Our silence on one of the most persecuted people in the world

[KSaiyu]

Now would you be so kind as to actually answer the questions around why you seem to think that commercial decisions by supermarkets over what they stock is persecution?

As I have asked at least three times and so far you have simply ignored it.

I haven't ignored it. I said, in my original post that quoted the story:

Britain is where myself and Scaff disagree but it is apparent to me that Christian identity is continually eroded over here. This story is pretty innocuous, but imagine the outcry if such an important religious occasion of any other religion was treated with such disrespect:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ing-Jesus-favour-Darth-Vader-Postman-Pat.html

Everything is up for lampooning when it comes to Christianity. As someone who believes in a secular society this should be not exclusive to one religion.

My agenda, plain and simple is to highlight that we don't treat all religions equally in my eyes. Not even close.

How is it broken? It's a list of every post you have made in this thread. You wanted evidence of posting unverified anecdotal evidence, inventing specific generalisations that are biased to promote my point of view, and relying on sources that everyone else would consider unreliable, and that's what I delivered.

Which specific one(s) please. I don't have the time to guess which you are referring to.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Which specific one(s) please. I don't have the time to guess which you are referring to.

No need, and all thanks to The English Language.

...every post you have made in this thread.

 

[KSaiyu]

This....isn't how you debate gentlemen.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

This....isn't how you debate gentlemen.

No, it's how you "debate".

 

[KSaiyu]

No, it's how you "debate".

Takes one to know one.

....Am I winning now?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

You were never in contention.

 

[KSaiyu]

In other news, a family of 6 from the town where I work have headed to Syria. Saves me having to treat them and the NHS a huge bill for the future, so win-win!

 

[Scaff]

I haven't ignored it. I said, in my original post that quoted the story:

So you said....

Christian identity is continually eroded

.....and your answer to that is to allow Christianity preferential treatment over every other organization in the country?


and you said.....

This story is pretty innocuous, but imagine the outcry if such an important religious occasion of any other religion was treated with such disrespect.

.....you're still to explain how this is disrespect (and I have shown that other faiths religious occasions are subject to commercialization - a point that seems to hit a nerve given the amount you then started to alter the criteria)?


Now on this point I agree.....

Everything is up for lampooning when it comes to Christianity. As someone who believes in a secular society this should be not exclusive to one religion.

...however you're not going to do that by giving Christianity preferential treatment and allowing them to force companies to sell goods the church wants.


How you can then go on to say this however.......

My agenda, plain and simple is to highlight that we don't treat all religions equally in my eyes. Not even close.

......its absurd. You want to treat all religions equally by allowing one of them an even greater level of influence than they already have, including the ability to force companies to sell goods the church has chosen as 'appropriate'!

You can't claim to believe in a secular society and then say that its fine the CoE gets 26 seats in the Lords by default, be the State religion and be able to force retailers to stock goods the Church approves of. That's not a secular society its a form of theocracy!

If Christians want to understand why the religion is failing to appeal to the people of the UK in the 21st Century it should discuss that with the people of the UK, not try and force the issue and understand that it simply may not be relevant in this day and age. I mean I quite clear don't identify as Christian, I am part of that erosion, yet you are suggesting that I shouldn't be allowed to be a part of it or should be considered part of a problem?

You simply can't hold views like this and claim to support a secular society in any way at all, as what you are advocating is the polar opposite.

 

[Joel]

We're discussing whether or not cheesy gifts are eroding the meaning of Christmas and Easter are an erosion of Christian identity in the west. Cheesy gifts for Christian holidays which are public holidays in secular western countries, unlike any other religious holiday.

 

[squadops]

Actually Easter is not a federal holiday in the U.S. because it always falls on a Sunday. You are right that, at least in the U.S., there are no federally observed holidays of any other religion. Is it discrimination? I don't know, I think most anyone would accept another federal holiday on the calendar regardless if it's from a religion other than Christianity, or peanut butter's birthday. Interesting point though.

 

[Joel]

I figured one of Good Friday or Easter Monday was a US holiday, I stand corrected. I assume it's still a state holiday in a lot of cases though, right? In Canada, France, and the UK Easter Monday is a public holidays, and at least in Canada most government employees and schools have Good Friday as a holiday, not sure if that's the case in the UK.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Actually Easter is not a federal holiday in the U.S. because it always falls on a Sunday.

Thursday (Maundy), Friday (Crucifixion) and Sunday (Ascension, when eastertide begins) is actually the full tridium of Easter. We don't get the Thursday off but being Brits we do take the Monday off for headache reasons.

I'm amazed that the US (with +-60% being part of a Christian congregation) don't celebrate the full shebang with chocolate eggs, passion plays, pub crawls and several days off work, especially when one considers that the UK has a practicing Christian population that's a tenth of that.

 

[squadops]

13 states recognize Good Friday, none recognize Easter(taking Fri or Mon), Where I live neither is a holiday however it's well known your workforce is going to be lower on Wed. The Feds don't recognize any of it.

 

[KSaiyu]

Good points but....

I don't want preferential treatment. That's the argument. Take the mick out of them all, or none at all. Especially in an historically Christian country.

Basically apply the argument to a score of Imams in Britain calling for a private business to not stock figures of Mohammad.

This seems to be a particular problem of Left leaning newspapers (see Guardian). They cry for secularism, but it's a thinly veiled hatred of Christianity. From the silence on Christian persecution to the continual "progress" in championing the erosion of Christian traditions. All compared to a relative silence on creeping Islamisation and promotion of "Islamophobe" stories (some of which turn out to be based purely on speculation).

 

[Scaff]

I don't want preferential treatment. That's the argument. Take the mick out of them all, or none at all. Especially in an historically Christian country.

You post a link about the CoE complaining it can't force shops to stock products it endorses as an example of persecution (and have repeatedly failed to say you don't agree with that), supported the CoE's position in the Lords under historic and cultural grounds and appear to have no issue with the CoE being the state religion.

As such you can state you don't want preferential treatment for Christianity all you like, your posts are at odds with such a claim and given that I simply don't believe you (and the very last sentence above simply re-enforces that).

Basically apply the argument to a score of Imams in Britain calling for a private business to not stock figures of Mohammad.

They can call for it all they like (as the CoE can about Easter Eggs) they have that right (as do the CoE). However its not persecution, nor should they have any legal right to force businesses either to stop stocking them or start stocking approved alternatives (and that applies to any religion).

This seems to be a particular problem of Left leaning newspapers (see Guardian). They cry for secularism, but it's a thinly veiled hatred of Christianity.

Opinion dressed as fact.

From the silence on Christian persecution.......

Factually untrue.

........ to the continual "progress" in championing the erosion of Christian traditions.

Oh dear 'the War on Christianity' in the West; you should start watching the US Fox news, you will love it.

All compared to a relative silence on creeping Islamisation and promotion of "Islamophobe" stories (some of which turn out to be based purely on speculation).

Citation.

 

[KSaiyu]

I'm sensing hostility, and now I'm even being called a liar..

I will reply later on in the day.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

If I were you, I would think very hard about what I post in response to @Scaff - your antics have been tolerated for longer than they should have, and you have already been directed to the AUP several times.

 

[KSaiyu]

If I were you, I'd acknowledge that the Yazidis are probably the most persecuted in the world at the moment.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

So my only choice is to unequivocally recognise that you are right for no other reason than you demand it?

 

[KSaiyu]

Funny. I could say the same thing about your "suggestion".

 

[prisonermonkeys]

My suggestion was that you observe the AUP, just as you had been asked to do by a moderator.

Your suggestion was that I absolutely and unequivocally agree with you.

 

[KSaiyu]

You post a link about the CoE complaining it can't force shops to stock products it endorses as an example of persecution (and have repeatedly failed to say you don't agree with that), supported the CoE's position in the Lords under historic and cultural grounds and appear to have no issue with the CoE being the state religion.

As such you can state you don't want preferential treatment for Christianity all you like, your posts are at odds with such a claim and given that I simply don't believe you (and the very last sentence above simply re-enforces that).

Erm, I said that the mickey taking should be equal. I haven't said the Church should be allowed to force private businesses to stock those eggs. They should be allowed to protest, but no-one should force the businesses to acquiesce. The Lords position if you remember was that I said it is progress in a secular country - I only brought up the reason why I presume it is still there as of right now.

Thanks for not believing me however.

They can call for it all they like (as the CoE can about Easter Eggs) they have that right (as do the CoE). However its not persecution, nor should they have any legal right to force businesses either to stop stocking them or start stocking approved alternatives (and that applies to any religion).

This is my point. But that would NEVER happen in modern Britain. Those shops would be threatened with violence or potentially investigated for hate crime. Let's not forget that the Police monitored individuals in some areas buying the Charlie Hebdo Mohammad issue.

Opinion dressed as fact.

Opinion dressed as opinion (There seems to be...). It's not really hard to prove to be honest, as conversations here and trends in Left leaning newspapers show.

Factually untrue.

This thread disagrees, but we can hardly scientifically prove/disprove it can we.

Oh dear 'the War on Christianity' in the West; you should start watching the US Fox news, you will love it.

I'd say there's a "War on Faith", but the rules are skewed to favour one getting it a lot worse.

Citation.

What?

All I can suggest is to go through my post history.

 

[Scaff]

Erm, I said that the mickey taking should be equal. I haven't said the Church should be allowed to force private businesses to stock those eggs. They should be allowed to protest, but no-one should force the businesses to acquiesce. The Lords position if you remember was that I said it is progress in a secular country - I only brought up the reason why I presume it is still there as of right now.

Thanks for not believing me however.

That still raises the question of why you then used it as an example of persecution? Or why you have failed to answer questions around what should be done to resolve what you see as persecution?

I remember your post on the Lords seats, you seemed to dismiss it as "removing a tradition of our country" and it will happen in the future. The problem is that while they are their, while the CoE has public funded daily and weekly religious broadcasts and while we have a state religion the UK is not a secular society.

This is my point. But that would NEVER happen in modern Britain. Those shops would be threatened with violence or potentially investigated for hate crime. Let's not forget that the Police monitored individuals in some areas buying the Charlie Hebdo Mohammad issue.

You've just contradicted yourself here. So stuff mocking Islam would never be sold in the UK, but the Charlie Hebdo Mohammad issue (and the previous ones) were sold in the UK?

Did the UK ban the printing of the 'Satanic Verses'? No.

So that's two examples (one of which you were even kind enough to supply) to refute a NEVER. It would seem that NEVER is not quite a robust as you make out.

Opinion dressed as opinion (There seems to be...). It's not really hard to prove to be honest, as conversations here and trends in Left leaning newspapers show.

You said......"but it's a thinly veiled hatred of Christianity"......that's a statement of fact.

This thread disagrees, but we can hardly scientifically prove/disprove it can we.

No a single example of what you label as 'left leaning' media covering Christian Persecution refutes your claim, that two from the last week have been provided more than does that.

I'd say there's a "War on Faith", but the rules are skewed to favour one getting it a lot worse.

Please explain how this "War on Faith" is being carried out?

What?

Are you not able to supply a source to back up your claim?

 

[KSaiyu]

That still raises the question of why you then used it as an example of persecution? Or why you have failed to answer questions around what should be done to resolve what you see as persecution?

I remember your post on the Lords seats, you seemed to dismiss it as "removing a tradition of our country" and it will happen in the future. The problem is that while they are their, while the CoE has public funded daily and weekly religious broadcasts and while we have a state religion the UK is not a secular society.

But I said...

And I'm sure this is going to be removed in years to come - this is the mark of a secular country. What it doesn't prove however is that Christianity isn't under persecution. Indeed we're talking about removing a tradition of our country instead of still addressing the title of the thread..

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove. I don't give a damn if we remove it tomorrow or in a years time. It's irrelevant to the discussion. You seem to keep bringing it up as if it's proof that I'm an undercover Christian.

And failing to answer? I said I want equal treatment, in all parts of society. You know, actual secularism.

You've just contradicted yourself here. So stuff mocking Islam would never be sold in the UK, but the Charlie Hebdo Mohammad issue (and the previous ones) were sold in the UK?

Did the UK ban the printing of the 'Satanic Verses'? No.

So that's two examples (one of which you were even kind enough to supply) to refute a NEVER. It would seem that NEVER is not quite a robust as you make out.

You believe that if a shop were to sell dolls of Jesus, there would be a similar reaction? That there would be Police monitoring buyers of said Jesus dolls..

In fact I'm pretty sure The Guardian didn't even print the picture of the Mohammad Charlie Hebdo cover..

You said......"but it's a thinly veiled hatred of Christianity"......that's a statement of fact

No it's an opinion. Much like:

Two of the most prominent media outlets in the western world and both rabid in defence of Christians and more than happy to have a pop at Islam

You're free to dispute it.

No a single example of what you label as 'left leaning' media covering Christian Persecution refutes your claim, that two from the last week have been provided more than does that.

Erm the Guardian article acknowleding that the Left must do more in covering Christian persecution??

I'm not sure how much more evidence you need.

Please explain how this "War on Faith" is being carried out?

Easy, by heading towards secularism. It's a necessary evil (as I see it, since I oppose faith having an undue influence on a nation).

Are you not able to supply a source to back up your claim?

Multiple - see my post history. This can be the Trojan Horse, Tower Hamlets or Sharia in UK, all with relevant sources. I'm not in the habit of repeating it all here though.

 

[Scaff]

But I said...

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove. I don't give a damn if we remove it tomorrow or in a years time. It's irrelevant to the discussion. You seem to keep bringing it up as if it's proof that I'm an undercover Christian.

No I've never claimed that your an undercover Christian, I've said that the manner in which your posts read is at times at odds with a claim of wanting a secular society (or you would give a damn if t were in a years time). However you do seem to have a bias towards Christianity and its place in the UK.

And failing to answer? I said I want equal treatment, in all parts of society. You know, actual secularism.

Yet use an article that isn't persecution to illustrate Christian persecution in the UK?

You believe that if a shop were to sell dolls of Jesus, there would be a similar reaction? That there would be Police monitoring buyers of said Jesus dolls..

No because Christianity doesn't (outside of a few sects) have an issue with images of religious figures.

However that's not to say that its hasn't happened when Christians feel the image of Jesus has been missused....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ

In fact I'm pretty sure The Guardian didn't even print the picture of the Mohammad Charlie Hebdo cover..

If that's your measure they using the term 'left leaning' is totally inaccurate, as the right leaning press were pretty much the same, most of the UK press didn't use it either in print or on-line. In fact the Guardian and the Independent (both of whom would be left leaning by your measure I suspect) did use the image on-line, which neither the Telegraph or Mail did.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/papers-that-published-the-charlie-hebdo-cover-2015-1

So actually I will revise that, it would seem that the left leaning press were actually just as likely or more likely to show the CH cover than the right leaning press in the UK. Fancy that.

No it's an opinion. Much like:

You're free to dispute it.

It read as a factual statement to me, if that's not how it was intended then fine.

Erm the Guardian article acknowleding that the Left must do more in covering Christian persecution??

I'm not sure how much more evidence you need.

You said "From the silence on Christian persecution.......", yet there is no silence on it. It wasn't a single article, its been multiple articles, that doesn't constitute silence at all.

Easy, by heading towards secularism. It's a necessary evil (as I see it, since I oppose faith having an undue influence on a nation).

Secularism isn't a war on faith or religion at all, it's not persecution or even close.

Granting the same rights to everyone isn't a persecution of faith at all, nor a war on it (and would only be perceived as such by those with a position of authority that they fear they will loose as a result of it - hence why the 26 seats in the Lords are an issue and not just a nice Christian tradition).

Secularism also has nothing at all to do with the "the continual "progress" in championing the erosion of Christian traditions", as long as those traditions don't impact on the rights of any other individual.

I'm happy for faith (any and all) to have an influence on the nation, as long as they are playing by the exact same set of rules as everyone else and currently, in the UK, that is not the case as one religion has a degree of access above and beyond that of any other faith and/or public interest group.

Multiple - see my post history. This can be the Trojan Horse, Tower Hamlets or Sharia in UK, all with relevant sources. I'm not in the habit of repeating it all here though.

As can be the nature of the press (on either side), I could cite plenty of examples of the right wing press displaying clear bias or outright nonsense (often against scientific data or secularism).

However that's why a single source for any story can be dangerous.

The Trojan Horse one is of the most concern for me (not in regard to the poor journalism across a wide number of sources) at a broader scale, the last two Governments have opened up education to religious bodies on a massive scale and the influence that faith can have is a big concern for me (in particular the percentage of 'free' schools that are faith based, with them having lower levels of oversight). Once again a big indicator that we are a long way from being a secular nation.

 

[huskeR32]

* Bunch of stuff done to death already

That's cute. You want it to stop being "done to death?" Then try addressing it.

Dude do you know how long it takes to do these replies.

You started an entire thread about this. You should be prepared to respond to questions that are raised about it.

If you want some numbers or percentages, check my post or Squadops.

Care to link me to those posts? For the life of me, I can't find them.

If you want even more, use Google.

That's not how it works. You made the claim, you back it up.

In the meantime get over the fact that it's impossible to prove who the most persecuted in the world are definitively...

Then why is the title of this very thread a definitive statement? You want people to stop challenging it? There's two ways to do that: substantiate it, or retract it. That's how debate works.

...and argue the thread title - why the relative silence.

I'm not going to waste my time debating the "why" of something that hasn't been demonstrated to factually exist yet.

 

[KSaiyu]

Care to link me to those posts? For the life of me, I can't find them.

You think I'm going to waste my time replying to the rest of your points when you can't take 2 minutes to search? Let's face it, you're going to dispute these, claim they don't prove Christians are one of the most persecuted and add a little ad hominem in there.

Yep. The Left really "cares about everyone"

I can't remember what year the report cited is from, 2012 I'm thinking. I don't think the English version of their webpage helps much but here are a few links if you feel like dealing with the Language.

I did a search for Christian in their archives and this list came out.
http://www.igfm.de/index.php?id=37&tx_kesearch_pi1[sword]=christen+80&x=13&y=15&tx_kesearch_pi1[page]=1&tx_kesearch_pi1[resetFilters]=0&tx_kesearch_pi1[sortByField]=&tx_kesearch_pi1[sortByDir]=

I think this is their homepage.
http://www.igfm.de/

A current pdf report on Christians
http://www.igfm.de/fileadmin/igfm.d...ll/IGFM-Verfolgte-Christen-aktuell-2014-1.pdf

etc.

edit, I'll add a few more links depending how long I mess around on the site, this is a good read.
http://www.igfm.de/themen/religionsfreiheit/christenverfolgung/

Someone asked about the percent of Christians persecuted, I know it's only one source but here it is, and that's enough of this webpage for me lol.
http://www.igfm.de/ne/?tx_ttnews[tt_news]=1965&cHash=c82d82337f381748a1e2ae8f41cd249c

I'm sorry I just saw this. My agenda? Why is there always this assumption of hidden agendas, it's tiresome.

Let's address it then:

US Department of State:
http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/religiousfreedom/index.htm#wrapper
Spectator:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9041841/the-war-on-christians/
This is Malaysia:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/01/catholic-church-150121100311536.html
Kenya:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/12/bethany-blankley-christian-persecution-kenya-what-/

That's just a quick 10 minute search.

No I've never claimed that your an undercover Christian, I've said that the manner in which your posts read is at times at odds with a claim of wanting a secular society (or you would give a damn if t were in a years time). However you do seem to have a bias towards Christianity and its place in the UK.

Yet use an article that isn't persecution to illustrate Christian persecution in the UK?

I have a bias towards the underdog, which is clear-as-day Christianity in the UK. To debate that all religions are on equal terms as of 2015 is frankly ludicrous.

No because Christianity doesn't (outside of a few sects) have an issue with images of religious figures.

However that's not to say that its hasn't happened when Christians feel the image of Jesus has been missused....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ

Yes. In the past. What makes Islam so special now?

If that's your measure they using the term 'left leaning' is totally inaccurate, as the right leaning press were pretty much the same, most of the UK press didn't use it either in print or on-line. In fact the Guardian and the Independent (both of whom would be left leaning by your measure I suspect) did use the image on-line, which neither the Telegraph or Mail did.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/papers-that-published-the-charlie-hebdo-cover-2015-1

So actually I will revise that, it would seem that the left leaning press were actually just as likely or more likely to show the CH cover than the right leaning press in the UK. Fancy that.

Revised. But there's still a criticism that you you have to address with the whole Chapel Hill debacle, The Times antisemitism stories (search) and the Guardian's Islamophobia articles (search Islamophobia). And frankly any paper that gives Salma Yaqoob a voice should go the way of that paper giving Katie Hopkins a pedestal to speak her drivel.

You said "From the silence on Christian persecution.......", yet there is no silence on it. It wasn't a single article, its been multiple articles, that doesn't constitute silence at all.

It's relative silence. Indeed, as addressed in that article which I keep repeating!

Those of us on the left – who advocate religious acceptance and diversity – must surely speak louder about the persecution of Christians. - Owen Jones, The Guardian.

Secularism isn't a war on faith or religion at all, it's not persecution or even close.

The drive for it is. You have two sides, and you have confrontation.

Granting the same rights to everyone isn't a persecution of faith at all, nor a war on it (and would only be perceived as such by those with a position of authority that they fear they will loose as a result of it - hence why the 26 seats in the Lords are an issue and not just a nice Christian tradition).

Secularism also has nothing at all to do with the "the continual "progress" in championing the erosion of Christian traditions", as long as those traditions don't impact on the rights of any other individual.

I'm happy for faith (any and all) to have an influence on the nation, as long as they are playing by the exact same set of rules as everyone else and currently, in the UK, that is not the case as one religion has a degree of access above and beyond that of any other faith and/or public interest group.

Which is gradually going (yay) only to be supplanted by another that we treat with kid gloves (boo)

As can be the nature of the press (on either side), I could cite plenty of examples of the right wing press displaying clear bias or outright nonsense (often against scientific data or secularism).

However that's why a single source for any story can be dangerous.

The Trojan Horse one is of the most concern for me (not in regard to the poor journalism across a wide number of sources) at a broader scale, the last two Governments have opened up education to religious bodies on a massive scale and the influence that faith can have is a big concern for me (in particular the percentage of 'free' schools that are faith based, with them having lower levels of oversight). Once again a big indicator that we are a long way from being a secular nation.

You're right in believing Trojan Horse is the biggest because it provides no escape for children from Islamist tendencies. In effect, children are being paid for by the West to be educated on rejecting and hating the West. This has created a situation that has led to the parents coming up with ideas for secularism as opposed to the children (who are turning more radical - compare university campuses now to the 60s, 70s, 80s), as they see the very real danger that their faith is having on their children. That certain newspapers sought to distance it from Islam is perhaps even more frightening, but not really surprising.

Tower Hamlets is interesting because it is the first time the White population are seeing what happens with Islamic politics. Basically out-breed, then overwhelm, and finally corrupt the system. It's ironic that the freedom associated with democracy is what kills it in such areas. Perhaps now people will see why dictators emerge in Islamic countries. If you worship a Warlord and believe he was a Prophet, and that his way of life was an ideal way to govern you are left with a population that will never embrace Western democracy.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

You think I'm going to waste my time replying to the rest of your points when you can't take 2 minutes to search?

That's not the way it works. If you make the claim, then you provide the evidence to support it. If you cannot do that, then you have no business being in this - or any - discussion.

Let's face it, you're going to dispute these, claim they don't prove Christians are one of the most persecuted

We won't know until you share the evidence. If people feel that evidence is disputable, then that is their perogative - but arguing "I don't have to provide evidence because you will dispute it" is not acceptable.

and add a little ad hominem in there.

And you don't see the irony of this statement, given that what I have just quoted is in itself an ad hominem attack?

 

[KSaiyu]

That's not the way it works. If you make the claim, then you provide the evidence to support it. If you cannot do that, then you have no business being in this - or any - discussion.


We won't know until you share the evidence. If people feel that evidence is disputable, then that is their perogative - but arguing "I don't have to provide evidence because you will dispute it" is not acceptable.


And you don't see the irony of this statement, given that what I have just quoted is in itself an ad hominem attack?

But....It's.....Right.....There.....

Look harder.

Right under it in fact.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

But....It's.....Right.....There.....

Look harder.

Right under it in fact.

If you want me - or anyone else - to do you the courtesy of reading your entire post, then the burden of responsibility rests with you to follow the rules.