John X Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Then Britpat made his point didn't he. I've no idea. What point was he making? John X Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted September 9, 2011 Author Share Posted September 9, 2011 I've no idea. What point was he making? John X This one. Can a motorcyclist not be an armed robber as well as a biker? Can a burqa wearer not be a terrorist as well as a muslim? Which was more than clear to you when you read it the first time, seeing as the answer you gave is in reference to it. In a tiny number of cases, yes. In an even smaller number of cases, yes. John X Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 This one. Which was more than clear to you when you read it the first time, seeing as the answer you gave is in reference to it. Ok, if we accept that a tiny number of motorcyclists may be intent on armed robbery and an even smaller number number of burqa wearers may be contemplating terrorist activity, then what? I don't see either of those things suggesting that we need to do aything differently - do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted September 9, 2011 Author Share Posted September 9, 2011 Ok, if we accept that a tiny number of motorcyclists may be intent on armed robbery and an even smaller number number of burqa wearers may be contemplating terrorist activity, then what? I don't see either of those things suggesting that we need to do aything differently - do you? That's if we were to accept both claims are proportionality accurate, which we have no reason to since we're unable to determine the identities of those in question. They could all be none Muslim bank robbers for all you know, then again, they could all be Muslims. Once you explain how you intend to identify which are which, I'll be all ears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 That's if we were to accept both claims are proportionality accurate, which we have no reason to since we're unable to determine the identities of those in question. They could all be none Muslim bank robbers for all you know, then again, they could all be Muslims. Once you explain how you intend to identify which are which, I'll be all ears. What about robbers who wear fake disguises? The £40 million jewellery heist at the Graf store in Bond Street was carried out by two men wearing fake disguises. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graff_Diamonds_robbery Banning the burka wouldn't reduce crime, since criminals contemplating wearing it to conceal their identity would simply employ a different means of doing so. What about the loss of revenue to banks by prohibiting burka wearers (you do know that wealthy Muslims practically own the private banks in London don't you?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sidney Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Banning the burka is silly and not at all practical. It'll become a major bone of contention and people will wear them, including none Muslims, to make a point. I agree that the clothing is not suitable for some occupations. Especially, in professions like the Police or Teaching, for example. I don't think banning any sort of clothing is feasible. I remember back to school uniform days when the teachers spent half their time sorting out kids who they considered inappropriately dressed. Just let everybody wear what they like there's enough problems in the world without having to worry about this. I don't really support the banning which is put forward as a benefit to Muslim women because they're forced too by men. If the women are forced to wear them by men, as is argued, then that's their own daft fault. This argument I find puzzling. Isn't it just as bad to tell a woman that she can't wear what she wants as telling her that she has to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 That's if we were to accept both claims are proportionality accurate, which we have no reason to since we're unable to determine the identities of those in question. They could all be none Muslim bank robbers for all you know, then again, they could all be Muslims. Once you explain how you intend to identify which are which, I'll be all ears. It's quite clear that most are not bank robbers. If they were then there'd be lots of reports of banks being robbed by people wearing them wouldn't they! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted September 9, 2011 Author Share Posted September 9, 2011 What about robbers who wear fake disguises? The £40 million jewellery heist at the Graf store in Bond Street was carried out by two men wearing fake disguises. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graff_Diamonds_robbery BF. If it was reported to police that two men wearing green wigs, red noses and baggy trousers and braces were robbing the high street bank, they'd no doubt be searching for, and making inquiries on two men fitting that description. If it was reported that the two individuals were wearing Niqabs, what are the police to do?.. demand that all Muslim women in the local vicinity that have their faces concealed remove their niqabs and empty out their handbags? Posted by boyfriday Banning the burka wouldn't reduce crime, since criminals contemplating wearing it to conceal their identity would simply employ a different means of doing so. Such as what? What other available options are there which could enable criminals to conceal their identities and commit crime without drawing any unwanted attention from fellow members of the public, and prevent them from giving a detailed description of suspects. Posted by boyfriday What about the loss of revenue to banks by prohibiting burka wearers (you do know that wealthy Muslims practically own the private banks in London don't you?) What about the loss of revenue from the pub and nightclub establishments by arresting and jailing pimps and drug dealers that attract business. Should revenue be given priority here also? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Yes, I'm sure they'd put out an APB on two clowns... How would removing anyone's face covering help identify them if they'd committed a crime whilst their face was covered? You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that someone planning to rob a bank would wear their Niquab or clown mask from the time they walk out of their front door. They're already planning to break the law, don't you think that they might stick the disguise on just before they walk into the bank... The fact that it would be illegal is hardly going to deter them, and everyone is going to notice that they're robbing the bank very shortly anyway when they demand money! You're just being ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted September 9, 2011 Author Share Posted September 9, 2011 It's quite clear that most are not bank robbers. If they were then there'd be lots of reports of banks being robbed by people wearing them wouldn't they!Bank robbery isn't the only crime that can be committed wearing a motorcycle helmet. It could just as easily be purse snatching, indecent assault, or murder. But where a male motorcyclists would be easily identified due to his stature and clothing, a Niqab wearer would prove more difficult since the niqab is designed to hide the contour of the body also, making it increasingly difficult to rule out the possibility that is could be a man wearing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.