Is it acceptable for non Muslims to wear burkas?

[monkey104]

Lovely, I'm off out with the Home Secretary in Sheffield tonight. I'll consult her on your theory and get back to you.

Edited November 7, 2014 by monkey104

[Mister M]

Listen I know it is the weekend, Mum has let you up late. Get mum to read what you said, Then what I said and get her to explain it to you. Stop now when you only look a little silly!.

 

Have you walked down Sheffield High Street with a balaclava on and were told to take it off?

[mjw47]

Lovely, I'm off out with the Home Secretary in Sheffield tonight. I'll consult her on your theory and get back to you.

 

Difference is, I was telling the truth and you are telling a lie.

 

So I told him your theory, and after he had stopped laughing, he pointed out that no government would allow civil disobedience verging on insurrection to take place under their watch.

 

During the miners strike one of the mainstays of democracy, 'freedom of movement' was curtailed.

 

Hundreds and thousands of people going about their lawful business were stopped, questioned, delayed and turned back. Many were arrested for failing to comply with police instructions.

 

The NUM challenged this in the High Court and lost.

 

Should you doubt this, look up Moss v McLachlan.

 

The State does not accept challenges to it's authority without using all the power at it's disposal to crush it.

 

And it has all the real power.

[Harleyman]

Religion and all it's trappings are the opiates of what is probably the loony bin of the universe... namely Mother Earth.

 

Religious garb. holy sites, sacred relics, obsession over events and semi mythological entities that happened and supposedly existed thousands of years ago. What a load of crap it all is and what a lot of misery and bloodshed that it's caused.

 

If you believe that the truth will set you free then believe that there's nothing or anything out there in the universe that cares a fiddlers about us earth dwellers.

 

We are born, we live and we die just like a weed or a barnyard chicken. End of story

Edited November 8, 2014 by Harleyman

[monkey104]

Difference is, I was telling the truth and you are telling a lie.

 

So I told him your theory, and after he had stopped laughing, he pointed out that no government would allow civil disobedience verging on insurrection to take place under their watch.During the miners strike one of the mainstays of democracy, 'freedom of movement' was curtailed.

 

Hundreds and thousands of people going about their lawful business were stopped, questioned, delayed and turned back. Many were arrested for failing to comply with police instructions.

 

The NUM challenged this in the High Court and lost.

 

Should you doubt this, look up Moss v McLachlan.

 

The State does not accept challenges to it's authority without using all the power at it's disposal to crush it.

 

And it has all the real power.

 

Of course he did dear.

[mjw47]

Of course he did dear.

 

If you are implying that I'm making it up, there is a very simply way of proving it.

 

PM me, and we'll make arrangements to meet up, my mate will be quite prepared to join us and give you the benefit of his knowledge gained in many years of service with the police.

 

We can even have a substantial bet ( for a charity of your choosing, as you'll be paying it ) on the outcome if you feel so sure of yourself.

 

My mate still carries ID so no problem proving his identity.

Edited November 8, 2014 by mjw47

[monkey104]

If you are implying that I'm making it up, there is a very simply way of proving it.

 

PM me, and we'll make arrangements to meet up, my mate will be quite prepared to join us and give you the benefit of his knowledge gained in many years of service with the police.

 

We can even have a substantial bet ( for a charity of your choosing, as you'll be paying it ) on the outcome if you feel so sure of yourself.

 

My mate still carries ID so no problem proving his identity.

 

Dear me, you really would like to be right.

How can your mate give me the definitive answer to a hypothetical question.

Is he a theoretical analyst?

This is a forum for discussion, why not get him to join and give us the benefit of his wisdom.

Ps. Moss v Mclachlan was nothing to do with face coverings it was potential breach of the peace. If you are so desperate to prove your theory you will need something more relevant.

[mjw47]

Dear me, you really would like to be right.

How can your mate give me the definitive answer to a hypothetical question.

Is he a theoretical analyst?

This is a forum for discussion, why not get him to join and give us the benefit of his wisdom.

Ps. Moss v Mclachlan was nothing to do with face coverings it was potential breach of the peace. If you are so desperate to prove your theory you will need something more relevant.

 

The point is monkey boy I am right.

 

The other point is that you keep proving that not only are you not the sharpest tool in the box, you are abusing the inability to be irrational.

 

You dropped yourself in it with the 'dear' comment, that's the remark of a smartarse, and I have derived much amusement over more years than you have been on the planet putting smartarses in their place.

 

You have been given a challenge, so what's it to be, are you going to put up or shut up?

 

My mate can give you the answer because his years in the force and his degree have provided him with the experience and knowledge to come to a highly educated conclusion as to what the response of the authorities would be in such circumstances.

 

Compare that with your ridiculous pure guesswork and lack of the ability to comprehend simple concepts and where does that leave us?

 

For instance, your inane remark that Moss v Mclachan wasn't anything to do with face covering.

 

I never said that it was, did I?

 

It was referred to as an example of what happens when the governments authority is challenged.

 

I made the mistake of assuming that you could work that out for yourself, obviously I overestimated your abilities.

 

Unlike me, my mate continues to be employed in a highly responsible job and has no time for pratting about on this forum.

 

Prior to my retirement I ran my own business for sixteen years and there is no way that I would have wasted my time on here.

 

This forum is for the retired and those with too much time on their hands.

[boyfriday]

My mate can give you the answer because his years in the force and his degree have provided him with the experience and knowledge to come to a highly educated conclusion as to what the response of the authorities would be in such circumstances.

 

What does any of that have to do with the freedom of people to wear burkas?

[johncocker]

What does any of that have to do with the freedom of people to wear burkas?

 

 

garbage ,you know full well what that stupid cover stands for and its got nothing to do with freedom ,

I want to hear you argue for men having their right to sexual enjoyment removed(FGM), men denied to drive, men denied the freedom to leave their houses without female chaperone or female permission, men forced to wear burkas and told god willed their face not be seen in public for fear of punishment, men not be given positions of public governmental judicial responsibility or power, men not educated, men not allowed to work if their woman says so, men punished if they are sexually assaulted, all men should be made to wear a burka when in public or else be punished by god, female family members or the judicial/religious system of the land.

Let’s hear you support the notion of these human rights standards being abused and denied to men! The hideous burka is a male belief/cultural construct that has no place in the world.