Curry house chef prepared food after wiping his bottom with his bare hands

[Crimson Dynamo]

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/04/13/14/3323F6B000000578-3537652-Mahbub_Chowdhury_46_from_Swindon_wiped_his_bottom_ using_his_hand-m-5_1460555333237.jpghttps://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/capture26.png?w=748&h=462&crop=1
The dirty pig

Mahbub Chowdhury, 46, from Swindon, ran the Yeahya Flavour of Asia
Inspectors found bottle in kitchen that was covered in 'faecal matter'
Chef filled it with water from kitchen taps before using it to clean backside


A takeaway chef wiped his bottom using his hands before preparing food because he does not use toilet paper for 'cultural reasons', a court heard.

Mahbub Chowdhury, 46, from Swindon, was found to have a filthy bottle in the kitchen of Yeahya Flavour of Asia, which inspectors concluded was covered in faecal matter.

When questioned, he said he filled the empty milk bottle with water from the kitchen taps before using it to clean his backside after going to the toilet.
Chowdhury prepared meat and fish curries at the takeaway, which was run out of a rented kitchen at the Nine Elms pub.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3537652/Swindon-takeaway-chef-prepared-food-wiping-bottom-bare-hands-doesn-t-use-toilet-paper-cultural-reasons.html#ixzz45jS5TFQX

_____________:yuk:________________________________

How much do you know about your local curry house?

(note: I am not saying that all Indian curry chefs do this)

[bots]

what a crapper....

i worked as a waiter as a student one summer ... the stories i could tell

[RichardG]

omg :omgno:

[Jordan.]

an Amy Jade thread tea

[arista]

Thats Well Bad LT

[Jack_]

:joker: :joker: :joker: :joker:

Anyway, the Mail in another 'look at this foreign looking guy's disgusting religious culture!' shocker

[Cherie]

:joker: :joker: :joker: :joker:

Anyway, the Mail in another 'look at this foreign looking guy's disgusting religious culture!' shocker

:umm2:

[Jack_]

:umm2:

I know, disturbing isn't it! That's the Heil for you

[user104658]

When I worked in a kitchen, I went in one morning and discovered that the delivery of tomatoes had been left at the back door... Where they had all been nibbled by what I assume was rats.

... The guy who trained me (and by "trained", what I mean is, I got about 2 hours of vague instructions and then immediately signed up for working solo... Haha) told me to "just cut off the bitten bits and use them anyway".

:umm2:. I used my discretion and assumed that the customers would rather just not have tomatoes...

[Vicky.]

:joker: :joker: :joker: :joker:

Anyway, the Mail in another 'look at this foreign looking guy's disgusting religious culture!' shocker

?

Disgusting bloke being disgusting more like. I dont see the mail making out it is part of his religion or something to wipe ones arse with ones hand instead of loo roll? :laugh:

As for the story, makes me glad I don't eat curry :p

[Crimson Dynamo]

:joker: :joker: :joker: :joker:

Anyway, the Mail in another 'look at this foreign looking guy's disgusting religious culture!' shocker

there is no excuse, culture or otherwise for his vile ways:nono:

[Crimson Dynamo]

Jack are you saying the DM is sh1t stirring?

[Jack_]

?

Disgusting bloke being disgusting more like. I dont see the mail making out it is part of his religion or something to wipe ones arse with ones hand instead of loo roll? :laugh:

As for the story, makes me glad I don't eat curry :p

Oh but they are :laugh: click the article and scroll down a bit, there's an entire blue section devoted to it

I am not absolving this guy of anything, it's obviously disgusting and he should quite rightfully be prosecuted, but the Mail using this to push their ~omg aren't other cultures and religions so awful!!!' agenda is so transparent

Jack are you saying the DM is sh1t stirring?

The Mail? Trying to be inflammatory? Trashing 'multiculturalism'? Never

[Vicky.]

Oh but they are :laugh: click the article and scroll down a bit, there's an entire blue section devoted to it



I see. I very rarely read a whole mail article. I don't have enough outrage in me to get through it.

[Jordan.]

I think the fact they included it's part of his religion actually makes it seem less worse

[Firewire]

Jack are you saying the DM is sh1t stirring?

I don't think the Mail is the one that is stirring ****... :joker:

[Will.]

Did he wash his hands?

[DemolitionRed]

It really feels like we are on a mission today.

Muslims and Hindus and a lot of Italians don't use toilet paper but either have a water hose next to the toilet or take a bottle of water into the toilet with them.

The fact that they found this water bottle in the kitchen is not on and I agree, this guy needs prosecuting but in general, the water system as opposed to the toilet paper system is both environmentally and hygienically better when its used properly.

[Babayaro.]

grim

[Crimson Dynamo]

he could have at least used a nan bread

[Firewire]

he could have at least used a nan bread

ffs :joker:

[AnnieK]

Really don't care why he didn't, but the fact is he should most definitely be prosecuted. He could have made people very sick. Don't think it's particularly news worthy but that's by the by

[Jake.]

can see his custom going down the drain

[Jack_]

can see his custom going down the drain

Or down the shitter

[Jake.]

Or down the shitter

who knows, he might be able to wipe the plate slate clean

[Crimson Dynamo]

who knows, he might be able to wipe the slate clean

:joker:

[Cherie]

I see. I very rarely read a whole mail article. I don't have enough outrage in me to get through it.

.

[Kazanne]

he could have at least used a nan bread

OMG, LT ,I feel sick:fist:

[user104658]

Apparently it's cleaner (although not keeping the bottle in the kitchen, obviously) however, I can't imagine what skills are needed to do it effectively without getting water all over one's ballsack and underwear.

Genuinely baffles me.

[Cherie]

As usual this has turned into a "which is better" debate, the bottom :hee: line here is if Joe Smith from a long line of good British stock or Mr Patel from a not so long line of good British stock keeps a bottle with human excrement on it in a kitchen where he is cooking for the general public, it makes no difference what the culture is, they are both equally disgusting, breaching the law and putting the public at unnecessary risk.

[Mystic Mock]

Tbf I know that it's a cultural thing, but if you're opening up a Restaurant in a western country then follow the proper procedures of Health & Safety that the western countries have, it's not hard.

[Tom4784]

Disgusting.

This wouldn't have made the news if the man wasn't Asian though, lbr.

[Mystic Mock]

Disgusting.

This wouldn't have made the news if the man wasn't Asian though, lbr.

Tbh we're quite busy stopping black people on the streets at the minute for being "troublesome."

[DemolitionRed]

Apparently it's cleaner (although not keeping the bottle in the kitchen, obviously) however, I can't imagine what skills are needed to do it effectively without getting water all over one's ballsack and underwear.

Genuinely baffles me.

I've lived in both the middle east and a none tourist part of Italy. Italy wasn't so bad because you can at least buy toilet paper and baby wipes but the middle east just didn't sell that stuff.

Its a no hands event but a forceful jet of water that makes you feel like you're giving yourself an enema :hehe: and you have your own soft clean cloth to dry yourself.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Disgusting.

This wouldn't have made the news if the man wasn't Asian though, lbr.

i think it would get greater coverage tbh

[Cherie]

i think it would get greater coverage tbh

Fair point, and they wouldn't have "culture" to hide behind

[Cherie]

I've lived in both the middle east and a none tourist part of Italy. Italy wasn't so bad because you can at least buy toilet paper and baby wipes but the middle east just didn't sell that stuff.

Its a no hands event but a forceful jet of water that makes you feel like you're giving yourself an enema :hehe: and you have your own soft clean cloth to dry yourself.

Your post illustrates the point perfectly, when in Rome...

[kirklancaster]

Your post illustrates the point perfectly, when in Rome...

..... Make sure you take plenty of loo rolls. :laugh:

[Crimson Dynamo]

I remember dining at the Mathematicians Restaurant in Soho, the Chef there worked it out with a pencil



:omgno:

[Mystic Mock]

I remember dining at the Mathematicians Restaurant in Soho, the Chef there worked it out with a pencil



:omgno:

Your point?

[Crimson Dynamo]

Your point?

That he was easily lead

[Mystic Mock]

That he was easily lead

At least he wasn't rubbed up the wrong way.:dance:

[Amy Jade]

That's disgusting, puts me right off take away

[Crimson Dynamo]

At least he wasn't rubbed up the wrong way.:dance:

to be honest the details i got were pretty sketchy




:dance:

[Mystic Mock]

to be honest the details i got were pretty sketchy




:dance:

Very good LT.:joker:

[Mystic Mock]

That's disgusting, puts me right off take away

It is called Takeaway though tbf Amy Jade, it could mean taking away anything.:joker:

[kirklancaster]

I remember dining at the Mathematicians Restaurant in Soho, the Chef there worked it out with a pencil



:omgno:

:joker::joker::joker: Was his name Al Gebra?

[Crimson Dynamo]

:joker::joker::joker: Was his name Al Gebra?

:joker:

[kirklancaster]

to be honest the details i got were pretty sketchy




:dance:

:joker::joker::joker: I suppose then, you had to draw your own conclusions. :hee:

[Kazanne]

As usual this has turned into a "which is better" debate, the bottom :hee: line here is if Joe Smith from a long line of good British stock or Mr Patel from a not so long line of good British stock keeps a bottle with human excrement on it in a kitchen where he is cooking for the general public, it makes no difference what the culture is, they are both equally disgusting, breaching the law and putting the public at unnecessary risk.

:clap1::clap1::clap1:

[Niamh.]

gross http://www.emoticonhq.com/images/MSN/MSNsick.gif

[Cherie]

gross http://www.emoticonhq.com/images/MSN/MSNsick.gif

Looking a bit green there Niamh :fist:

[Dollface]

?

Disgusting bloke being disgusting more like. I dont see the mail making out it is part of his religion or something to wipe ones arse with ones hand instead of loo roll? :laugh:

As for the story, makes me glad I don't eat curry :p

Lucky :inamood: i'm addicted to the stuff

[Niamh.]

Lucky :inamood: i'm addicted to the stuff

same :worry:

[Jack_]

As usual this has turned into a "which is better" debate, the bottom :hee: line here is if Joe Smith from a long line of good British stock or Mr Patel from a not so long line of good British stock keeps a bottle with human excrement on it in a kitchen where he is cooking for the general public, it makes no difference what the culture is, they are both equally disgusting, breaching the law and putting the public at unnecessary risk.

:clap1::clap1::clap1:

Missing the point again. Of course it makes no difference what culture they're from or if there's any religious differences - no one on here including myself is trying to deny that this is disgusting no matter who carried it out (which if you'd read my post you would see). But it does make a difference to newspapers like the Mail who so transparently use stories like this to push their anti-multiculturalism, fear of ~others~ agenda.

It makes no difference what culture they're from yet there's an entire section of the article devoted to how certain religions don't use toilet paper? Yeah, sure

[Crimson Dynamo]

Missing the point again. Of course it makes no difference what culture they're from or if there's any religious differences - no one on here including myself is trying to deny that this is disgusting no matter who carried it out (which if you'd read my post you would see). But it does make a difference to newspapers like the Mail who so transparently use stories like this to push their anti-multiculturalism, fear of ~others~ agenda.

It makes no difference what culture they're from yet there's an entire section of the article devoted to how certain religions don't use toilet paper? Yeah, sure

I dont really think multiculturalism has worked very well Jack, do you?

cultures like to live and stick together

[Jack_]

I dont really think multiculturalism has worked very well Jack, do you?

cultures like to live and stick together

That's a different debate entirely and not one that's really appropriate for this thread, people can have their opinions on that but the objective point is that the Mail have used this story to further their own anti-multiculturalism, 'oh look ain't that other culture/religion so disgusting!!' agenda. That's what I was pointing out - because they have.

[Crimson Dynamo]

That's a different debate entirely and not one that's really appropriate for this thread, people can have their opinions on that but the objective point is that the Mail have used this story to further their own anti-multiculturalism, 'oh look ain't that other culture/religion so disgusting!!' agenda. That's what I was pointing out - because they have.

well that is just your opinion of course and not factual

[Jack_]

well that is just your opinion of course and not factual

My views on whether multiculturalism is good or not - like yours - are just an opinion. Me pointing out that the Mail have so transparently used this story to further their own agenda is not, it is an objective fact that's as clear as day for everyone to see. Not much to debate on that to be quite honest.

[Crimson Dynamo]

My views on whether multiculturalism is good or not - like yours - are just an opinion. Me pointing out that the Mail have so transparently used this story to further their own agenda is not, it is an objective fact that's as clear as day for everyone to see. Not much to debate on that to be quite honest.

They are just mildly trolling the readership

[arista]

he could have at least used a nan bread


Sure LT

[Cherie]

Missing the point again. Of course it makes no difference what culture they're from or if there's any religious differences - no one on here including myself is trying to deny that this is disgusting no matter who carried it out (which if you'd read my post you would see). But it does make a difference to newspapers like the Mail who so transparently use stories like this to push their anti-multiculturalism, fear of ~others~ agenda.

It makes no difference what culture they're from yet there's an entire section of the article devoted to how certain religions don't use toilet paper? Yeah, sure

I haven't missed any point again. His solicitor used his culture as part of his defence so if anyone is missing the point you are. What the Mail is doing is neither here nor there.

[Jack_]

I haven't missed any point again. His solicitor used his culture as part of his defence so if anyone is missing the point you are. What the Mail is doing is neither here nor there.

Oh please, he might well have done but the Mail have jumped on that so conveniently and included an entire section literally entitled 'NO LOO ROLL: HOW MUSLIMS, HINDUS AND OTHERS USE WATER WHEN THEY GO TO THE TOILET' - not a passing comment - an entire section. That's a deliberate attempt to link such practices to ~different~ cultures and religions, tarring them all with the same brush, make them appear disgusting and in the process trash multiculturalism.

This can be seen by anyone who exercises a little bit of media analysis - if you choose not to or are not capable of it that's your issue, but that's all I was pointing out.

[Cherie]

Oh please, he might well have done but the Mail have jumped on that so conveniently and included an entire section literally entitled 'NO LOO ROLL: HOW MUSLIMS, HINDUS AND OTHERS USE WATER WHEN THEY GO TO THE TOILET' - not a passing comment - an entire section. That's a deliberate attempt to link such practices to ~different~ cultures and religions, tarring them all with the same brush, make them appear disgusting and in the process trash multiculturalism.

This can be seen by anyone who exercises a little bit of media analysis - if you choose not to or are not capable of it that's your issue, but that's all I was pointing out.

As I said above and seeing as you pay such close attention to my posts how could you have missed it? I didn't read the whole article, the point I made was quite clear but once again you have tried to make my point of lessor value than yours, for someone who is so right on you have a dim view of some women :hee:

[Jack_]

As I said above and seeing as you pay such close attention to my posts how could you have missed it? I didn't read the whole article, the point I made was quite clear but once again you have tried to make my point of lessor value than yours, for someone who is so right on you have a dim view of some women :hee:

I did see it, hence why I said 'if you choose not to' - which you have, and quite frankly don't you think you shouldn't really be partaking in a discussion about the agenda of an article when you've not actually read said article? Doesn't make much sense does it :shrug:

Not sure why you're trying to make this an issue about women in an attempt to trash my character but okay. All I'm saying is that the Mail's agenda is clear as day for anyone who's read the article to see, maybe try reading it and then we can actually discuss it properly? :hee:

[Babayaro.]

Sure LT

The new sure jan meme?

[Beso]

reminds me of the time i saw a sweaty fat bloke rummaging round his itchy hoop in the library as he read.



one has never licked finger for page turning since!

[Beso]

Oh please, he might well have done but the Mail have jumped on that so conveniently and included an entire section literally entitled 'NO LOO ROLL: HOW MUSLIMS, HINDUS AND OTHERS USE WATER WHEN THEY GO TO THE TOILET' - not a passing comment - an entire section. That's a deliberate attempt to link such practices to ~different~ cultures and religions, tarring them all with the same brush, make them appear disgusting and in the process trash multiculturalism.

This can be seen by anyone who exercises a little bit of media analysis - if you choose not to or are not capable of it that's your issue, but that's all I was pointing out.



it's an explanation not an attack!

[bots]

Oh please, he might well have done but the Mail have jumped on that so conveniently and included an entire section literally entitled 'NO LOO ROLL: HOW MUSLIMS, HINDUS AND OTHERS USE WATER WHEN THEY GO TO THE TOILET' - not a passing comment - an entire section. That's a deliberate attempt to link such practices to ~different~ cultures and religions, tarring them all with the same brush, make them appear disgusting and in the process trash multiculturalism.

This can be seen by anyone who exercises a little bit of media analysis - if you choose not to or are not capable of it that's your issue, but that's all I was pointing out.

If standard practices for those of particular religions result in a higher hygiene risk, it is very important that the issue is highlighted if they are in the food preparation industry. I don't think we should be excusing hygiene issues in those circumstances, in the same way we don't excuse anyone else with dodgy hygiene involved in food preparation.

[DemolitionRed]

If standard practices for those of particular religions result in a higher hygiene risk, it is very important that the issue is highlighted if they are in the food preparation industry. I don't think we should be excusing hygiene issues in those circumstances, in the same way we don't excuse anyone else with dodgy hygiene involved in food preparation.

Absolutely but kitchens break hygiene laws all the time and many get closed down on a weekly basis for bad or even dangerous hygiene practices. At most they get a mention in the local rag. The only reason this particular story got into the national press is because like Jack said, "they wanted to further their agenda".

[Marsh.]

:joker: :joker: :joker: :joker:

Anyway, the Mail in another 'look at this foreign looking guy's disgusting religious culture!' shocker

You're calling this guy washing his filthy arse with his bare hands and then handling food in a restaurant a "religious culture"???? :joker::joker::joker::joker::joker::joker:

[Jack_]

If standard practices for those of particular religions result in a higher hygiene risk, it is very important that the issue is highlighted if they are in the food preparation industry. I don't think we should be excusing hygiene issues in those circumstances, in the same way we don't excuse anyone else with dodgy hygiene involved in food preparation.

Of course not, but what you are on the verge of doing here is exactly what the Mail was trying to incite - tarring all people of certain cultures and religious beliefs with the same brush, trying to make people fear that this kind of practice is widespread because of these people's cultures. Just as other food establishments run by people of various cultures and backgrounds are fined or closed down for other breaches of hygiene standards, I'm quite sure that not every takeaway surviving curry is wiping their **** in the food, it's few and far between.

You're calling this guy washing his filthy arse with his bare hands and then handling food in a restaurant a "religious culture"???? :joker::joker::joker::joker::joker::joker:

No, but the Mail is. Seriously what is so difficult about this that people are failing to understand? :joker: :joker: :joker::joker::joker: :joker:

[bots]

Of course not, but what you are on the verge of doing here is exactly what the Mail was trying to incite - tarring all people of certain cultures and religious beliefs with the same brush, trying to make people fear that this kind of practice is widespread because of these people's cultures. Just as other food establishments run by people of various cultures and backgrounds are fined or closed down for other breaches of hygiene standards, I'm quite sure that not every takeaway surviving curry is wiping their **** in the food, it's few and far between.


But their religious practice is creating a hygiene risk, why shouldn't it be highlighted. The simple fact is its an additional risk because of their religious beliefs, to not connect the issues is to bury your head in the sand

[Marsh.]

No, but the Mail is. Seriously what is so difficult about this that people are failing to understand? :joker: :joker: :joker::joker::joker: :joker:

Are they? The man himself said he "did not use toilet paper for cultural reasons".

According to the article there are also "rules and etiquette" around cleaning your left hand afterwards which this particular man obviously wasn't doing.

[Jack_]

But their religious practice is creating a hygiene risk, why shouldn't it be highlighted. The simple fact is its an additional risk because of their religious beliefs, to not connect the issues is to bury your head in the sand

Because in doing so you're assuming that every single one of them follow their religious beliefs to the letter when this simply isn't the case anymore. Many people pick and choose which aspects of their faith they wish to follow, many aren't practicing and many - I'm pretty sure - would, if they worked in a food outlet, not think it healthy to conduct their preparation in the same manner that this man did.

Again, this article is insinuating that they are one and all the same and we must fear for our dear lives because omg what are these weird people doing over here doing to our food!!

[Marsh.]

Because in doing so you're assuming that every single one of them follow their religious beliefs to the letter when this simply isn't the case anymore. Many people pick and choose which aspects of their faith they wish to follow, many aren't practicing and many - I'm pretty sure - would, if they worked in a food outlet, not think it healthy to conduct their preparation in the same manner that this man did.

Again, this article is insinuating that they are one and all the same and we must fear for our dear lives because omg what are these weird people doing over here doing to our food!!

No they aren't.

[Jack_]

Are they? The man himself said he "did not use toilet paper for cultural reasons".

Yes, they are - because again, they've devoted an entire section of the article to detail how this is a practice found in many ~different~ religions and cultures.

And if the man himself said it, why were you questioning it in your last post?

[Jack_]

No they aren't.

Um...yes they are. If you choose to be blind to the Mail's glaringly obvious editorial stance and agenda and instances in which they so conveniently make use of stories which can further it, that's your problem. But it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, in fact it's highly evident in most articles they write. You only have to exercise a little bit of media content analysis to see it.

[Marsh.]

Yes, they are - because again, they've devoted an entire section of the article to detail how this is a practice found in many ~different~ religions and cultures.

And if the man himself said it, why were you questioning it in your last post?

Because I'd only read the section which mentioned cultural practices. Cultural does not always equate to religious.

They've explained what culture this man is referring to when saying he doesn't use toilet paper. The same section which mentions the person having to wash the left hand which they use to use to wash with. Obviously indicating this particular man wasn't really very hygienic no matter his culture.

Still wasn't stating or implying that they are "all" unhygienic swines.

[Marsh.]

Um...yes they are. If you choose to be blind to the Mail's glaringly obvious editorial stance and agenda and instances in which they so conveniently make use of stories which can further it, that's your problem. But it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, in fact it's highly evident in most articles they write. You only have to exercise a little bit of media content analysis to see it.

You're the one apparently blind.

Using your view of the publication as a whole to make things up about this specific article which simply is not there.

[Jack_]

Because I'd only read the section which mentioned cultural practices. Cultural does not always equate to religious.

They've explained what culture this man is referring to when saying he doesn't use toilet paper. The same section which mentions the person having to wash the left hand which they use to use to wash with. Obviously indicating this particular man wasn't really very hygienic no matter his culture.

Still wasn't stating or implying that they are "all" unhygienic swines.

Of course it doesn't, the reason I brought religion into the equation is because the Mail did in the article - my entire point. In fact, it should be pointed out that there's as yet no evidence to suggest this man is of any faith - I've tried to research several articles but none of them specify whether he does or doesn't, so the Mail's decision to devote an entire section entitled 'NO LOO ROLL: HOW MUSLIMS, HINDUS AND OTHERS USE WATER WHEN THEY GO TO THE TOILET' is really quite unnecessary, no?

I am aware of the content of that section once you've read between the lines, but that subtitle is totally inflammatory, why not entitle it 'How Mr Chowdhury can't use culture as an excuse - here's how it works:' or words to that effect? Because they're trying to get their readers to go 'ewwww! So this is what they're all doing! They need to learn how to live like us!'.

Newspapers do not explicitly say things like that, they imply them and try to incite their readers to pick up on discreet messages in a bid to further their particular agenda. Just because it doesn't actually say 'this is yet another example of how these different religions and cultures are so disgusting and not like us', doesn't mean the meaning isn't there. All it takes is a little bit of objectivity and trying to assess how this story can be used to further a title's often well known editorial stance.

You're the one apparently blind.

Using your view of the publication as a whole to make things up about this specific article which simply is not there.

My view of the publication? You aren't serious, right? The Daily Mail is a well known fervent defender of British culture and its traditional, more conservative values. It is also not a huge fan of immigration, Islam or other non-Christian religions for that matter. This is not something I'm making up - it's well documented. Of course other titles have either similar or differing agendas - I'm not trying to deny that, supply me with an article from The Mirror or The Guardian and I'll show you how they're trying to push an anti-Tory, progressive, liberal agenda. I'm not being biased, just being objective. I am not passing judgement on the Mail's attempts at using this story to further their cause (though I do obviously have my opinions on it), merely pointing out that's what they're doing - because they are.

[Marsh.]

Of course it doesn't, the reason I brought religion into the equation is because the Mail did in the article - my entire point. In fact, it should be pointed out that there's as yet no evidence to suggest this man is of any faith - I've tried to research several articles but none of them specify whether he does or doesn't, so the Mail's decision to devote an entire section entitled 'NO LOO ROLL: HOW MUSLIMS, HINDUS AND OTHERS USE WATER WHEN THEY GO TO THE TOILET' is really quite unnecessary, no?

No, because the man himself said the reason he used the bottle was for a cultural reason.

[Jack_]

No, because the man himself said the reason he used the bottle was for a cultural reason.

Yes for a CULTURAL reason, which, as you said, is different from a religious reason. So if he didn't specify he's of any faith, why the inclusion of two religions in the subtitle and a whole section devoted to it?

[Marsh.]

Yes for a CULTURAL reason, which, as you said, is different from a religious reason. So if he didn't specify he's of any faith, why the inclusion of two religions in the subtitle and a whole section devoted to it?

Because the section explaining it is about a cultural etiquette, it's not just religious people who do those kinds of things.

[user104658]

Err... I can only assume that anyone who doesn't realise that this is the Mail "having a dig" at non-native-British ethnicities is being willfully blind.

[Marsh.]

And I can only assume someone who thinks every single story has no truth to it automatically because of a paper's political leanings is being wilfully stupid.

[Cherie]

I did see it, hence why I said 'if you choose not to' - which you have, and quite frankly don't you think you shouldn't really be partaking in a discussion about the agenda of an article when you've not actually read said article? Doesn't make much sense does it :shrug:

Not sure why you're trying to make this an issue about women in an attempt to trash my character but okay. All I'm saying is that the Mail's agenda is clear as day for anyone who's read the article to see, maybe try reading it and then we can actually discuss it properly? :hee:

Where do you get off? I wasn't partaking in your angle on the discussion, which seems to be Mail, Mail, rant rant nothing new there so nothing to discuss as it's said on every thread with a Mail link. You decided to drag me into your discussion by quoting my post and telling me (and Kaz) that we had missed your point. No I didn't I just didn't acknowledge your point, now you are telling me I shouldn't be commenting at all because I didn't read the article in full, anything else I can do to make your stay more comfortable? :joker:

[Cherie]

reminds me of the time i saw a sweaty fat bloke rummaging round his itchy hoop in the library as he read.



one has never licked finger for page turning since!

:joker:

[Crimson Dynamo]

Where do you get off? I wasn't partaking in your angle on the discussion, which seems to be Mail, Mail, rant rant nothing new there so nothing to discuss as it's said on every thread with a Mail link. You decided to drag me into your discussion by quoting my post and telling me (and Kaz) that we had missed your point. No I didn't I just didn't acknowledge your point, now you are telling me I shouldn't be commenting at all because I didn't read the article in full, anything else I can do to make your stay more comfortable? :joker:

:joker:

[Cherie]

:joker:

I thought not reading the Mail was something everyone should aspire to :laugh:

[user104658]

And I can only assume someone who thinks every single story has no truth to it automatically because of a paper's political leanings is being wilfully stupid.

Whether the story is untrue, partially true, or entirely true has absolutely no bearing on the paper's motivations for posting it. Entirely irrelevant to their agenda.

[Marsh.]

Whether the story is untrue, partially true, or entirely true has absolutely no bearing on the paper's motivations for posting it. Entirely irrelevant to their agenda.

So therefore irrelevant to this thread and the situation we're discussing.

[user104658]

So therefore irrelevant to this thread and the situation we're discussing.
According to...?

[Ninastar]

Ahh, TiBB, where an article is more controversial than someone using their hand to wipe a ****.

[Marsh.]

According to...?

Yourself? You just said so in the post I quoted.

The truth or untruth of this article is irrelevant to the paper's agenda. This thread being about the article itself, the paper's overall agenda is of no relevance to discussing the truths of the man in this article. :hee:

[user104658]

Yourself? You just said so in the post I quoted.

The truth or untruth of this article is irrelevant to the paper's agenda. This thread being about the article itself, the paper's overall agenda is of no relevance to discussing the truths of the man in this article. :hee:

When discussing a published article... the agenda, political leanings, and motivations of the publisher are irrelevant? Really, though? :shrug: I suppose I wished in a world this simple, it must involve a lot less stress. And... thought. Pesky old thought and analysis :fist:.

[Marsh.]

When discussing a published article... the agenda, political leanings, and motivations of the publisher are irrelevant? Really, though? :shrug: I suppose I wished in a world this simple, it must involve a lot less stress. And... thought. Pesky old thought and analysis :fist:.

You yourself said it was irrelevant.

Pointing out the rather obvious political leanings of the Daily Mail isn't really adding anything new to the thread about this particular story.

[Vicky.]

Ahh, TiBB, where an article is more controversial than someone using their hand to wipe a ****.

:joker:

[Marsh.]

Ahh, TiBB, where an article is more controversial than someone using their hand to wipe a ****.

But the Daily Mail has an agenda!!! :rant:

[Ninastar]

But the Daily Mail has an agenda!!! :rant:

The sky is blue!!!! :rant:

[Jack_]

Ahh TiBB, where points are continuously missed and people's posts aren't bothered to be read and understood properly!

Because the section explaining it is about a cultural etiquette, it's not just religious people who do those kinds of things.

Exactly. So again, why include the names of two religions in the subtitle of that section?

And I can only assume someone who thinks every single story has no truth to it automatically because of a paper's political leanings is being wilfully stupid.

Eh? Please direct me to the point in this thread where I've made any suggestion that this story isn't true? In actual fact I made two posts stating very clearly that this story is disgusting, the man should be prosecuted and that in pointing out what the Mail is using this story for, I'm not trying to absolve him of anything.

So where have I insinuated this story isn't true?

Where do you get off? I wasn't partaking in your angle on the discussion, which seems to be Mail, Mail, rant rant nothing new there so nothing to discuss as it's said on every thread with a Mail link. You decided to drag me into your discussion by quoting my post and telling me (and Kaz) that we had missed your point. No I didn't I just didn't acknowledge your point, now you are telling me I shouldn't be commenting at all because I didn't read the article in full, anything else I can do to make your stay more comfortable? :joker:

Err...yes you were:

As usual this has turned into a "which is better" debate

I didn't drag you into anything, you decided to drag yourself into a discussion I was having with Vicky in a post that was quite obviously directed at me (although conveniently not quoted), so I responded.

You then said, and I quote, 'what the Mail is doing is neither here nor there', thereby entering yourself into the discussion regarding the article's intentions - so yes you did acknowledge my point, and really, partaking in a discussion about an article when you've not read said article is, well...uh...pointless?

[Ninastar]

Nah I understand your point completely. The daily mail is a pile of **** and I think the only fan of the DM on here is LT. But the fact that you're more bothered about the article than the fact that this person could have made some people really sick, says it all really.

[Jack_]

Nah I understand your point completely. The daily mail is a pile of **** and I think the only fan of the DM on here is LT. But the fact that you're more bothered about the article than the fact that this person could have made some people really sick, says it all really.

Again, where the **** have I said I'm not bothered about the actions of this man? Said it's anything other than disgusting? Said that he shouldn't be prosecuted? People clearly don't bother reading threads because I've said the opposite of these things on several occasions :conf: highlighting how stories of this ilk are used to further the agenda of a national newspaper does not absolve anyone of anything, but is still important - especially when people start reciting the same messages in their posts

(as a side note, there are far more people than just LT on here that don't know or don't care what the Mail's about)

[DemolitionRed]

Again, where the **** have I said I'm not bothered about the actions of this man? Said it's anything other than disgusting? Said that he shouldn't be prosecuted? People clearly don't bother reading threads because I've said the opposite of these things on several occasions :conf: highlighting how stories of this ilk are used to further the agenda of a national newspaper does not absolve anyone of anything, but is still important - especially when people start reciting the same messages in their posts

(as a side note, there are far more people than just LT on here that don't know or don't care what the Mail's about)

I agree with everything you have said. This article is a good representative sample of the Daily Mail. Welcome to the modern Britain. Like a new soap powder - it washes whiter than white..

All I can say is, you can't keep addressing peoples objections when those objections are not only disregarded but dismantled. If people are personally offended by your confidence, then be content with that.

[Cherie]

Ahh TiBB, where points are continuously missed and people's posts aren't bothered to be read and understood properly!



Exactly. So again, why include the names of two religions in the subtitle of that section?



Eh? Please direct me to the point in this thread where I've made any suggestion that this story isn't true? In actual fact I made two posts stating very clearly that this story is disgusting, the man should be prosecuted and that in pointing out what the Mail is using this story for, I'm not trying to absolve him of anything.

So where have I insinuated this story isn't true?



Err...yes you were:



I didn't drag you into anything, you decided to drag yourself into a discussion I was having with Vicky in a post that was quite obviously directed at me (although conveniently not quoted), so I responded.

You then said, and I quote, 'what the Mail is doing is neither here nor there', thereby entering yourself into the discussion regarding the article's intentions - so yes you did acknowledge my point, and really, partaking in a discussion about an article when you've not read said article is, well...uh...pointless?

Conveniently not quoted!, :umm2: because I wasn't addressing your point, hard for you to digest I know. You have an over inflated sense of your own importance, most of the time I don't read your posts

[Cherie]

Nah I understand your point completely. The daily mail is a pile of **** and I think the only fan of the DM on here is LT. But the fact that you're more bothered about the article than the fact that this person could have made some people really sick, says it all really.

:clap2:

[Greg!]

Welp how does a thread about someone wiping their arse with their bare hands have huge massive paragraphs of debate :worry:

[Jack_]

I agree with everything you have said. This article is a good representative sample of the Daily Mail. Welcome to the modern Britain. Like a new soap powder - it washes whiter than white..

All I can say is, you can't keep addressing peoples objections when those objections are not only disregarded but dismantled. If people are personally offended by your confidence, then be content with that.

Don't worry, I'm often in the minority on here but it doesn't and won't stop me pointing out and standing up for what's right. Thank you though, I'm glad someone agrees and I really appreciate you saying that

Conveniently not quoted!, :umm2: because I wasn't addressing your point, hard for you to digest I know. You have an over inflated sense of your own importance, most of the time I don't read your posts

So do pray tell, what you were referring to when you said 'as usual this has turned into a "which is better" debate'? Because from the looks of things there wasn't any other discussion going on.

That's quite hilarious coming from you but sure :shrug: that makes two of us then, I tend to only read yours when you've quoted me...if only you'd have the decency to do the same before you do eh?

[Cherie]

It really feels like we are on a mission today.

Muslims and Hindus and a lot of Italians don't use toilet paper but either have a water hose next to the toilet or take a bottle of water into the toilet with them.

The fact that they found this water bottle in the kitchen is not on and I agree, this guy needs prosecuting but in general, the water system as opposed to the toilet paper system is both environmentally and hygienically better when its used properly.

There you go Jack. Maybe you should read the thread, this is the post that prompted my comment :hee:

[Kazanne]

Bottom line is,he is a dirty, unclean bastard whatever culture ,creed or religion he is or follows !!!!

[Crimson Dynamo]

I only look at the DM for the celeb bikini shots

#letLTlive

[Denver]

What a load of ****

[smudgie]

Bottom line is,he is a dirty, unclean bastard whatever culture ,creed or religion he is or follows !!!!

Indeed, hope he is banned from owning or working in kitchens for life if he thinks this behaviour is okay.:fist:

[Kizzy]

Cultural or not it's a grim practice :/

[Marsh.]

I only look at the DM for the celeb bikini shots

#letLTlive

:joker: