Ban the burkha ?

Originally Posted by Gary L

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34947550-post28.html

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34947856-post82.html

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34947864-post86.html

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34947874-post89.html

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34948145-post110.html

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34948227-post122.html

Other than what I've already said. I haven't really given it much thought.

Not the burqa, dunderhead - the policeman (but you knew that).

Originally Posted by sollp

Think you'll find that they are wearing PROTECTIVE clothing, this includes a boiler type suit, gloves, helmet, CLEAR face visor,protective boots, stab vest, possibly shin guards and other various padding, all clothing would be fire resistant which would also include a balaclava mask to protect the exposed parts of the face and neck when faced with petrol bombs and chemicals. Not to hide there identity's.

Oh and it would keep you nice and warm on a winters day.

Try doing this when having just a shield and bog standard issue clothing and i think you would opt for the wardrobe these guys are wearing.

Of course, none of the Met's finest would countenance removing their numbers from their epaulettes whilst on riot duty, would they? I think the question about disguising identity in these circumstances is a very valid one.

Anyway, other things that would be banned because they cover someone's face in public.

Wedding veils Royal Ascot hats Santa outfits

bee keepers clowns The Stig

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Not the burqa, dunderhead - the policeman (but you knew that).

I didn't know you wanted to go off topic, and talk about something that has been in another thread that I've discussed with you before, no.

---------- Post added at 21:14 ---------- Previous post was at 21:10 ----------

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Anyway, other things that would be banned because they cover someone's face in public.

I think these don't count because as an example with the bride, she only wears it for a few hours in just that one day.

the lady with the lampshade only when she's at the races.

the bee keepers only when they're playing about with bees.

Originally Posted by Gary L

I didn't know you wanted to go off topic, and talk about something that has been in another thread that I've discussed with you before, no.

How is it off-topic - they are wearing something that covers their faces in a public place.

Or is it because they is not Muslim?

---------- Post added at 21:16 ---------- Previous post was at 21:14 ----------

Originally Posted by Gary L

I didn't know you wanted to go off topic, and talk about something that has been in another thread that I've discussed with you before, no.

---------- Post added at 21:14 ---------- Previous post was at 21:10 ----------



I think these don't count because as an example with the bride, she only wears it for a few hours in just that one day.

the lady with the lampshade only when she's at the races.

the bee keepers only when they're playing about with bees.

So Muslim women could wear burqas in a public place as long as it was only for a couple of hours every so often?

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Gary L

I didn't know you wanted to go off topic, and talk about something that has been in another thread that I've discussed with you before, no.

he doesn't want to discuss the topic hence the silly pictures and the repeated attempts to derail the thread imho .

Originally Posted by papa smurf

he doesn't want to discuss the topic hence the silly pictures and the repeated attempts to derail the thread imho .

I am trying to highlight the stupidity of the proposition, because posters keep stating "it is not because it is the burqa, it is anything that disguises someone's identity". But when I show other things that can disguise someone's identity, it is "off-topic" or "derailing".

As the founder of the UKIP said today in the Times letter page

Sir, During the greatest financial crisis facing this country since the 1930s, how typical it is of UKIP’s present pathetic leadership that its flagship policy for the forthcoming general election should be to attack the less than 1 per cent of our female population who wear the burka. This is desperate and inane.
If the party is really so obsessed with race, immigration and Islam, it should simply merge with the BNP, which it increasingly resembles. Why have a competition in intolerance?

Originally Posted by Gary L

I didn't know you wanted to go off topic, and talk about something that has been in another thread that I've discussed with you before, no.

---------- Post added at 21:14 ---------- Previous post was at 21:10 ----------



I think these don't count because as an example with the bride, she only wears it for a few hours in just that one day.

the lady with the lampshade only when she's at the races.

the bee keepers only when they're playing about with bees.

I'm getting a trifle confused.

So you don't mind anyone else covering their faces except those who wear Burkhas.

Or you don't want anyone to cover their faces at any time for any reason

Or you don't mind anyone covering their faces provided it's only connected with certain events for short periods of time

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I'm getting a trifle confused.

So you don't mind anyone else covering their faces except those who wear Burkhas.

Or you don't want anyone to cover their faces at any time for any reason

Or you don't mind anyone covering their faces provided it's only connected with certain events for short periods of time

I don't think I've said one way or another. I'm only here to discuss what other people think.

Originally Posted by Gary L

I don't think I've said one way or another. I'm only here to discuss what other people think.

The sad thing is, he probably believes it.......

Originally Posted by foreverwar

I am trying to highlight the stupidity of the proposition, because posters keep stating "it is not because it is the burqa, it is anything that disguises someone's identity". But when I show other things that can disguise someone's identity, it is "off-topic" or "derailing".

As the founder of the UKIP said today in the Times letter page

i will repeat what i said earlier just for Forevers benefit .Why should women wearing a burka be excempt from removing the facial covering in sensitive areas like banks/post offices /airports ect when other people have to remove helmets /hoodies ect

[danielf]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

The sad thing is, he probably believes it.......

It's probably because he is unable to think himself...

Originally Posted by martyh

i will repeat what i said earlier just for Forevers benefit .Why should women wearing a burka be excempt from removing the facial covering in sensitive areas like banks/post offices /airports ect when other people have to remove helmets /hoodies ect

Because the wearing of helmets,hoodies etc are not connected to religious beliefs.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by danielf

It's probably because he is unable to think himself...

I think you two will find that Maggy is a she

Keep digging the hole..