HJO-1403 Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 Why is that man/boy wearing a handbag? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 (edited) Speaking of peoples rights to just do as they please and Britain being seen as a bastion of 'support for personal freedom' Stephen Gough the naked rambler has had his appeal to the EU court of human rights dismissed. Setting off from Scotland he walked the length of Britain naked, being constantly arrested in both Scotland and England he has spent over six years in prison as a result of his insistence on walking in the nude. The law does in fact enforce societal norms in this country. ---------- Post added 28-10-2014 at 14:51 ---------- I suppose it depends whether a motorcyclist should be allowed to keep his helment on whilst working as a bank clerk for example. Other than carrying out a spot check on his bike or something similar a motorcyclist should not keep his helmet on for any length of time when not actually riding his bike. Why should he? It's an item of safety wear, there for protection against coming off the bike whilst in motion. Why would anyone feel the need to keep it on when walking about and interacting with other people? When a batsman is dismissed they often can be seen removing their helmets and gloves etc as they leave the field, they no longer need them, so they remove them. A motorcycle helmet has the additional problem of concealing someones identity, it should be removed whenever it's not required. Not to do so is extremely rude and shows no consideration for anyone other than the inconsiderate git who is wearing it. Edited October 28, 2014 by mjw47 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roosterboost Posted October 28, 2014 Author Share Posted October 28, 2014 Other than carrying out a spot check on his bike or something similar a motorcyclist should not keep his helmet on for any length of time when not actually riding his bike. Why should he? It's an item of safety wear, there for protection against coming off the bike whilst in motion. Why would anyone feel the need to keep it on when walking about and interacting with other people? When a batsman is dismissed they often can be seen removing their helmets and gloves etc as they leave the field, they no longer need them, so they remove them. A motorcycle helmet has the additional problem of concealing someones identity, it should be removed whenever it's not required. Not to do so is extremely rude and shows no consideration for anyone other than the inconsiderate git who is wearing it. I must agree with that. The idea of folk walking our streets wearing blacked out helmets is pretty silly. The first thing I want to do is take it off. The comparison comes when a guy in an SAS balaclava, one in a black visor helmet and one in a burka turm up at a bank and are asked to remove them. Every one will agree that the first 2 should comply for security reasons. However in the case of the burka a very vocal 10% of our population will start shouting racist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 I do have a problem with the state acting in a hypocritical way.I do too, but there's degrees of hypocrisy. Some not really worth bothering, like France banning Burka under the guise of 'security concerns'. Others, not so. Like the UK (and others) stating that it will now let Mediterranean boat people drown so that would-be boat people eventually get the message and quit trying to cross. Britain will not support any future search and rescue operations to prevent migrants and refugees drowning in the Mediterranean, claiming they simply encourage more people to attempt the dangerous sea crossing, Foreign Office ministers have quietly announced. <...> British policy was quietly spelled out in a recent House of Lords written answer by the new Foreign Office minister, Lady Anelay: “We do not support planned search and rescue operations in the Mediterranean,” she said, adding that the government believed there was “an unintended ‘pull factor’, encouraging more migrants to attempt the dangerous sea crossing and thereby leading to more tragic and unnecessary deaths”. Now that's hypocrisy worth getting bothered about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Ladd Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 I do too, but there's degrees of hypocrisy. Some not really worth bothering, like France banning Burka under the guise of 'security concerns'. Others, not so. Like the UK (and others) stating that it will now let Mediterranean boat people drown so that would-be boat people eventually get the message and quit trying to cross. Now that's hypocrisy worth getting bothered about What's hypocritical about it? If man says I am going to do something so stupid he may die, do I have a duty to risk my life to save him? In the same way if these people are prepared to risk their lives why should our government give the impression we will intercede? Where are the Russians, the Saudis, the Gulf states, the Iranians, the Turks? they are nearer geographically, why don't they send out their navies to save these people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charmer Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 I do too, but there's degrees of hypocrisy. Some not really worth bothering, like France banning Burka under the guise of 'security concerns'. Others, not so. Like the UK (and others) stating that it will now let Mediterranean boat people drown so that would-be boat people eventually get the message and quit trying to cross. Now that's hypocrisy worth getting bothered about I don't see the hypocrisy here my friend. Britain should not be obliged to help fund rescue missions the other side of our continent. If we were letting people drown in the channel I would complain, not in the Mediterranean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roosterboost Posted October 28, 2014 Author Share Posted October 28, 2014 I don't see the hypocrisy here my friend. Britain should not be obliged to help fund rescue missions the other side of our continent. If we were letting people drown in the channel I would complain, not in the Mediterranean. Yes its a pity we didn't have a few more resourses available in Cornwall this week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 I do too, but there's degrees of hypocrisy. Some not really worth bothering, like France banning Burka under the guise of 'security concerns'. Others, not so. Like the UK (and others) stating that it will now let Mediterranean boat people drown so that would-be boat people eventually get the message and quit trying to cross. Now that's hypocrisy worth getting bothered about How is it hypocritical? We aren't telling other people that they should come to the North Sea and rescue people are we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chazndave Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 I came upon these Youtube clip of a Muslim man getting very hot under the collar about non muslims wearing burkas. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkQ73B_RV2k What are you thoughts? I don't think Its acceptable for anyone to wear Burkas in the UK outside of their home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliceBB Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 I don't think Its acceptable for anyone to wear Burkas in the UK outside of their home. Why do you think that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts