Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

The Roddick Foundation



cjd

Well-known member
Jun 22, 2006
6,069
La Rochelle
It appears that this locally based (Petworth) charity gave £120,000.00 to CAGE.

Thankfully this has now stopped after intervention by the Charities Commission.

It lists its 4 trustees as , Miss Justine Roddick, Miss Samantha Roddick, Mr G. Roddick and Ms Tina Schlieske. Would these 'Roddicks' be the children and husband of Anita Roddick the founder of The Body Shop ?
 


Westdene Seagull

aka Cap'n Carl Firecrotch
NSC Patreon
Oct 27, 2003
20,938
The arse end of Hangleton
It appears that this locally based (Petworth) charity gave £120,000.00 to CAGE.

Thankfully this has now stopped after intervention by the Charities Commission.

It lists its 4 trustees as , Miss Justine Roddick, Miss Samantha Roddick, Mr G. Roddick and Ms Tina Schlieske. Would these 'Roddicks' be the children and husband of Anita Roddick the founder of The Body Shop ?

Yes they are is the quick answer.
 


jackanada

Well-known member
Jul 19, 2011
3,150
Brighton
Was always annoyed by the Bodyshops "we don't test any of our products on animals" stance.
Maybe not, but someone else tested a product on animals before you, then you squashed some ****ing fruit in it and called it a new product, which oddly didn't require testing on animals.
 


Green Cross Code Man

Wunt be druv
Mar 30, 2006
19,631
Eastbourne
Was always annoyed by the Bodyshops "we don't test any of our products on animals" stance.
Maybe not, but someone else tested a product on animals before you, then you squashed some ****ing fruit in it and called it a new product, which oddly didn't require testing on animals.
But on that basis, ALL innovation is tainted by the practises of the past.
 


Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Patreon
Jul 11, 2003
59,198
The Fatherland
Was always annoyed by the Bodyshops "we don't test any of our products on animals" stance.
Maybe not, but someone else tested a product on animals before you, then you squashed some ****ing fruit in it and called it a new product, which oddly didn't require testing on animals.

So?
 




Lower West Stander

Well-known member
Mar 25, 2012
4,753
Back in Sussex
I had several dealings with the Bodyshop before the company was sold to L'Oreal (which has just about the worse reputation for animal testing than any cosmetics company on the planet).

What always annoyed me was their right on attitude. Anita going off to African rainforests, their "open" relationship etc. It was always put across the company was just an accident and they would have been just as happy living in a yurt in someone's back garden.

But even though they distanced themselves from running the business, they never sold a penny of their shareholding and the dividends they took out were eye watering. Have to say I've lost track since the company was sold but I would be very surprised the wealth hasn't been retained in L'Oreal in some way.
 


dingodan

New member
Feb 16, 2011
10,080
What is the problem with CAGE?
 


surlyseagull

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2008
839
Anita Roddicks husband was the brains behind the bodyshop at the start ,but he didnt portray the best image for the company ,being as the majority of the customers were female .
 




Igzilla

Well-known member
Sep 27, 2012
1,641
Worthing
What is the problem with CAGE?

The problem with CAGE is their assertion that Jihadi John is a really nice bloke and it's not his fault he's become the poster boy of the IS execution squad. It appears all that is required for a really nice bloke to turn into a psychopathic, sadistic murderer is to be asked a few pertinent questions by MI5.
 


dingodan

New member
Feb 16, 2011
10,080
The problem with CAGE is their assertion that Jihadi John is a really nice bloke and it's not his fault he's become the poster boy of the IS execution squad. It appears all that is required for a really nice bloke to turn into a psychopathic, sadistic murderer is to be asked a few pertinent questions by MI5.

Well when you put it like that, how can I disagree.

I was just wondering if it is what was said in the press conference that was at issue, or what they do in general.

Is it really good for them to lose support, even if something considered offensive was said at a press conference? Looking at the bigger picture I mean.
 


cjd

Well-known member
Jun 22, 2006
6,069
La Rochelle
Is it really good for them to lose support, even if something considered offensive was said at a press conference? Looking at the bigger picture I mean.


Yes
 






Igzilla

Well-known member
Sep 27, 2012
1,641
Worthing

Just my opinion, but with what IS are doing in Mosul and Nimrud, and the general killing people for fun thing, anyone who expresses support for them should be declared an enemy of the state and dealt with in an appropriate way. Apologists like CAGE should rightly be closed down and their assets taken.

On a more rational note, maybe a media blackout like Sinn Fein had in the eighties - have any IS related support voiced over in a comedy style maybe?
 


dingodan

New member
Feb 16, 2011
10,080
Just my opinion, but with what IS are doing in Mosul and Nimrud, and the general killing people for fun thing, anyone who expresses support for them should be declared an enemy of the state and dealt with in an appropriate way. Apologists like CAGE should rightly be closed down and their assets taken.

On a more rational note, maybe a media blackout like Sinn Fein had in the eighties - have any IS related support voiced over in a comedy style maybe?

As far as I am aware they haven't expressed support for ISIS.

As far as I can tell the purpose of CAGE is to assist people caught up in terrorism legislation to help advocate for their rights, and generally to try to help them find remedy within the legal system.

You are suggesting that if this group can be closed down and "have their assets taken", then this would be in our interest, and would serve us in the struggle against extremism. But in reality a group like this is likely to be difference between an angry young Muslim who believes that they can find remedy within the system, and an angry young Muslim who believes they can not. That difference is quite is an important one if you want to combat extremism.
 
Last edited:




Hastings gull

Well-known member
Nov 23, 2013
4,635
As far as I am aware they haven't expressed support for ISIS.

As far as I can tell the purpose of CAGE is to assist people caught up in terrorism legislation to help advocate for their rights, and generally to try to help them find remedy within the legal system.

You are suggesting that if this group can be closed down and "have their assets taken", then this would be in our interest, and would serve us in the struggle against extremism. But in reality a group like this is likely to be difference between an angry young Muslim who believes that they can find remedy within the system, and an angry young Muslim who believes they can not. That difference is quite is an important one if you want to combat extremism.

In February 2010, Amnesty International suspended one of its senior officials, Gita Sahgal, head of the organisation's Gender Unit, after she criticized Amnesty for its links with Begg and Cageprisoners. She called the links "a gross error of judgment", saying it was wrong to ally with "Britain's most famous supporter of the Taliban".[24] Sahgal argued that by associating with Begg and Cageprisoners, Amnesty was risking its reputation on human rights.[25][26][27] Salman Rushdie supported her, saying: "Amnesty ... has done its reputation incalculable damage by allying itself with Moazzam Begg and his group Cageprisoners, and holding them up as human rights advocates.[28] The journalist Nick Cohen wrote in The Observer: "Amnesty ... thinks that liberals are free to form alliances with defenders of clerical fascists who want to do everything in their power to suppress liberals, most notably liberal-minded Muslims."[29
 




Hampster Gull

New member
Dec 22, 2010
13,462
CAGE seem like apologists to me, although they say they aren't. CAGE director Qureshi said the extremely kind / gentle thing we have all seen recently but also "the questions shouldn't be about jihadi john, they should be about the role the security services played in completely alienating people".

He has also called for support for jihad in 2006.

On This Week this week he accepted he supports jihad. Asked if he believed any of the following he refused to deny and said he is not a theologian - jews are descendants of pigs, death by stoning is ok for adultery, don't question a mans right to hit his wife, female genitalia mutilation is acceptable and obligatory, non muslim prisoners can be taken as slaves, homosexuality is a crime against humanity....

Not a man or body i would donate to nor think highly of those who do
 


Hastings gull

Well-known member
Nov 23, 2013
4,635
[yt]afdeFuJbK3E[/YT]

Just listened to it -this character is utterly unconvincing and attempts to obfuscate when faced with some home truths. Whilst the organisation might well try to represent "innocent" muslims, and have a smooth image, after that interview, I would need real persuading that it is as benevolent as it makes out in public. Jihad is a part of muslim religion, he states -now we know!
 






Hastings gull

Well-known member
Nov 23, 2013
4,635
CAGE aren't apologists and they certainly don't support the IS! - Cage is essentially an organisation that condemns & campaigns against the war on terror and supports affected communities. It would obviously be ludicrous to close it down and seize its assets purely for giving its views from an anti "war on terror" perspective.

Incredible how irrational and misinformed tabloid newspapers have made people. Masterclass in propaganda.

The organisation may ostensibly be what you claim, and yes, there may not be a case to close it down, simply for voicing their opinions,though I doubt very much if an organisation such as this defending the rights of christians would be given carte blanche in a strict muslim country. In public, they may not support the extreme actions of IS, but they certainly strike me as a group that would openly support jihad, as he says. Apologists would not support IS when even they can see that the excesses are indefensible, but what they do is then spread a bit of blame about, and what better target than the Security Services. The idea that eg MI5 picks on angelic youths who would not hurt a flea and then radicalise them by harassing them is absurd. They target those already so inclined - why else would they become involved?
As ever with you Mustafa, you claim that others are (in this case) irrational and misinformed - I wonder if it has ever dawned on you that it might just be you who is such.
 



Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here