@Tim – lol, but really referrals can be the lifeblood of this sort of business. I’ve actually read some reviews of the Bounty House which predate this debacle and I’ve not come across any negative reviews re: religious barracking or otherwise. Surely if this were a habit digital britain would have a spate of googlable negative reviews to trawl through.

Is it because:

a) His god thinks he’s a cunt

or

b) Most people would rather not stay with, or give their business to, a slap-headed fundamentalist loon?

btw – two staff lost their jobs as the owners couldn’t afford to keep them on when business dropped off due to Walton hospital removing them from their hotel referrals list for patients.

@ barriejohn again – “Don’t mention the warlord! I did once but I think I got away with it” scans better

@ Gutts – disagree my friend, the principal motivator was two opposing theologies. Remove the theologies and noone cares what you’re wearing.

Finally, in reading summing up statements reported from the judge it seems there were inconsistencies in testimony which made a succesful prosecution non viable.

IMO what we have had is a fairly recent convert (18 months) who has taken the opportunity to display and defend her new religion to two (foolish) hoteliers known to be committed followers of an opposing theology knowing they would bite but misjudging how aggressively she would find the argument. We have a large Dutch man, thick accent, english as second language. We also have a predisposed state of mind to misinterpret (on both sides) the content of the discussion. We have statements in court reporting from third party witnesses that Mrs Tazi at one point said “Are you then calling me a Nazi? Are you then calling me a terrorist?” for which there is no testimony that this was anwered in the affirmative by the owners. Furthermore when this is cross referenced against the original newspaper story which broke around 28th September with the headline “They all but called me a terrorist” it would suggest to me that Mrs Tazi took the opportunity to present the owners with the chance to agree that she was a nazi and a terrorist which they wisely declined to take her up on. Furthermore furthermore when Mr Vogelenzang was reported (again in court) to have said “Mohammed stands for terrorism, mohammed stands for murder. Do you then stand for murder?” that Mrs Tazi took this to mean she was being labelled as a terrorist and a murderer when in actual fact the phrase “stand for” can be more accurately be replaced by “supports” – a phrase someone with english as a first language would probably have used in preference to “stands for”. By modern day values there is plenty in the Koran which would qualify by independant assessment as advocating terror and murder (so draw your own conclusion whether Mohammed supported the contents of the Koran)so actually it was a question as to whether Mrs Tazi supported terrorist acts , unfortunately this will have come across as her being labelled.

This label was never applied to Cherie Blair when she (a few years ago now) said she understood why the people of Palestine were resorting to suicide bombing – but then again that was a matter of some criticism discussed in media by well educated people who could carry out a reasoned analysis in English without bringing religion into it whereas here we have 3 arses who are looking for a barney.

I guess that’s my final word on the matter.

I wasn’t trying to be pedantic (OK, yes I was),– it just seemed that the past tense (liked the Beatles) was more appropriate for a Muslim convert. It’s the devil’s music, after all.