Wednesday, 2 August 2017

UOHC’s Eye Watering Stuff

UOHC-Thames Water Powerpoint by ifyoutickleus on Scribd

So UOHC brought to the meeting a Dayan, a lawyer, indeed a technician, a handful of arsekonim and a token woman. Truly eye watering stuff.


Hat said...

Does the UOHC Rabbinate insist that it is prohibited to walk past a CCTV camera?

Misasek (I want water, not to turn a meter) + gerama (I didn't flick a switch, I turned on a tap, llowing a flow of water (under pressure from a pumping station) causing a rotor in to move several meters away, which movement is measured electronically) + pesik reisha d'lo nicha le (nobody likes water bills) + electronic equipment which does not get hot is (scientifically at least) a derabban anyway (not m'a'aver and makka b'patish non issue as doesn't complete a circuit) = no issue here. Unless you happen to be a purveyor of mehadrin water meters?

By the UOHC's bizarre definition, turning on the tap itself is prohibited (the pressure in the pipes is from electrical pumps ( Which presumably is not an issue until a mehadrin water pump is found?

This is all so completely unnecessary - and very much a potential chillul hashem.

×× said...

Especially as Rav Padwa z'l permits walking past a motion activated light even lechatchila and you know its there.

×× said...

UOHC are not worried about chilul hashem. After all, the goyim are in golus.

Seriously with the rising tide of nationalism all over the West they should be keeping a low profile. But Rabbis as they were 90 years ago are blissfully isolated.

×× said...

Not to mention d'rabbonons are muttar lechatchila for kovod habriyos. Even without coming on to dovor shelo b'mischaven and all that.

stamford hiller said...

You have all missed the main (pun intended) point.
Thames Water bills are produced on computers that do not have a TAG filter and according to the UOHC ruling of September 2012 any connection with such devices or anyone who uses/owns them is completely forbidden. These takonos are (their words) "basic foundations of Yiddishkeit with many important Torah principles dependent on them".

Ok? Nuff said?

the Hat said...

Tickle refers to paragraph 42, a self serving paragraph in which the court attempts to deny its own agency:

"It is important at the outset to be clear as to why the court – the State – is involved in
the present case. It is because the parents have been unable to resolve their family difficulties themselves, whether with or without the assistance, formal or informal, of
the community, and because one of the parents, in this case the father, has sought the
assistance of the court."

This is nonsense given the frankly chilling paragraph 77, in which the courts make it quite clear that the views of the parents are in the final analysis irrelevant and entirely subservient to the judges' own views on what a "judicial reasonable parent" should do:

"Is it enough simply to proceed on the basis (para 185) that “These parents decided to bring up their children according to the narrow ways of the community, and they continue to agree about this (emphasis added)”? Should I not directly and explicitly challenge the parents and the community with the possibility that, absent a real change of attitude on their part, the court may have to consider drastic steps such as removing the children from the mother’s care, making the children wards of court or even removing the children into public care?"

I personally strongly disapprove of the restriction of all direct contact with the father -
it's repugnant and unnecessary. It's not in the best interests of children. It's unhalachic, motivated by what Rav Steinman would have called "ga'ava, ga'ava, ga'ava" (

I also strongly disapprove of these self proclaimed "judicially reasonable parents" threatening to remove the children from the care of the only stable caregiver in their lives - the mother - for reasons of an ideological purity all of their own.