retep Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 Simple questions-is it an offence to wear a motorcycle helmet when not mounted on a motorbike? Is it an offence to wear a scarf wrapped around your face? Is it an offence to wear a balaclava? Is it an offence to refuse to reveal your face when a uniformed PC asks you to do so for identification purposes? Are burka wearers exempted from this requirement? See post 822 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 Honestly. You really need to have it explained why it's legal to wear it, but illegal to not remove it when required to do so for identification purposes? I don't know if I can explain it any more simple terms than have already been used. There is NO OFFENCE in wearing it. Otherwise the law would say so and you could be arrested for wearing it. The offence comes from keeping it in place when an S60aa order is in place and you refuse to remove it when asked to do so. It's that simple. (And it's under specific circumstances that are not the norm). My bold Explain the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 See post 822 Simple questions-is it an offence to wear a motorcycle helmet when not mounted on a motorbike? Is it an offence to wear a scarf wrapped around your face? Is it an offence to wear a balaclava? Is it an offence to refuse to reveal your face when a uniformed PC asks you to do so for identification purposes? Are burka wearers exempted from this requirement? No, No, No, Yes, No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 My bold Explain the difference. It's appearing doubtful that you'd understand it if he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 My bold Explain the difference. The difference is simple. It IS NOT ILLEGAL to wear it. It IS ILLEGAL to refuse to remove it when asked. Could it be any simpler than that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 The difference is simple. It IS NOT ILLEGAL to wear it. It IS ILLEGAL to refuse to remove it when asked. Could it be any simpler than that? Has he got it yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted September 12, 2011 Author Share Posted September 12, 2011 I've yet to see any legal basis for that conclusion. Who said they are more of a security risk? It isn't illegal to wear a motorcycle helmet of balaclava either! I think you're off speculating again danot. We've already established there is no double standard because there is no exemption in law for people who wear a burka from having to prove their identity if required to do so, nor can you say what the incidence of burka wearers being challenged by the police is..so guess what? You're speculating yet again. You're familiar with the maxim 'if you don't try you'll never know'? BF. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. In one breath you're supporting Halibut's claim that police are justified when presuming that the wearers of balaclava's, goggle jackets and hoodies are most likely "up to no good" as anyone that conceals their face with a garment that is strongly associated with previous criminal activities is likely to be viewed as being "up to no good" merely because the garment has a strong association with criminal activities. Then in another breath you're defending the right for a Sikh to carry his dagger, despite it meeting the description of an offensive weapon merely due to it's religious significance and the fact that Sikhs are not associated with Knife related offences. In one instance you're arguing that a Kirpan isn't an offensive weapon in the hands of a Sikh merely because Sikhs are not associated with Knife related crimes, then in the next, you're arguing that the Niqab doesn't pose a threat to security because such garments are not associated with garments that criminals have previously used to conceal their identities. Aren't Knives associated with the the previous activities of criminals?, isn't that the reason everybody is restricted to where they can carry them............. Oh, Sikhs aren't restricted are they, they can carry their Knives whenever and wherever they choose can't they?, because this so called statistical evidence that shows knives as well as balaclava's are strongly associated with the previous criminals activities is being overlooked on this occasion isn't BF. It's hypocritical BF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 BF. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. In one breath you're supporting Halibut's claim that police are justified when presuming that the wearers of balaclava's, goggle jackets and hoodies are most likely "up to no good" as anyone that conceals their face with a garment that is strongly associated with previous criminal activities is likely to be viewed as being "up to no good" merely because the garment has a strong association with criminal activities. Then in another breath you're defending the right for a Sikh to carry his dagger, despite it meeting the description of an offensive weapon merely due to it's religious significance and the fact that Sikhs are not associated with Knife related offences. In one instance you're arguing that a Kirpan isn't an offensive weapon in the hands of a Sikh merely because Sikhs are not associated with Knife related crimes, then in the next, you're arguing that the Niqab doesn't pose a threat to security because such garments are not associated with garments that criminals have previously used to conceal their identities. Aren't Knives associated with the the previous activities of criminals?, isn't that the reason everybody is restricted to where they can carry them............. Oh, Sikhs aren't restricted are they, they can carry their Knives whenever and wherever they choose can't they?, because this so called statistical evidence that shows knives as well as balaclava's are strongly associated with the previous criminals activities is being overlooked on this occasion isn't BF. It's hypocritical BF. Not everybody is restricted in where they can carry knives. Cyclone took his knife on a camping trip, I regularly carry one in my pocket. You're arguing from a false premise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 The difference is simple. It IS NOT ILLEGAL to wear it. It IS ILLEGAL to refuse to remove it when asked. Could it be any simpler than that? It becomes illegal to wear it when asked to remove it, therefore its illegal to wear it, you said so yourself "The offence comes from keeping it in place" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 It becomes illegal to wear it when asked to remove it, therefore its illegal to wear it, you said so yourself "The offence comes from keeping it in place" No it isn't, you're just being deliberately foolish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.