Candidate for Manchester mayor gives his manifesto completely in Urdu.

Syl wrote:What a liberty.  

Mohammed Aslam, who is an independent candidate for Greater Manchester ‘Metro Mayor’, appeared on the BBC News site’s “minute manifesto” series, in which each candidate is given one minute to spell out their policies.
However, the corporation appears to have had to dub over Mr Aslam’s speech after he delivered it in a foreign language.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-39599289

Tommy Monk wrote:He's hardly being 'inclusive'...!?

Or maybe the lefties will just say it's the English's fault for being racist and not bothering to learn how to speak urdu...!?

eddie wrote:Wonder why he felt that would work better? Perhaps it did...we pay more attention sometimes when we read what someone says.  Maybe it was a smart move?

magica wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:He's hardly being 'inclusive'...!?

Or maybe the lefties will just say it's the English's fault for being racist and not bothering to learn how to speak urdu...!?

Last time I looked Manchester was in England!

nicko wrote:Like the Aboriginals should take over Australia and put the Aussies to work as house boys !

nicko wrote:Like the Aboriginals should take over Australia and put the Aussies to work as house boys !

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-08/labor-migrant-multi-lingual-ads/7481902
including offerings in Tamil and Arabic. The list has since expanded to include Punjabi, Urdu, Korean, Hindi, Bengali, and simplified and traditional Chinese.
Labor campaign headquarters said by polling day the party will also have advertised to Italian, Macedonian, Greek and Vietnamese speakers with subtitled versions of their 100 Positive Policies campaign

veya_victaous wrote:Good too see
Urdu should take over large swathes of Britain and those areas can join the Indian empire, round up the natives put them to work as house boys etc

nicko wrote:Birmingham is Britains Second City !

eddie wrote:Well you can both shush cos I'm a Londoner!

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:Well you can both shush cos I'm a Londoner!

Cant argue with London being the capital.....but Manchester is definitely considered the runner up now.
Sorry Nicko, its bad enough you have to suffer that accent.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Cant argue with London being the capital.....but Manchester is definitely considered the runner up now.
Sorry Nicko, its bad enough you have to suffer that accent.

Isn't Manchester larger than London?  I remember this discussion coming up around who has the most expensive football franchise.  They said (I thought), it was Manchester, because it was the largest city in the UK.

Original Quill wrote:I know that...it's just the discussion in which it came up.

My question is, which is the larger city?

Original Quill wrote:I know that...it's just the discussion in which it came up.

My question is, which is the larger city?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:I know that...it's just the discussion in which it came up.

My question is, which is the larger city?

London.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Cant argue with London being the capital.....but Manchester is definitely considered the runner up now.
Sorry Nicko, its bad enough you have to suffer that accent.

Isn't Manchester larger than London?  I remember this discussion coming up around who has the most expensive football franchise.  They said (I thought), it was Manchester, because it was the largest city in the UK.

Syl wrote:Lol...it took me that long to think about that the answer had already been given.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:Lol...it took me that long to think about that the answer had already been given.

It's ok...at least you thought about it.     We in the US have the concept of SMSA's coming out of our Department of Census: Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas.  It's because many of these cities, like Los Angeles, do not fit into the compact boundaries of a single city.  The growth of suburbia has created interspersed cities and the only relevant measure is the greater area.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It's ok...at least you thought about it.     We in the US have the concept of SMSA's coming out of our Department of Census: Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas.  It's because many of these cities, like Los Angeles, do not fit into the compact boundaries of a single city.  The growth of suburbia has created interspersed cities and the only relevant measure is the greater area.

Places are ever evolving.
I love the old fshioned American westerns  where the first settlers begin by building a hut, which turns into a small township, which is probably now a great city.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Places are ever evolving.
I love the old fshioned American westerns  where the first settlers begin by building a hut, which turns into a small township, which is probably now a great city.

Yes, it's fun to imagine.  It happens where rivers converge...Pittsburgh.  Or where the railroad put a station (usually where the stage coach stop was)...Tucson.  Or, where roads crossed...Kansas City.

But you have the same thing in the UK.  London was the first place upstream where, at low tide, one could ford the Thames.  Cambridge is where the Romans build a bridge over the River Cam.  And Sterling was the first place where they could put a bridge over the River Forth, although now we are into castle placement.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yes, it's fun to imagine.  It happens where rivers converge...Pittsburgh.  Or where the railroad put a station (usually where the stage coach stop was)...Tucson.  Or, where roads crossed...Kansas City.

But you have the same thing in the UK.  London was the first place upstream where, at low tide, one could ford the Thames.  Cambridge is where the Romans build a bridge over the River Cam.  And Sterling was the first place where they could put a bridge over the River Forth, although now we are into castle placement.

Yes we are the same...well everywhere is, we all started from scratch.

It may be because the other mans grass looks greener, but I don't think I would be as fascinated about films centred round the first settlers near the river Thames as I am about the cowboys who fought the red indians off when they were driving their horse pulled waggon trains through the texan mountains.

Someone will tell me off now and say the Indians were there first....I am just talking about entertainment though.

nicko wrote:Syl, nothing wrong with our accent, you may be mixing us up with the Black Country.
Anyhow nothing worse than an Scouser !!!!

nicko wrote:Syl, nothing wrong with our accent, you may be mixing us up with the Black Country.
Anyhow nothing worse than an Scouser !!!!

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:
Yes we are the same...well everywhere is, we all started from scratch.

It may be because the other mans grass looks greener, but I don't think I would be as fascinated about films centred round the first settlers near the river Thames as I am about the cowboys who fought the red indians off when they were driving their horse pulled waggon trains through the texan mountains.

Someone will tell me off now and say the Indians were there first....I am just talking about entertainment though.

Along those lines, one of the greatest books I have read was London, by Edward Rutherfurd.  Although it is centered around the history of the City of London, that's a pretty important city in the UK.  So, it's a lot about the parochial history of England.  For example, Rutherfurd talks about how the Excheqeur got his name...during the time of Edward I, he made 'X's' on a board when someone paid taxes: he was the X-checker.  Also, where is the Holborn River (sometimes called the Fleet River) today (it exists in a man-made culvert that empties into the Thames under the Blackfriars Bridge)?  

Wonderful book...full of small stuff like that.

Thorin wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:Good too see
Urdu should take over large swathes of Britain and those areas can join the Indian empire, round up the natives put them to work as house boys etc

So you are making a mockery of those basically enslaved during the British empire

Fail to see how that is even funny

veya_victaous wrote:

Thorin wrote:


So you are making a mockery of those basically enslaved during the British empire

Fail to see how that is even funny

no, you're the 'native' that should be made a house boy
let those that were enslaved make a mockery of you

jesus even nicko got it straight away