There is a pagaoda in Kew Gardens, and a Pagoda in a London park (Battersea?), an Indian temple in London. They are magnificant. If the proposed mosque was well built it could enhance the area. Unlike a crappy old Victorian building that no-one wants to maintain, and developers would probably want to pull down for new housing. If it was like Slough mosque, well that would be bad. That one is vile. You say a mosque would kill Camberly. Perhaps it would rejuvenate the place, but in a way some would not want i.e. bring in Asian shops, and Asians moving into the area. And you refer to Moslem looking people. Do you mean brown skinned? To be honest your posts do not sound blatantly racist, but they do sound as if they are scented with something slightly malodorous.

By the way, had you said "I don't want Camberly to become an Asian area", I would not have interpreted that as racist. I do not consider myself anti-Polish, but I am against the large numbers that came here. And you might like Asians, but not want an area to become overtly Asian, with Asian shops, and predominantly Asian people in the area. I do not think that is racist, though many might. Personally I like Asian areas, Anglo Asians are not abusive or violent unlike some white trash.

And you say one of your friends really is "genuinely gay". Cripes. Did you ask him "Are you really gay, or are you just pretending?".

Leif

After thinking about it, I think your comment that the mosque would endanger national security because it overlooked the Sandhurst wotsit, and extremists could view the area, is pure racism. Do you think we should have exclusions areas around any military establishments where only indigenous whites are allowed to live? Had you said that no buildings are allowed to overlook, and this one will, that would have sounded okay. No mention of the Muslim aspect. But no, you have to single out the Muslim aspect. Just as you repeatedly single out the Muslim aspect throughout your posts. If you are not racist, then think about how you frame your statements, and the way you always highlight Muslim aspects. The fact that a mosque would be out of character. What does that mean? You did not say it would be built from cheap materials, or be badly designed, just that it was a mosque, and that was not good. Oh, unless it does not look like a mosque as is the case at present. :question:

fluffnutter

Jane_Blackford wrote: »

Incidentally, the PI did not turn down the appeal because of the RMA, that was of local concern to residents but disregarded by the PI and the RMA.

This doesn't surprise me in the least. The planning inspectorate didn't think it was a problem the mosque being near the military, the military themselves didn't have a problem with it... yet the residents did. Why? Not their call, really is it? Residents have lots of reasons to object to things of course, but whipping up 'threat to national security' hysteria when those responsible for said security are perfectly happy is provocative and disingenuous at best, and racist at worst.

I don't think you appreciate how much it weakens all your other arguments to include this one. A tenet of your argument is that this isn't about mosques per se, this isn't about Muslims; it's merely about some old building not being destroyed. An argument that seems to have been accepted by the PI. Yet you then bang on about how this mosque is 'next to a military academy' and how it's difficult to 'stop radicalised Imam(s)' - objections that are very much about this being a mosque. So I can't take your protestations that this is just about a pretty old building seriously. It's not. Your own posts tell us that you don't want a mosque on this site as you think Muslims are a threat and you express relief that they stay in their own area of town (although I notice you've removed some of your original post - did you realise how unsavoury it was?)

And yet you want me to believe you're not a racist? Hmm, stop posting racist comments, perhaps?

oldone_2

The whole point of conservation areas and listed buildings is to preserve some of our heritage.

I find it sad that some members of other cultures and races, who we quite rightly welcome for the contribution they can make, feel that these laws should not apply to them. If they did, they would not have applied for permission for an inappropriate building, in an inappropriate area in the first place.