mjw47 Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Meadowhall have the right to refuse entry to people I suppose. Only if they were some kind of retard. No, they totally wouldn't. It would be an unprovoked assault, and provocation isn't a legal defence anyway. Just making it clear that it is entirely legal, as you keep claiming or implying that it isn't. Or not, since I don't have to and you're not in charge. Yes, that will be OK then, because there are no retards or aggressive people walking about looking for an excuse to give someone a slap. But then of course if they were wearing a hood also, they could assault you and get away with it, because no CCTV evidence would be available. Maybe that's one of the reasons that the police and security staff would find a hood wearer objectionable, unless it's a burka of course. And where exactly have I claimed or implied that at present covering your face is illegal? How the hell can it be illegal when this thread is about the burka and the fact that people are wearing it? I'm saying it should be banned as in France for the simple reasons that it goes against the customs of the country and is discriminatory and divisive. The fact that crimes have been committed by people wearing burkas as a disguise is another factor in the debate. Any comment on how a person driving a car wearing a burka and caught on camera speeding cannot - unlike the rest of us - be identified by the police? And where did I imply that I was in charge? Having an opinion is simply that, having an opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SavannahP Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 I understand that you want freedom to be extended, but you don't achieve it by banning extra things unless the things you want are unbanned. But if government have no intentions of unbanning things the only way to make society fairer is to ban more things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 But if government have no intentions of unbanning things the only way to make society fairer is to ban more things. "To protect your freedom, it is necessary to give up your freedom..." Eh? What???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 But if government have no intentions of unbanning things the only way to make society fairer is to ban more things. I'm not sure any items of clothing are banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SavannahP Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 "To protect your freedom, it is necessary to give up your freedom..." Eh? What???? Is it ????? ---------- Post added 31-10-2014 at 18:52 ---------- I'm not sure any items of clothing are banned. But some things that some people find offensive are banned and then there's the passport and driving license photo paradox, either covering your hair is wrong or it isn't, its inequality to allow some people to cover it and ban others from covering theirs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Any comment on how a person driving a car wearing a burka and caught on camera speeding cannot - unlike the rest of us - be identified by the police? I think the police rely on the owner of the vehicle identifying the driver, otherwise it'd be impossible to get a conviction from a photograph of the rear number plate. ---------- Post added 31-10-2014 at 19:04 ---------- Is it ????? ---------- Post added 31-10-2014 at 18:52 ---------- But some things that some people find offensive are banned I think ronthenekred asked earlier-what are those things? and then there's the passport and driving license photo paradox, either covering your hair is wrong or it isn't, its inequality to allow some people to cover it and ban others from covering theirs.Frankly I don't know why there's a requirement that the hair is visible on passport photographs, after all it's an easy physical feature to change. If anything we should be campaigning for a relaxation of that particular requirement rather than restricting the freedoms of others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SavannahP Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 (edited) I think the police rely on the owner of the vehicle identifying the driver, otherwise it'd be impossible to get a conviction from a photograph of the rear number plate. ---------- Post added 31-10-2014 at 19:04 ---------- I think ronthenekred asked earlier-what are those things? Frankly I don't know why there's a requirement that the hair is visible on passport photographs, after all it's an easy physical feature to change. If anything we should be campaigning for a relaxation of that particular requirement rather than restricting the freedoms of others. Supt Julie Whitmarsh said: "Mankini is what we term 'offensive clothing', so we won't accept people wearing them. They are just hideous. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-19755686 I agree that it is illogical to allow one item of clothing that covers the hair whilst banning other items of clothing that cover the hair. Edited October 31, 2014 by SavannahP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossyrooney Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 I managed to catch a snippet on tonights news where young Muslim girls were selling and wearing white ladies headscarves with red poppies printed on them, they looked really good and I wondered whether bandanas or beany hats were available to get young lads to show interest and respect for the fallen ones? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 I think the police rely on the owner of the vehicle identifying the driver, otherwise it'd be impossible to get a conviction from a photograph of the rear number plate. Obviously you've never had the misfortune to be caught on a speed camera? To my regret I have, and received a lovely picture of me at the wheel of the vehicle, I'd have smiled if I'd seen it coming. Depends on the position of the camera of course but quite a few take pictures from the front including Motorway camera's. People have been prosecuted for attempting to say someone else was driving and then having the proof produced in picture form. So yes, it does mean that wearing a disguise can prove beneficial in avoiding the law of the land. As I keep on saying, equality for all citizens is what should be aimed for, we have an obvious discrimination here with no actual need for it in terms of religion. It is purely a personal choice, and should not be pandered to. Stephen Gough attempted to exercise his personal choice and received years in jail for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Is it ????? Apparrently, yes, by your way of thinking.... But some things that some people find offensive are banned and then there's the passport and driving license photo paradox, either covering your hair is wrong or it isn't, its inequality to allow some people to cover it and ban others from covering theirs. Theres no paradox, except perhaps in your imagination. If a veiled female has any problem with removing her veil in front of a male passport control officer at customs, she has the facility to unveil privately in front of a female officer, to preserve her modesty. So no problem, whatsoever, except where you're making it a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts