County council refuses to identify Lancashire schools that received horsemeat

2:17pm Thursday 28th February 2013 in News

LANCASHIRE County Council bosses were last night still refusing to identify the 51 schools which received beef products, including halal beefburgers and cottage pies, containing horsemeat.

The Lancashire Council of Mosques demanded they provide the information to the public and said its intervention had stopped the scandal of contaminated “halal” products being worse.

Hanif Daudhwala, a halal expert at the LCM, said: “The county council should identify the four secondary schools which got contaminated “halal” burgers and the 47 primaries which got similar cottage pies.

“They have let down not just Muslim parents but all parents.

“Things could have been far worse but for the intervention of the LCM which contacted all the 68 schools being supplied by the county with supposedly Halal foods expressing our concerns. “Most chose a vegetarian diet for Muslims.”

A county spokesman said: "As a supplier of meals to the schools, it would not be appropriate to issue this information without each school's consent but individual schools are obviously free to confirm their involvement."

Tesco boss Philip Clarke has promised farmers to use more British meat in his supermarket’s products.

Related links

Comments (25)

2:21pm Thu 28 Feb 13

darwenTower says...

Refused?
We have a right to know. Who do they think they are?
Refused? We have a right to know. Who do they think they are? darwenTower

2:36pm Thu 28 Feb 13

jack daniels says...

Like the LLC say - It's a consent and data protection issue. They have already spoken to the parents that matter and that is enough.

This is clearly showing the unelected LCM up as bully boys who think they can barge into any issue which has a islamic tint on the basis they have more rights than anybody else.

They have done nothing to help this issue than to whip up anti-muslim feeling and possibly a witch hunt within the asian community themselves as there will be a number of muslim children who will have accidently consumed unclean food, that will be pressurised by this narrow-minded men only club.
Like the LLC say - It's a consent and data protection issue. They have already spoken to the parents that matter and that is enough. This is clearly showing the unelected LCM up as bully boys who think they can barge into any issue which has a islamic tint on the basis they have more rights than anybody else. They have done nothing to help this issue than to whip up anti-muslim feeling and possibly a witch hunt within the asian community themselves as there will be a number of muslim children who will have accidently consumed unclean food, that will be pressurised by this narrow-minded men only club. jack daniels

2:41pm Thu 28 Feb 13

jack daniels says...

The Lancashire Council of Mosques ..... said its intervention had stopped the scandal of contaminated “halal” products being worse.

How?

What have the actually done?
The Lancashire Council of Mosques ..... said its intervention had stopped the scandal of contaminated “halal” products being worse. How? What have the actually done? jack daniels

2:46pm Thu 28 Feb 13

sen c b l says...

The law states a service or product supplier must not sell you a contract which is misleading in anyway. This is know as consumer rights. Even though you will/may not be entitled to compensation, they could be prosecuted for mis selling under the Trading Standards Act.

Continue to boycott scandalous product and threaten legal action privately if they fail to comply.
The law states a service or product supplier must not sell you a contract which is misleading in anyway. This is know as consumer rights. Even though you will/may not be entitled to compensation, they could be prosecuted for mis selling under the Trading Standards Act. Continue to boycott scandalous product and threaten legal action privately if they fail to comply. sen c b l

2:49pm Thu 28 Feb 13

sen c b l says...

Aswell as providing a list of schools supplied with 'contaminated' food products, they should also disclose who the suppliers were, and name and shame the deceiving scoundrels.
Aswell as providing a list of schools supplied with 'contaminated' food products, they should also disclose who the suppliers were, and name and shame the deceiving scoundrels. sen c b l

2:50pm Thu 28 Feb 13

shytalk says...

So long as the horese meat is halal am sure there will be no problem.
So long as the horese meat is halal am sure there will be no problem. shytalk

2:52pm Thu 28 Feb 13

cloud99 says...

If the 68 schools have been contacted, it won't take long for it to be made public knowledge which schools they are.
If the 68 schools have been contacted, it won't take long for it to be made public knowledge which schools they are. cloud99

4:05pm Thu 28 Feb 13

louderfasterlonger says...

Tesco will buy Britsh Beef Supplies, so to all the farmers out there, get breeding and Tesco will give you a fair price.
Then they will force down your prices to raise their own profits and ruin your business as they (and their competitors) did to the Dairy Farmers.
Tesco will buy Britsh Beef Supplies, so to all the farmers out there, get breeding and Tesco will give you a fair price. Then they will force down your prices to raise their own profits and ruin your business as they (and their competitors) did to the Dairy Farmers. louderfasterlonger

5:16pm Thu 28 Feb 13

glossopkid says...

jack daniels wrote:
Like the LLC say - It's a consent and data protection issue. They have already spoken to the parents that matter and that is enough.

This is clearly showing the unelected LCM up as bully boys who think they can barge into any issue which has a islamic tint on the basis they have more rights than anybody else.

They have done nothing to help this issue than to whip up anti-muslim feeling and possibly a witch hunt within the asian community themselves as there will be a number of muslim children who will have accidently consumed unclean food, that will be pressurised by this narrow-minded men only club.
No OFFENCE Jack but LCC always seem to hide behind these clauses as you have mentioned above.
I have always found Lcc and the officers working there to be the biggest bullies around.
There should be a restructuring of all the staff employed at Lcc.
[quote][p][bold]jack daniels[/bold] wrote: Like the LLC say - It's a consent and data protection issue. They have already spoken to the parents that matter and that is enough. This is clearly showing the unelected LCM up as bully boys who think they can barge into any issue which has a islamic tint on the basis they have more rights than anybody else. They have done nothing to help this issue than to whip up anti-muslim feeling and possibly a witch hunt within the asian community themselves as there will be a number of muslim children who will have accidently consumed unclean food, that will be pressurised by this narrow-minded men only club.[/p][/quote]No OFFENCE Jack but LCC always seem to hide behind these clauses as you have mentioned above. I have always found Lcc and the officers working there to be the biggest bullies around. There should be a restructuring of all the staff employed at Lcc. glossopkid

6:58pm Thu 28 Feb 13

East_lancs_lad says...

Sen c b l .......how come you have not been barred from this site like my old friend Gibuk ? he was responding to your threats and then he got barred.....who do you know at LET,

As for the horse meat being put in halal food and other food it's been going on for donkeys years 😄
Sen c b l .......how come you have not been barred from this site like my old friend Gibuk ? he was responding to your threats and then he got barred.....who do you know at LET, As for the horse meat being put in halal food and other food it's been going on for donkeys years 😄 East_lancs_lad

7:04pm Thu 28 Feb 13

sen c b l says...

East_lancs_lad wrote:
Sen c b l .......how come you have not been barred from this site like my old friend Gibuk ? he was responding to your threats and then he got barred.....who do you know at LET,

As for the horse meat being put in halal food and other food it's been going on for donkeys years 😄
'How come you have not been barred'!

Whatever for?
Since when do I talk porkies or horse manure???
[quote][p][bold]East_lancs_lad[/bold] wrote: Sen c b l .......how come you have not been barred from this site like my old friend Gibuk ? he was responding to your threats and then he got barred.....who do you know at LET, As for the horse meat being put in halal food and other food it's been going on for donkeys years 😄[/p][/quote]'How come you have not been barred'! Whatever for? Since when do I talk porkies or horse manure??? sen c b l

8:11pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Rimbus says...

East_lancs_lad wrote:
Sen c b l .......how come you have not been barred from this site like my old friend Gibuk ? he was responding to your threats and then he got barred.....who do you know at LET,

As for the horse meat being put in halal food and other food it's been going on for donkeys years 😄
He changed his name from 'sen c ble' and set up a new account! It's no surprise that the retards at the LT never realised as, based on the spelling and grammar on display on a daily basis, it is staffed exclusively by 5 year olds.
[quote][p][bold]East_lancs_lad[/bold] wrote: Sen c b l .......how come you have not been barred from this site like my old friend Gibuk ? he was responding to your threats and then he got barred.....who do you know at LET, As for the horse meat being put in halal food and other food it's been going on for donkeys years 😄[/p][/quote]He changed his name from 'sen c ble' and set up a new account! It's no surprise that the retards at the LT never realised as, based on the spelling and grammar on display on a daily basis, it is staffed exclusively by 5 year olds. Rimbus

8:13pm Thu 28 Feb 13

jack daniels says...

glossopkid wrote:
jack daniels wrote:
Like the LLC say - It's a consent and data protection issue. They have already spoken to the parents that matter and that is enough.

This is clearly showing the unelected LCM up as bully boys who think they can barge into any issue which has a islamic tint on the basis they have more rights than anybody else.

They have done nothing to help this issue than to whip up anti-muslim feeling and possibly a witch hunt within the asian community themselves as there will be a number of muslim children who will have accidently consumed unclean food, that will be pressurised by this narrow-minded men only club.
No OFFENCE Jack but LCC always seem to hide behind these clauses as you have mentioned above.
I have always found Lcc and the officers working there to be the biggest bullies around.
There should be a restructuring of all the staff employed at Lcc.
No offence taken. From my experience, the LCC will use data protection as an excuse as much as the fear of being fined for disclosing information.

My issue is with the lcm using this as excuse to support their self righteous campaign for more power.
In my opinion, its not everybodys welfare they care about - just the power to rule over Islamic issues in the UK - such as who supplies halal meat in Lancashire.
[quote][p][bold]glossopkid[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jack daniels[/bold] wrote: Like the LLC say - It's a consent and data protection issue. They have already spoken to the parents that matter and that is enough. This is clearly showing the unelected LCM up as bully boys who think they can barge into any issue which has a islamic tint on the basis they have more rights than anybody else. They have done nothing to help this issue than to whip up anti-muslim feeling and possibly a witch hunt within the asian community themselves as there will be a number of muslim children who will have accidently consumed unclean food, that will be pressurised by this narrow-minded men only club.[/p][/quote]No OFFENCE Jack but LCC always seem to hide behind these clauses as you have mentioned above. I have always found Lcc and the officers working there to be the biggest bullies around. There should be a restructuring of all the staff employed at Lcc.[/p][/quote]No offence taken. From my experience, the LCC will use data protection as an excuse as much as the fear of being fined for disclosing information. My issue is with the lcm using this as excuse to support their self righteous campaign for more power. In my opinion, its not everybodys welfare they care about - just the power to rule over Islamic issues in the UK - such as who supplies halal meat in Lancashire. jack daniels

8:29pm Thu 28 Feb 13

sen c b l says...

jack daniels wrote:
glossopkid wrote:
jack daniels wrote:
Like the LLC say - It's a consent and data protection issue. They have already spoken to the parents that matter and that is enough.

This is clearly showing the unelected LCM up as bully boys who think they can barge into any issue which has a islamic tint on the basis they have more rights than anybody else.

They have done nothing to help this issue than to whip up anti-muslim feeling and possibly a witch hunt within the asian community themselves as there will be a number of muslim children who will have accidently consumed unclean food, that will be pressurised by this narrow-minded men only club.
No OFFENCE Jack but LCC always seem to hide behind these clauses as you have mentioned above.
I have always found Lcc and the officers working there to be the biggest bullies around.
There should be a restructuring of all the staff employed at Lcc.
No offence taken. From my experience, the LCC will use data protection as an excuse as much as the fear of being fined for disclosing information.

My issue is with the lcm using this as excuse to support their self righteous campaign for more power.
In my opinion, its not everybodys welfare they care about - just the power to rule over Islamic issues in the UK - such as who supplies halal meat in Lancashire.
Incorrect again jd.
Its in the interest of the public to disclose this information. A contract has been broken and the public have the right to know whether they were the victim.
LCM warned well before the horse scandal arose that they were disputing the authenticity of halal meat supplied to schools and asked parents to boycott school meals. The LCC gave assurances that halal meat was approved, only to be provened false.
A breach of trust and parents have been betrayed.
Organisations such as LCM have the right to be informed, if not the public in main.
[quote][p][bold]jack daniels[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]glossopkid[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jack daniels[/bold] wrote: Like the LLC say - It's a consent and data protection issue. They have already spoken to the parents that matter and that is enough. This is clearly showing the unelected LCM up as bully boys who think they can barge into any issue which has a islamic tint on the basis they have more rights than anybody else. They have done nothing to help this issue than to whip up anti-muslim feeling and possibly a witch hunt within the asian community themselves as there will be a number of muslim children who will have accidently consumed unclean food, that will be pressurised by this narrow-minded men only club.[/p][/quote]No OFFENCE Jack but LCC always seem to hide behind these clauses as you have mentioned above. I have always found Lcc and the officers working there to be the biggest bullies around. There should be a restructuring of all the staff employed at Lcc.[/p][/quote]No offence taken. From my experience, the LCC will use data protection as an excuse as much as the fear of being fined for disclosing information. My issue is with the lcm using this as excuse to support their self righteous campaign for more power. In my opinion, its not everybodys welfare they care about - just the power to rule over Islamic issues in the UK - such as who supplies halal meat in Lancashire.[/p][/quote]Incorrect again jd. Its in the interest of the public to disclose this information. A contract has been broken and the public have the right to know whether they were the victim. LCM warned well before the horse scandal arose that they were disputing the authenticity of halal meat supplied to schools and asked parents to boycott school meals. The LCC gave assurances that halal meat was approved, only to be provened false. A breach of trust and parents have been betrayed. Organisations such as LCM have the right to be informed, if not the public in main. sen c b l

9:30pm Thu 28 Feb 13

East_lancs_lad says...

All this horsemeat / halal meat nonsense. Horse meat has probably been used for many years without any harm and unfortunately those that prefer halal for whatever reason may have or are likely to have eaten large quantities. Has it caused them any ill health or harm ? I think not...............

If the halal eaters don't like the situation maybe it would be a good idea to take packed lunches this would ensure they are getting what they require but also there must be a cost saving for LCC.

Oh and Sen c b l .............you crafty one you 😄
All this horsemeat / halal meat nonsense. Horse meat has probably been used for many years without any harm and unfortunately those that prefer halal for whatever reason may have or are likely to have eaten large quantities. Has it caused them any ill health or harm ? I think not............... If the halal eaters don't like the situation maybe it would be a good idea to take packed lunches this would ensure they are getting what they require but also there must be a cost saving for LCC. Oh and Sen c b l .............you crafty one you 😄 East_lancs_lad

9:45pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Rimbus says...

East_lancs_lad wrote:
All this horsemeat / halal meat nonsense. Horse meat has probably been used for many years without any harm and unfortunately those that prefer halal for whatever reason may have or are likely to have eaten large quantities. Has it caused them any ill health or harm ? I think not...............

If the halal eaters don't like the situation maybe it would be a good idea to take packed lunches this would ensure they are getting what they require but also there must be a cost saving for LCC.

Oh and Sen c b l .............you crafty one you 😄
Take packed lunches? No danger of that cos they'd have to pay for them unlike the free school meals that they currently receive.
[quote][p][bold]East_lancs_lad[/bold] wrote: All this horsemeat / halal meat nonsense. Horse meat has probably been used for many years without any harm and unfortunately those that prefer halal for whatever reason may have or are likely to have eaten large quantities. Has it caused them any ill health or harm ? I think not............... If the halal eaters don't like the situation maybe it would be a good idea to take packed lunches this would ensure they are getting what they require but also there must be a cost saving for LCC. Oh and Sen c b l .............you crafty one you 😄[/p][/quote]Take packed lunches? No danger of that cos they'd have to pay for them unlike the free school meals that they currently receive. Rimbus

10:01pm Thu 28 Feb 13

East_lancs_lad says...

Rimbus........

Take packed lunches? No danger of that cos they'd have to pay for them unlike the free school meals that they currently receive.

I can smell that there's probably some compensation / reimbursement plan coming here 😄
Rimbus........ Take packed lunches? No danger of that cos they'd have to pay for them unlike the free school meals that they currently receive. I can smell that there's probably some compensation / reimbursement plan coming here 😄 East_lancs_lad

11:48pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Major Tom says...

Where there's blame; there's a claim. Been miss-sold beef in the last 3 years?
Where there's blame; there's a claim. Been miss-sold beef in the last 3 years? Major Tom

7:07am Fri 1 Mar 13

jack daniels says...

sen c b l wrote:
jack daniels wrote:
glossopkid wrote:
jack daniels wrote:
Like the LLC say - It's a consent and data protection issue. They have already spoken to the parents that matter and that is enough.

This is clearly showing the unelected LCM up as bully boys who think they can barge into any issue which has a islamic tint on the basis they have more rights than anybody else.

They have done nothing to help this issue than to whip up anti-muslim feeling and possibly a witch hunt within the asian community themselves as there will be a number of muslim children who will have accidently consumed unclean food, that will be pressurised by this narrow-minded men only club.
No OFFENCE Jack but LCC always seem to hide behind these clauses as you have mentioned above.
I have always found Lcc and the officers working there to be the biggest bullies around.
There should be a restructuring of all the staff employed at Lcc.
No offence taken. From my experience, the LCC will use data protection as an excuse as much as the fear of being fined for disclosing information.

My issue is with the lcm using this as excuse to support their self righteous campaign for more power.
In my opinion, its not everybodys welfare they care about - just the power to rule over Islamic issues in the UK - such as who supplies halal meat in Lancashire.
Incorrect again jd.
Its in the interest of the public to disclose this information. A contract has been broken and the public have the right to know whether they were the victim.
LCM warned well before the horse scandal arose that they were disputing the authenticity of halal meat supplied to schools and asked parents to boycott school meals. The LCC gave assurances that halal meat was approved, only to be provened false.
A breach of trust and parents have been betrayed.
Organisations such as LCM have the right to be informed, if not the public in main.
Actually, I'm correct twice in a row as the families involved have been informed. If you've not been informed then you haven't been affected and therefore your interest in this matter is no greater than anybody in the county.

Secondly, the LCC picked a halal supplier based on proper tendering procedures, which the lcm clearly hasn't followed. But then why should it as it isn't a democratic institution; but simply a group of men with their own agendas.

The council needs to follow it's own policies and procedures, as well as government policy and I'm confident that our democratically elected representatives will resolve this issue.
[quote][p][bold]sen c b l[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jack daniels[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]glossopkid[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jack daniels[/bold] wrote: Like the LLC say - It's a consent and data protection issue. They have already spoken to the parents that matter and that is enough. This is clearly showing the unelected LCM up as bully boys who think they can barge into any issue which has a islamic tint on the basis they have more rights than anybody else. They have done nothing to help this issue than to whip up anti-muslim feeling and possibly a witch hunt within the asian community themselves as there will be a number of muslim children who will have accidently consumed unclean food, that will be pressurised by this narrow-minded men only club.[/p][/quote]No OFFENCE Jack but LCC always seem to hide behind these clauses as you have mentioned above. I have always found Lcc and the officers working there to be the biggest bullies around. There should be a restructuring of all the staff employed at Lcc.[/p][/quote]No offence taken. From my experience, the LCC will use data protection as an excuse as much as the fear of being fined for disclosing information. My issue is with the lcm using this as excuse to support their self righteous campaign for more power. In my opinion, its not everybodys welfare they care about - just the power to rule over Islamic issues in the UK - such as who supplies halal meat in Lancashire.[/p][/quote]Incorrect again jd. Its in the interest of the public to disclose this information. A contract has been broken and the public have the right to know whether they were the victim. LCM warned well before the horse scandal arose that they were disputing the authenticity of halal meat supplied to schools and asked parents to boycott school meals. The LCC gave assurances that halal meat was approved, only to be provened false. A breach of trust and parents have been betrayed. Organisations such as LCM have the right to be informed, if not the public in main.[/p][/quote]Actually, I'm correct twice in a row as the families involved have been informed. If you've not been informed then you haven't been affected and therefore your interest in this matter is no greater than anybody in the county. Secondly, the LCC picked a halal supplier based on proper tendering procedures, which the lcm clearly hasn't followed. But then why should it as it isn't a democratic institution; but simply a group of men with their own agendas. The council needs to follow it's own policies and procedures, as well as government policy and I'm confident that our democratically elected representatives will resolve this issue. jack daniels

9:21am Fri 1 Mar 13

jack daniels says...

Lets get a few facts in before we start accusing people of being incorrect.

The lcm didn’t raise an issue about the quality of the LCC’s supplier – rather its authenticity of it halal label.

It seems that the unelected ‘Muslim scholars in Lancashire’ took it upon themselves to decide what was halal and what was unsuitable, and unbelievably, they felt they had the authority to tell OUR council that they -

“should pick suppliers who are accredited to the Lancashire Council of Mosques”.

rather than OUR LCC's set policies that govern such issues.

Due to the fact we live in a 21st century western European society, and we have certain ethics, the leader of the county council, Geoff Driver said

“it was "unacceptable" to use meat from animals which had not been stunned.”

He stated that "

This is non-negotiable".

"This is acceptable to Muslims in the rest of the country and I am really, really sorry if the Lancashire Council of Mosques won't accept that."

"It is misleading to say the suppliers we have chosen are not accredited Halal suppliers - the body which accredited our suppliers was the body which accredited the meat for the Olympic Games."

The fact that the LCC is following other countries such as the Netherlands (where religious slaughter without stunning is now banned), France, and with the recent conclusion of the Polish courts with it’s ruling that slaughter without stunning as unconstitutional; it seems in my opinion to marginalise the lcm as a bunch of men interested in their own power grabbing, which disregards the country they reside in.
Lets get a few facts in before we start accusing people of being incorrect. The lcm didn’t raise an issue about the quality of the LCC’s supplier – rather its authenticity of it halal label. It seems that the unelected ‘Muslim scholars in Lancashire’ took it upon themselves to decide what was halal and what was unsuitable, and unbelievably, they felt they had the authority to tell OUR council that they - “should pick suppliers who are accredited to the Lancashire Council of Mosques”. rather than OUR LCC's set policies that govern such issues. Due to the fact we live in a 21st century western European society, and we have certain ethics, the leader of the county council, Geoff Driver said “it was "unacceptable" to use meat from animals which had not been stunned.” He stated that " This is non-negotiable". "This is acceptable to Muslims in the rest of the country and I am really, really sorry if the Lancashire Council of Mosques won't accept that." "It is misleading to say the suppliers we have chosen are not accredited Halal suppliers - the body which accredited our suppliers was the body which accredited the meat for the Olympic Games." The fact that the LCC is following other countries such as the Netherlands (where religious slaughter without stunning is now banned), France, and with the recent conclusion of the Polish courts with it’s ruling that slaughter without stunning as unconstitutional; it seems in my opinion to marginalise the lcm as a bunch of men interested in their own power grabbing, which disregards the country they reside in. jack daniels

6:25pm Fri 1 Mar 13

sen c b l says...

jack daniels wrote:
Lets get a few facts in before we start accusing people of being incorrect.

The lcm didn’t raise an issue about the quality of the LCC’s supplier – rather its authenticity of it halal label.

It seems that the unelected ‘Muslim scholars in Lancashire’ took it upon themselves to decide what was halal and what was unsuitable, and unbelievably, they felt they had the authority to tell OUR council that they -

“should pick suppliers who are accredited to the Lancashire Council of Mosques”.

rather than OUR LCC's set policies that govern such issues.

Due to the fact we live in a 21st century western European society, and we have certain ethics, the leader of the county council, Geoff Driver said

“it was "unacceptable" to use meat from animals which had not been stunned.”

He stated that "

This is non-negotiable".

"This is acceptable to Muslims in the rest of the country and I am really, really sorry if the Lancashire Council of Mosques won't accept that."

"It is misleading to say the suppliers we have chosen are not accredited Halal suppliers - the body which accredited our suppliers was the body which accredited the meat for the Olympic Games."

The fact that the LCC is following other countries such as the Netherlands (where religious slaughter without stunning is now banned), France, and with the recent conclusion of the Polish courts with it’s ruling that slaughter without stunning as unconstitutional; it seems in my opinion to marginalise the lcm as a bunch of men interested in their own power grabbing, which disregards the country they reside in.
'Correct twice in a row', please elaborate??

Saudi's are Hanballis, followers of Imam Hanbal and NOT followers of the Wahhabi sect. You will note the title 'Imam' does not precede Wahhabi. This is because he wasn't and after being ejected from Saudi Arabia he settled in Pakistan where he continued to spread his ideology. He then teamed up with a scholar, Gulam Qadia, 'the Qaddianis', note scholar and not 'Imam', during the time of the British Raj, 1800's.
Whilst visiting the flush room he ended up flushing himself!
This group continue to exist not only in Pakistan but have recently constructed Britian's largest mosque.
(that's one down for you jd)

Secondly the parents have NOT been informed, and any relevant details disclosed to schools alone does not go far enough. Parents have the right to know and so far, they haven't. What you read and believe reported in the LT, is false. Any disclosure would have been reported to the LCM by the parents or the mosque that they attend. If you are so confident,then please could you provide any evidence to back up your claim.
(that's two down )

You inaccuratley state that LCM are unelected and scholars. They are infact elected by representatives of each mosque in Lancashire, and like you and I are normal people with job careers. They may however seek every now and then guidance from scholars in certain aspects for the correct interpretation of Islamic law.
(that's three jd)

Suppliers appointed to provide halal products cannot be nominated, as in this case LCC.
LCM will not work in conjunction with the 'Halal Food Authority'. LCM's suspicions were confirmed when pork supplied as beef was supplied to prisons, and equine in school meals. In both these cases 'HFA' approved halal accreditation and recommended the suppliers to be authentic and passed them on to LCC. When questioned three months earlier, assurances were given, but obviouslly rejected by LCM, and confirmed by DNA tests.
SLAUGHTER WITH OR WITHOUT STUNNING DOES NOT WARRANT HALAL ACCREDITATION. A short religious verse is offered prior to slaughter. Therefore only a muslim employee at an abbatior can warrant such a claim.
(that;s four jack)

You haven't done too well, have you jd.

The above information provided by The Honourable Sir Salim Mulla.
[quote][p][bold]jack daniels[/bold] wrote: Lets get a few facts in before we start accusing people of being incorrect. The lcm didn’t raise an issue about the quality of the LCC’s supplier – rather its authenticity of it halal label. It seems that the unelected ‘Muslim scholars in Lancashire’ took it upon themselves to decide what was halal and what was unsuitable, and unbelievably, they felt they had the authority to tell OUR council that they - “should pick suppliers who are accredited to the Lancashire Council of Mosques”. rather than OUR LCC's set policies that govern such issues. Due to the fact we live in a 21st century western European society, and we have certain ethics, the leader of the county council, Geoff Driver said “it was "unacceptable" to use meat from animals which had not been stunned.” He stated that " This is non-negotiable". "This is acceptable to Muslims in the rest of the country and I am really, really sorry if the Lancashire Council of Mosques won't accept that." "It is misleading to say the suppliers we have chosen are not accredited Halal suppliers - the body which accredited our suppliers was the body which accredited the meat for the Olympic Games." The fact that the LCC is following other countries such as the Netherlands (where religious slaughter without stunning is now banned), France, and with the recent conclusion of the Polish courts with it’s ruling that slaughter without stunning as unconstitutional; it seems in my opinion to marginalise the lcm as a bunch of men interested in their own power grabbing, which disregards the country they reside in.[/p][/quote]'Correct twice in a row', please elaborate?? Saudi's are Hanballis, followers of Imam Hanbal and NOT followers of the Wahhabi sect. You will note the title 'Imam' does not precede Wahhabi. This is because he wasn't and after being ejected from Saudi Arabia he settled in Pakistan where he continued to spread his ideology. He then teamed up with a scholar, Gulam Qadia, 'the Qaddianis', note scholar and not 'Imam', during the time of the British Raj, 1800's. Whilst visiting the flush room he ended up flushing himself! This group continue to exist not only in Pakistan but have recently constructed Britian's largest mosque. (that's one down for you jd) Secondly the parents have NOT been informed, and any relevant details disclosed to schools alone does not go far enough. Parents have the right to know and so far, they haven't. What you read and believe reported in the LT, is false. Any disclosure would have been reported to the LCM by the parents or the mosque that they attend. If you are so confident,then please could you provide any evidence to back up your claim. (that's two down ) You inaccuratley state that LCM are unelected and scholars. They are infact elected by representatives of each mosque in Lancashire, and like you and I are normal people with job careers. They may however seek every now and then guidance from scholars in certain aspects for the correct interpretation of Islamic law. (that's three jd) Suppliers appointed to provide halal products cannot be nominated, as in this case LCC. LCM will not work in conjunction with the 'Halal Food Authority'. LCM's suspicions were confirmed when pork supplied as beef was supplied to prisons, and equine in school meals. In both these cases 'HFA' approved halal accreditation and recommended the suppliers to be authentic and passed them on to LCC. When questioned three months earlier, assurances were given, but obviouslly rejected by LCM, and confirmed by DNA tests. SLAUGHTER WITH OR WITHOUT STUNNING DOES NOT WARRANT HALAL ACCREDITATION. A short religious verse is offered prior to slaughter. Therefore only a muslim employee at an abbatior can warrant such a claim. (that;s four jack) You haven't done too well, have you jd. The above information provided by The Honourable Sir Salim Mulla. sen c b l

8:00pm Fri 1 Mar 13

sen c b l says...

On a different note but in similar circumstance, the Jewish community will not recognise any food product that has not been performed according to their ritual belief or manufactured and approved by the Rabbi representing the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies. This would mean approving an establishment where it is manufactured and on production lines completely separate to other facilities and specifically reserved for the Jewish community.

In India the Hindu community will opt to riot if any member of other religion choose to consume beef, or even seen with a cow tied to a post.

If these groups wish to follow their faith in strict principles, who are the remaining telling them what they must do, or not do, and for those who have abandoned their religion and distanced themselves for a considerable length of time that they fail to realise and understand any religion, by all means continue, but to dictate others thinking they are more superior, infact are themselves inferior.
On a different note but in similar circumstance, the Jewish community will not recognise any food product that has not been performed according to their ritual belief or manufactured and approved by the Rabbi representing the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies. This would mean approving an establishment where it is manufactured and on production lines completely separate to other facilities and specifically reserved for the Jewish community. In India the Hindu community will opt to riot if any member of other religion choose to consume beef, or even seen with a cow tied to a post. If these groups wish to follow their faith in strict principles, who are the remaining telling them what they must do, or not do, and for those who have abandoned their religion and distanced themselves for a considerable length of time that they fail to realise and understand any religion, by all means continue, but to dictate others thinking they are more superior, infact are themselves inferior. sen c b l

9:24pm Fri 1 Mar 13

jack daniels says...

This is way too easy…

“For more than two centuries, Wahhabism has been Saudi Arabia's dominant faith.”
http://www.pbs.org/w
gbh/pages/frontline/
shows/saudi/analyses
/wahhabism.html


The Wahhabi movement is the dominant form of Islam in Saudi Arabia.
http://www.jewishvir
tuallibrary.org/jsou
rce/History/wahhabis
m.html

It has been the dominant strand of Islam in Saudi Arabia since the kingdom was unified in 1932
http://www.independe
nt.co.uk/news/uk/hom
e-news/wahhabism-a-d
eadly-scripture-3985
16.html

JD1 - Sen 0

A county spokesman said: “All of the affected schools were informed as soon as possible and quickly informed parents.
http://www.lancashir
etelegraph.co.uk/new
s/10260959.Lancashir
e_halal_meat_query_g
oes_to_the_top/

JD2 – Sen 0

They maybe elected by the mosques that are in the council, but in reality they in fact just electing themselves!

Have they allowed the visitors to the mosques decide if they wished to be represented by the lcm? Can you provide evidence? Where the women allowed to vote? They don’t even represent all the mosques so how can they say they are representing all muslims.

JD3 – Sen 0

It was neither the Halal Food Authority, the prisons or schools that where at fault for the contamination of the meat supply therefore the lcm's suspicions are unfounded and simply scaremongering for their own nafarious gains. The men in prison are criminals anyway and therefore have already denied their faith. The simple consumption of pork should be the least of their problems before the eyes of Allah.

JD4 – Sen 0

Salim Mulla is neither knighted, nor can he be described as honourable within this context.

JD5 – Sen 0
This is way too easy… “For more than two centuries, Wahhabism has been Saudi Arabia's dominant faith.” http://www.pbs.org/w gbh/pages/frontline/ shows/saudi/analyses /wahhabism.html The Wahhabi movement is the dominant form of Islam in Saudi Arabia. http://www.jewishvir tuallibrary.org/jsou rce/History/wahhabis m.html It has been the dominant strand of Islam in Saudi Arabia since the kingdom was unified in 1932 http://www.independe nt.co.uk/news/uk/hom e-news/wahhabism-a-d eadly-scripture-3985 16.html JD1 - Sen 0 A county spokesman said: “All of the affected schools were informed as soon as possible and quickly informed parents. http://www.lancashir etelegraph.co.uk/new s/10260959.Lancashir e_halal_meat_query_g oes_to_the_top/ JD2 – Sen 0 They maybe elected by the mosques that are in the council, but in reality they in fact just electing themselves! Have they allowed the visitors to the mosques decide if they wished to be represented by the lcm? Can you provide evidence? Where the women allowed to vote? They don’t even represent all the mosques so how can they say they are representing all muslims. JD3 – Sen 0 It was neither the Halal Food Authority, the prisons or schools that where at fault for the contamination of the meat supply therefore the lcm's suspicions are unfounded and simply scaremongering for their own nafarious gains. The men in prison are criminals anyway and therefore have already denied their faith. The simple consumption of pork should be the least of their problems before the eyes of Allah. JD4 – Sen 0 Salim Mulla is neither knighted, nor can he be described as honourable within this context. JD5 – Sen 0 jack daniels

4:57pm Sat 2 Mar 13

sen c b l says...

For your self satisfactioon I'll give you one more. That's 6.
Bunged 6 times!!!!!!
For your self satisfactioon I'll give you one more. That's 6. Bunged 6 times!!!!!! sen c b l

7:38pm Sat 2 Mar 13

sen c b l says...

@ jd,


1) Saudi's are sunnis.
2) Its the parents and LCM that's needs informing, that is what's being debated.
3)Visitors wishes are irrelevant. Its the committee members who decide.
So no need to provide evidence.

Piece of cake!!!
@ jd, 1) Saudi's are sunnis. 2) Its the parents and LCM that's needs informing, that is what's being debated. 3)Visitors wishes are irrelevant. Its the committee members who decide. So no need to provide evidence. Piece of cake!!! sen c b l

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree