Chip shop owner forced to remove a 'racist' sign boasting that his business now had 'English owners' after threats to burn it down

A chip shop owner has removed a ‘racist’ banner boasting that the business now had ‘English owners’, after his predecessor received threats to burn it down.

Previous owner Paul Bradbury - who put the sign up at The Chippy on the Green in Padiham, Lancashire, after taking it over last August - has gone back to Liverpool with his wife Rachel after shutting up shop.  

The couple had put a banner outside which said ‘Under new management with English owners’ - but Mr Bradbury said that he received two threatening phone calls from people calling him racist. They left the shop and moved away from the area earlier this year - and new owner Sotos Orfanides has now adapted the sign to read ‘Under new management with English meals’.  He said: ‘I don’t think the original sign was racist, but there was a big thing about it being racist. No one is racist in this shop. They were English and they were serving some English food. ‘I changed the sign because people were calling and threatening to burn the shop down.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2629054/Chip-shop-owner-forced-remove-racist-sign-boasting-business-English-owners.html#ixzz31mKPa5L6

We won't be able to call this country England soon....

Some comments from when the story originally became news last year are interesting:

'We’ve used that chip shop when it was run by other people, who were well-liked and respected in the community
'I wouldn’t go in there now and neither would many of the people I know'
- Local teacher Gary Curson

'Half a dozen local people I’ve spoken to since yesterday have said they are disgusted by what it says.
'In this day and age, it shouldn’t matter who you are being served by.'

And this isn't helpful from the now-former owner:

'You wouldn’t want your fish and chips served to you by someone Turkish, or from wherever, because it wouldn’t be as good a recipe as it would be from somebody English.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2405358/Chippy-Green-owner-Paul-Bradburys-racism-row-buying-east-Asian-managers.html

Why would he feel the need to advertise like that? Let's be honest here he was stubborn and felt like he was making some smart arsed point to everyone- he got himself in the Mail, so he is probably quite proud

Eilzel wrote:Some comments from when the story originally became news last year are interesting:

'We’ve used that chip shop when it was run by other people, who were well-liked and respected in the community
'I wouldn’t go in there now and neither would many of the people I know'
- Local teacher Gary Curson

'Half a dozen local people I’ve spoken to since yesterday have said they are disgusted by what it says.
'In this day and age, it shouldn’t matter who you are being served by.'

And this isn't helpful from the now-former owner:

'You wouldn’t want your fish and chips served to you by someone Turkish, or from wherever, because it wouldn’t be as good a recipe as it would be from somebody English.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2405358/Chippy-Green-owner-Paul-Bradburys-racism-row-buying-east-Asian-managers.html

Why would he feel the need to advertise like that? Let's be honest here he was stubborn and felt like he was making some smart arsed point to everyone- he got himself in the Mail, so he is probably quite proud

So you find it acceptable to make threats to burn the shop down. Now if the owners were immigrants and English people threatened to burn the shop down they'd probably be in prison by now.

No I don't find that acceptable at all; but nor do I think his sign or attitude were called for either.

Better stop calling them Indian restaurants Indian restaurants then. Most aren't anyway.

It is strange that he Scots, Welsh and Irish could get away with that we English cant.

Tess is right only the English can be racially abused in this way and that's alright. Pity he wasn't gay eh Eilzel he would have been alright then. New owners Gay English and Proud. Not a problem at all.  

Alright said Fred wrote:Better stop calling them Indian restaurants Indian restaurants then. Most aren't anyway.

It is strange that he Scots, Welsh and Irish could get away with that we English cant.

Tess is right only the English can be racially abused in this way and that's alright. Pity he wasn't gay eh Eilzel he would have been alright then. New owners Gay English and Proud. Not a problem at all.  

spot on as usual

Are we allowed to say the ' good ole British weather ' ?

or are now supposed to say ' good ole European weather '

how about the ' the traditional English breakfast ' ?

Alright said Fred wrote:Better stop calling them Indian restaurants Indian restaurants then. Most aren't anyway.

It is strange that he Scots, Welsh and Irish could get away with that we English cant.

Tess is right only the English can be racially abused in this way and that's alright. Pity he wasn't gay eh Eilzel he would have been alright then. New owners Gay English and Proud. Not a problem at all.  

Idiotic as usual, and still obsessed with my sexuality; weirdo...

^and no Dibs, no problem with them at all   

People are failing to see the difference between a sign saying 'English food' and 'English owners'.

It is just a stupid point to make that the owners are English; as though it is going to be a draw and anything else is not as good.

I see many chippys up here and places in London advertising 'Tradition English Fish and Chips' and 'Proper English food sold here'. That is different and there isn't a problem there. Some people prefer English food or might fancy it at the time.

But to make out it is always better or preferable from an English owner is, as I said, a stupid point to make. Oh and Drinky, you weird sexuality obsessed oddball, that would also count if a sign said 'gay owners' that would just be stupid- but that isn't what we are seeing is it.

I remember that news story a while ago about a bunch of whiney foreigners were claiming that someone flying the British flag in an estate was big evil racist.

Seriously, something is really wrong with your country's attitude towards feeling good about yourselves.

Samhraí wrote:I remember that news story a while ago about a bunch of whiney foreigners were claiming that someone flying the British flag in an estate was big evil racist.

Seriously, something is really wrong with your country's attitude towards feeling good about yourselves.

People complaining about flying a flag is silly; though it was probably over sensitive councilors to be honest   

But this is a bit different; the sign implies that advertising the owners ethnicity somehow appeals more than others. It is just dumb.

Loads of places advertise 'Traditional English food' or 'English fish and chips' which is nice and makes sense- can you imagine if your local shops had a sign saying 'New Pakistani owners'- it would be ridiculous   

lez its the same as advertising the full british breakfast
and british fish and chips .

and how about this one . British owned business ?

Eilzel wrote:

Alright said Fred wrote:Better stop calling them Indian restaurants Indian restaurants then. Most aren't anyway.

It is strange that he Scots, Welsh and Irish could get away with that we English cant.

Tess is right only the English can be racially abused in this way and that's alright. Pity he wasn't gay eh Eilzel he would have been alright then. New owners Gay English and Proud. Not a problem at all.  

Idiotic as usual, and still obsessed with my sexuality; weirdo...

^and no Dibs, no problem with them at all   

People are failing to see the difference between a sign saying 'English food' and 'English owners'.

It is just a stupid point to make that the owners are English; as though it is going to be a draw and anything else is not as good.

I see many chippys up here and places in London advertising 'Tradition English Fish and Chips' and 'Proper English food sold here'. That is different and there isn't a problem there. Some people prefer English food or might fancy it at the time.

But to make out it is always better or preferable from an English owner is, as I said, a stupid point to make. Oh and Drinky, you weird sexuality obsessed oddball, that would also count if a sign said 'gay owners' that would just be stupid- but that isn't what we are seeing is it.

Actually its you militant gays who are obsessed with your sexuality Eilzel. It was supposed to be tongue in cheek you clearly have lost your sense of humour as you have been worshipping at the altar of Stonewall and Phyllis is your Abu Hamza.

You see as an English straight I am labelled odd if I make a comment that is perceived as besmirching a gay intolerant militant. Shame you used to be the moderate and Phyllis the intolerant one. I can't tell the difference anymore.

Alright said Fred wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Idiotic as usual, and still obsessed with my sexuality; weirdo...

^and no Dibs, no problem with them at all   

People are failing to see the difference between a sign saying 'English food' and 'English owners'.

It is just a stupid point to make that the owners are English; as though it is going to be a draw and anything else is not as good.

I see many chippys up here and places in London advertising 'Tradition English Fish and Chips' and 'Proper English food sold here'. That is different and there isn't a problem there. Some people prefer English food or might fancy it at the time.

But to make out it is always better or preferable from an English owner is, as I said, a stupid point to make. Oh and Drinky, you weird sexuality obsessed oddball, that would also count if a sign said 'gay owners' that would just be stupid- but that isn't what we are seeing is it.

Actually its you militant gays who are obsessed with your sexuality Eilzel. It was supposed to be tongue in cheek you clearly have lost your sense of humour as you have been worshipping at the altar of Stonewall and Phyllis is your Abu Hamza.

You see as an English straight I am labelled odd if I make a comment that is perceived as besmirching a gay intolerant militant. Shame you used to be the moderate and Phyllis the intolerant one. I can't tell the difference anymore.

Fuck me here we go detract from the debate and then have a go at homosexuals, your views were anti homosexual and wrong, the fact you do not see them as wrong shows you have no clue about using groups to discriminate. If you dislike someone then take the piss out of them, not their sexuality., you use poor excuses for your ignorance and intolerance of groups of people. Nobody labels you because you are English or Straight, just that you use childish anti homosexuals slurs and yet you are not intelligent to even see that

Vicar of Dibley wrote:lez its the same as advertising the full british breakfast
and british fish and chips .

and how about this one . British owned business ?

No you're wrong, it's not the same; loads of places still advertise British fish and chips and Full English Breakfast with NO problem  ::D:: 

^Drinky; I wont let you divert this thread by making it yet another moan about gays; buzz off   

Eilzel wrote:

Vicar of Dibley wrote:lez its the same as advertising the full british breakfast
and british fish and chips .

and how about this one . British owned business ?

No you're wrong, it's not the same; loads of places still advertise British fish and chips and Full English Breakfast with NO problem  ::D:: 

^Drinky; I wont let you divert this thread by making it yet another moan about gays; buzz off   

He is just still bitter, no worries, leave it to me to show up his hypocrisy, I find it easy to be honest, just a grown man with the mentality of a child that holds childish grudges

Eilzel wrote:

Samhraí wrote:I remember that news story a while ago about a bunch of whiney foreigners were claiming that someone flying the British flag in an estate was big evil racist.

Seriously, something is really wrong with your country's attitude towards feeling good about yourselves.

People complaining about flying a flag is silly; though it was probably over sensitive councilors to be honest   

But this is a bit different; the sign implies that advertising the owners ethnicity somehow appeals more than others. It is just dumb.

Loads of places advertise 'Traditional English food' or 'English fish and chips' which is nice and makes sense- can you imagine if your local shops had a sign saying 'New Pakistani owners'- it would be ridiculous   

'' New Pakistani owners '' ? I think the halal sign gives it away.  

Eilzel wrote:

Samhraí wrote:I remember that news story a while ago about a bunch of whiney foreigners were claiming that someone flying the British flag in an estate was big evil racist.

Seriously, something is really wrong with your country's attitude towards feeling good about yourselves.

People complaining about flying a flag is silly; though it was probably over sensitive councilors to be honest   

But this is a bit different; the sign implies that advertising the owners ethnicity somehow appeals more than others. It is just dumb.

Loads of places advertise 'Traditional English food' or 'English fish and chips' which is nice and makes sense- can you imagine if your local shops had a sign saying 'New Pakistani owners'- it would be ridiculous   

Why shouldn't Pakistani owners be allowed to do that?
Everyone should be allowed to advertise their business as whatever so long as it's truthful.
If you gain or lose business from it then whatever.

The people who made complaints about it just seem whiney to me.

Samhraí wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

People complaining about flying a flag is silly; though it was probably over sensitive councilors to be honest   

But this is a bit different; the sign implies that advertising the owners ethnicity somehow appeals more than others. It is just dumb.

Loads of places advertise 'Traditional English food' or 'English fish and chips' which is nice and makes sense- can you imagine if your local shops had a sign saying 'New Pakistani owners'- it would be ridiculous   

Why shouldn't Pakistani owners be allowed to do that?
Everyone should be allowed to advertise their business as whatever so long as it's truthful.
If you gain or lose business from it then whatever.

The people who made complaints about it just seem whiney to me.

Is it morally right based on the grounds it was done more out of a racial reason?
You have to take this into context that this has actually backfired on the owner because of his poor views, so nobody is saying he should not but only that they are rather idiotic as what relevance does it have what ethnicity a shop owner is?

Samhraí wrote:

The people who made complaints about it just seem whiney to me.

Actually, do you know what? No.
The people who made the complaints and threats are not just whiney little shits.

They're degenerates who decide to fucking bully someone, make them feel unsafe and force them to shut down their business and move out of the area just because they didn't like one innocent little sign.

Samhraí wrote:

Samhraí wrote:

The people who made complaints about it just seem whiney to me.

Actually, do you know what? No.
The people who made the complaints and threats are not just whiney little shits.

They're degenerates who decide to fucking bully someone, make them feel unsafe and force them to shut down their business and move out of the area just because they didn't like one innocent little sign.

Are they?
Why should not people complain about clearly an owner making a racial point, or do you miss the point being made was more to do with skin colour, being as a stereotype taken that English people being of white skin by some, when anyone can be English no matter their skin colour, do you not see this point?

Didge wrote:

Samhraí wrote:

Why shouldn't Pakistani owners be allowed to do that?
Everyone should be allowed to advertise their business as whatever so long as it's truthful.
If you gain or lose business from it then whatever.

The people who made complaints about it just seem whiney to me.

Is it morally right based on the grounds it was done more out of a racial reason?
You have to take this into context that this has actually backfired on the owner because of his poor views, so nobody is saying he should not but only that they are rather idiotic as what relevance does it have what ethnicity a shop owner is?

Maybe it doesn't matter what ethnicity the shop owner is but it also shouldn't matter if the owner decides to advertise that the shop is British owned.

Didge wrote:

Samhraí wrote:

Actually, do you know what? No.
The people who made the complaints and threats are not just whiney little shits.

They're degenerates who decide to fucking bully someone, make them feel unsafe and force them to shut down their business and move out of the area just because they didn't like one innocent little sign.

Are they?
Why should not people complain about clearly an owner making a racial point, or do you miss the point being made was more to do with skin colour, being as a stereotype taken that English people being of white skin by some, when anyone can be English no matter their skin colour, do you not see this point?

Okay sorry are you trying to justify people making physical threats to someone?

Samhraí wrote:

Didge wrote:


Is it morally right based on the grounds it was done more out of a racial reason?
You have to take this into context that this has actually backfired on the owner because of his poor views, so nobody is saying he should not but only that they are rather idiotic as what relevance does it have what ethnicity a shop owner is?

Maybe it doesn't matter what ethnicity the shop owner is but it also shouldn't matter if the owner decides to advertise that the shop is British owned.

Of course it does if he is making a racial point over skin colour, are you going to tell if he went then one step further and stated only English customers allowed would be acceptable?
This is one step away from that, because it is all about skin colour, being as the previous owners were not white skinned

Samhraí wrote:

Didge wrote:

Are they?
Why should not people complain about clearly an owner making a racial point, or do you miss the point being made was more to do with skin colour, being as a stereotype taken that English people being of white skin by some, when anyone can be English no matter their skin colour, do you not see this point?

Okay sorry are you trying to justify people making physical threats to someone?

Did I say people should make threats or condemn?

Didge wrote:

Samhraí wrote:

Maybe it doesn't matter what ethnicity the shop owner is but it also shouldn't matter if the owner decides to advertise that the shop is British owned.

Of course it does if he is making a racial point over skin colour, are you going to tell if he went then one step further and stated only English customers allowed would be acceptable?
This is one step away from that, because it is all about skin colour, being as the previous owners were not.

He didn't enforce a discriminatory policy, Didge.
You can't punish something because "Yeah well what if they actually did this instead?"

Didge wrote:

Samhraí wrote:

Okay sorry are you trying to justify people making physical threats to someone?

Did I say people should make threats or condemn?

Your post did seem to be contesting my condemnation of the people making physical threats

Samhraí wrote:

Didge wrote:



Of course it does if he is making a racial point over skin colour, are you going to tell if he went then one step further and stated only English customers allowed would be acceptable?
This is one step away from that, because it is all about skin colour, being as the previous owners were not.

He didn't enforce a discriminatory policy, Didge.
You can't punish something because "Yeah well what if they actually did this instead?"

Where did I say punish him, I am stating that I condemn his actions, never stated he should be punished.

How can Polish shops blatantly advertise Polish food only and owned by Poles ?

Samhraí wrote:

Didge wrote:


Did I say people should make threats or condemn?

Your post did seem to be contesting my condemnation of the people making physical threats

Sorry but my posts are about the owner making a racial point which should be condemned, in fact at no point do I state or infer he should receive threats, in fact what was my first post to Tess on this on another thread?

Didge wrote:

Samhraí wrote:

He didn't enforce a discriminatory policy, Didge.
You can't punish something because "Yeah well what if they actually did this instead?"

Where did I say punish him, I am stating that I condemn his actions, never stated he should be punished.

Okay fine.

He didn't enforce a discriminatory policy, Didge.
You can't condemn something because "Yeah well what if they actually did this instead?"

Didge wrote:

Samhraí wrote:

Your post did seem to be contesting my condemnation of the people making physical threats

Sorry but my posts are about the owner making a racial point which should be condemned, in fact at no point do I state or infer he should receive threats, in fact what was my first post to Tess on this on another thread?

I called the people who made the threats degenerates and you said "Are they?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

Samhraí wrote:I remember that news story a while ago about a bunch of whiney foreigners were claiming that someone flying the British flag in an estate was big evil racist.

Seriously, something is really wrong with your country's attitude towards feeling good about yourselves.

Exactly. When I shop in Dunnes the receipt shows how many of your purchases are Irish products. When I go into certain shops and ask for something I usually get directed to the Irish made stuff first. Everything says "proud to be Irish". The Welsh have it too - don't know about the Scots. But it seems only the English just aren't allowed to say "we're proud to be English", or even admit to being English, because that's racist.

Samhraí wrote:

Didge wrote:



Where did I say punish him, I am stating that I condemn his actions, never stated he should be punished.

Okay fine.

He didn't enforce a discriminatory policy, Didge.
You can't condemn something because "Yeah well what if they actually did this instead?"

I can condemn something that is clearly racial in its overtones and he certainly holds such racial view by promoting such a sign, people of all skin colours can be English

Tesstacious wrote:

Samhraí wrote:I remember that news story a while ago about a bunch of whiney foreigners were claiming that someone flying the British flag in an estate was big evil racist.

Seriously, something is really wrong with your country's attitude towards feeling good about yourselves.

Exactly.  When I shop in Dunnes the receipt shows how many of your purchases are Irish products.  When I go into certain shops and ask for something I usually get directed to the Irish made stuff first.  Everything says "proud to be Irish".  The Welsh have it too - don't know about the Scots.  But it seems only the English just aren't allowed to say "we're proud to be English", or even admit to being English, because that's racist.

I doubt any shop in England could itemise a product from England. They should though.

Samhraí wrote:

Didge wrote:


Sorry but my posts are about the owner making a racial point which should be condemned, in fact at no point do I state or infer he should receive threats, in fact what was my first post to Tess on this on another thread?

I called the people who made the threats degenerates and you said "Are they?"

Then my point is not on threats, so now you stand corrected but on condemning, poor choice in my words.

That though is you moving the goal posts from his racial sign in itself to detracting to a point I made is it now deflecting away from the point at hand, now I have made myself clear

Didge wrote:

Samhraí wrote:

Okay fine.

He didn't enforce a discriminatory policy, Didge.
You can't condemn something because "Yeah well what if they actually did this instead?"

I can condemn something that is clearly racial in its overtones and he certainly holds such racial view by promoting such a sign, people of all skin colours can be English

My point was that it doesn't matter and you responded with that it apparently does because he could have enforced a discriminatory policy.
So, again, you can't condemn something just because they could have done something else.

Didge wrote:

Samhraí wrote:

I called the people who made the threats degenerates and you said "Are they?"

Then my point is not on threats, so now you stand corrected but on condemning, poor choice in my words.

That though is you moving the goal posts from his racial sign in itself to detracting to a point I made is it now deflecting away from the point at hand, now I have made myself clear

My point was on the threats so why are you making it about people just innocently complaining?

Samhraí wrote:

Didge wrote:


I can condemn something that is clearly racial in its overtones and he certainly holds such racial view by promoting such a sign, people of all skin colours can be English

My point was that it doesn't matter and you responded with that it apparently does because he could have enforced a discriminatory policy.
So, again, you can't condemn something just because they could have done something else.

I am saying it is one step away from that, though again you are not seeing a problem with an owner placing a racial sign in the first place which constitutes a view to who are English, the point you have avoided in each post. This again has backfired on the owner now because people see his racial views, hence people are appalled at such a view.
So yes I can clearly condemn something that was designed to inflame, of which you have not shown it was not

Samhraí wrote:

Didge wrote:


Then my point is not on threats, so now you stand corrected but on condemning, poor choice in my words.

That though is you moving the goal posts from his racial sign in itself to detracting to a point I made is it now deflecting away from the point at hand, now I have made myself clear

My point was on the threats so why are you making it about people just innocently complaining?

Are you saying nobody has complained and it is all threats now?

Didge wrote:

Samhraí wrote:

My point was that it doesn't matter and you responded with that it apparently does because he could have enforced a discriminatory policy.
So, again, you can't condemn something just because they could have done something else.

I am saying it is one step away from that

Which isn't a valid reason to threat it like that.

Didge wrote:
, though again you are not seeing a problem with an owner placing a racial sign in the first place which constitutes a view to who are English, the point you have avoided in each post. This again has backfired on the owner now because people see his racial views, hence people are appalled at such a view.

I'm not seeing the problem because there should not be a problem.
If you're going to say that there isn't a distinction between English and non-English seeing as that's the point you say you're trying to make then what is stopping me from just claiming to be English, Didge?

Didge wrote:
So yes I can clearly condemn something that was designed to inflame, of which you have not shown it was not

The burden of proof is on you to prove he was being provocative.
"I don't like his opinion" isn't a valid point.

Didge wrote:

Samhraí wrote:

My point was on the threats so why are you making it about people just innocently complaining?

Are you saying nobody has complained and it is all threats now?

Are you saying nobody made threats and it is all benign complaints now?

Samhraí wrote:
Which isn't a valid reason to threat it like that.


I'm not seeing the problem because there should not be a problem.
If you're going to say that there isn't a distinction between English and non-English seeing as that's the point you say you're trying to make then what is stopping me from just claiming to be English, Didge?
The burden of proof is on you to prove he was being provocative.
"I don't like his opinion" isn't a valid point.

Then you cannot see how such a sign was made with intent to offend, because to many people it is racially distinguishing people in a country that is and should be seen as one.
Burden of proof, okay, how many shop owners place their ethnicity as the owners in shop windows?

You again are trying to excuse his intent, being as you ignore the fact who were the previous owners, thus the intent was to distinguish from the previous owners who were of Asian ethnicity though could well be as English born as he is. That is more proof of his intent

There is your proof, now you are avoiding the point it was made to inflame a community

Samhraí wrote:

Didge wrote:


Are you saying nobody has complained and it is all threats now?

Are you saying nobody made threats and it is all benign complaints now?

Pedantic point, as never claimed that as already stated, you are trying to avoid my main points by stubbornly sticking to the point the vast majority made complaints and not threats, you though center on those who made threats, which also proves my point on how it inflamed people, which you still cannot see.
No physical threats are ever right, but it backs evidence to my point how the sign was deigned to inflame

Samhraí wrote:

Didge wrote:


Are you saying nobody has complained and it is all threats now?

Are you saying nobody made threats and it is all benign complaints now?

Keep up the good work Tea. You've got more patience than me! I've had to read one or two of his replies, and I notice he says to you he condemns threats or something, but in his reply to me he says "even an idiotic chip shop owner". So what he's saying is that the men handing out leaflets and, from what I saw in the video, reasonably talking to the Imam, is more of a threat than having to leave your home and business because of threats to burn it down, simply because the shopkeeper is not muslim but simply, in his own words, "an idiotic chip shop owner."

Tesstacious wrote:

Samhraí wrote:

Are you saying nobody made threats and it is all benign complaints now?

Keep up the good work Tea.  You've got more patience than me!  I've had to read one or two of his replies, and I notice he says to you he condemns threats or something, but in his reply to me he says "even an idiotic chip shop owner".  So what he's saying is that the men handing out leaflets and, from what I saw in the video, reasonably talking to the Imam, is more of a threat than having to leave your home and business because of threats to burn it down, simply because the shopkeeper is not muslim but simply, in his own words, "an idiotic chip shop owner."

He is an idiotic chip owner as seen by my points and as usual Tess cannot counter the points but the poster, which shows you add little to debates except a dislike you have of posters.
Reasonably did you say, the man hates Muslims and went around in London intimidating Muslims, was drinking before claiming to be protection gangs, please spare me your excuse of racists Tess

I hope the police are looking for the people who threatened to burn it down.

This is what Tess is making excuses for?

In Yorkshire members of the group wore matching flat caps and green jackets embossed with the party logo, which features a crown and the legend "Taking our country back".

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/14/britain-first-complaint-police-inquisition-london

This is making a statement these Muslims are not part of this country and taking what back exactly?
They are racist idiots that Tess is poorly trying to excuse yet again

Raggamuffin wrote:I hope the police are looking for the people who threatened to burn it down.

Ethnicity will play a part on how '' Vigorously '' they look into it.