Is it acceptable for non Muslims to wear burkas?

[ricgem2002]

Probably because they were continually distracted by people who kept on dragging them away from the subject matter at hand??

or they were too afraid to act which we now know was the case(unless you know different )

[mjw47]

You keep banging on about the miners strike but that particular piece of legislation has nothing to do with face coverings.

Here's a favourite phrase of yours " You don't understand do you?"

Ask your ex constable 'mate' .

 

I replied to an earlier post of yours but it was deleted.

 

I was Mortified but I'll try again, first of all you need to stop with the 'mate' crap, the insinuation that I am making up imaginary friends is both childish ,and revealing.

 

You were offered the opportunity to prove the fact and declined, the offer is still there ,so either pack it in or take me up on it.

 

You appear to have a one track mind which cannot deal with additional relevant information.

 

At no time did I say that the reference to the miners strike had any connection to wearing masks.

 

It was mentioned purely as an example of how ruthless the government can be with the general public when they feel challenged.

 

It was in response to the suggestion that if the general public decided to go about in disguise, then the government would have to abandon a major part of their anti crime, anti terrorism defence system, which relies upon identifying suspects.

 

That is simply nonsense, it wouldn't be allowed.

 

Which is why making exceptions for a minority is unequal and discriminatory.

[boyfriday]

or they were too afraid to act which we now know was the case(unless you know different )

 

Whatever the reasons they had little to do with whether they could wear a burka, or not.

[monkey104]

Your implication is that the government would enact legislation in order to meet a challenge from the public.

You then stated that the government wouldn't allow mass face coverings due to the expense of CCTV.

You then cite examples including the miners strike and football violence implying that government enacted legislation to combat this when, in fact, the legislation was already in place.

Ask your 'mate'.

[ricgem2002]

Whatever the reasons they had little to do with whether they could wear a burka, or not.

its a good job they didn't wear a burqa bf imagine trying to identify them it would look something like this https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=burqa&biw=1366&bih=651&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=UOZfVO7yNs7y7AbDuoGABQ&sqi=2&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=EGeozHRcyv0HCM%253A%3BToMoPWN6L2wrqM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.thepersonalistproject.org%252Fimages%252Fuploads%252Fround_tables%252Fblack_burqa.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.thepersonalistproject.org%252Fcomments%252Fnested%252Fanother_burqa_photo%3B320%3B188

[mjw47]

Your implication is that the government would enact legislation in order to meet a challenge from the public.

You then stated that the government wouldn't allow mass face coverings due to the expense of CCTV.

You then cite examples including the miners strike and football violence implying that government enacted legislation to combat this when, in fact, the legislation was already in place.

Ask your 'mate'.

 

Yes they would, and unless you have no appreciation of the recent history of government actions you would understand that.

 

Do you honestly believe that the government, police and security services of this country which have invested Billions on surveillance systems, and rely on them for a major part of their security operations would simply accept the whole thing being made obsolete overnight?

 

Give me a yes or no answer on that question.

 

Please explain how it matters whether or not the restrictive legislation was in place or brought into place to deal with the situation?

 

If there is a law already in place then it will be used, if not it will be enacted.

 

Do you understand that the government is able to bring in new legislation in order to deal with developing situations?

 

Again ,please provide a yes or no answer to this question.

 

For the last time your pathetic and childish ongoing use of 'mate' needs to either stop or be backed up by some courage on your part.

 

Do it one more time and I will not bother replying to another of your posts on this thread.

 

And yes, I appreciate that I have given you an opportunity to get out of a discussion that you have made yourself look pretty dense on but as you are beginning to bore me I have no problem with that.

 

So, show a bit of intestinal fortitude for a change and answer the two questions above, yes or no, no deflection.

[ronthenekred]

 

Do you honestly believe that the government, police and security services of this country which have invested Billions on surveillance systems, and rely on them for a major part of their security operations would simply accept the whole thing being made obsolete overnight?

Give me a yes or no answer on that question.

 

Could you explain what the "government" would do (tactic wise) if the people were to rise up as a unified peaceful force, wearing a mask?

 

 

For the last time your pathetic and childish ongoing use of 'mate' needs to either stop or be backed up by some courage on your part.

Do it one more time and I will not bother replying to another of your posts on this thread.

 

Oh deary me.

[monkey104]

Yes they would, and unless you have no appreciation of the recent history of government actions you would understand that.

 

Do you honestly believe that the government, police and security services of this country which have invested Billions on surveillance systems, and rely on them for a major part of their security operations would simply accept the whole thing being made obsolete overnight?

 

Give me a yes or no answer on that question.

 

Please explain how it matters whether or not the restrictive legislation was in place or brought into place to deal with the situation?

 

If there is a law already in place then it will be used, if not it will be enacted.

 

Do you understand that the government is able to bring in new legislation in order to deal with developing situations?

 

Again ,please provide a yes or no answer to this question.

 

For the last time your pathetic and childish ongoing use of 'mate' needs to either stop or be backed up by some courage on your part.

 

Do it one more time and I will not bother replying to another of your posts on this thread.

 

And yes, I appreciate that I have given you an opportunity to get out of a discussion that you have made yourself look pretty dense on but as you are beginning to bore me I have no problem with that.

 

So, show a bit of intestinal fortitude for a change and answer the two questions above, yes or no, no deflection.

 

Good grief! You are really dim aren't you?

I cite relevant legislation yet you can only say that the government won't stand for it. Your opinion because it would effect your beloved CCTV .

You cite miners strike and football matches and as I have told you many times, legislation was already in place for this. Have another look and read it slowly.

Once again, how would 140,000 officers disrobe 64 million people wearing face coverings?

How would they differentiate between legal and illegal face coverings? Or would they all be illegal?

Ask your ' mate'

 

---------- Post added 09-11-2014 at 23:22 ----------

 

Could you explain what the "government" would do (tactic wise) if the people were to rise up as a unified peaceful force, wearing a mask?

 

 

 

 

Oh deary me.

 

He can't or won't.

[mjw47]

Could you explain what the "government" would do (tactic wise) if the people were to rise up as a unified peaceful force, wearing a mask?

 

 

 

 

Oh deary me.

 

So you think that the government would simply accept the situation?

 

The billions that have been invested in making the people of this country the most observed and recorded by the authorities in the entire world would just be abandoned without a murmur? Oh deary me indeed.

 

This is what I believe would happen. First of all there would be a nationwide appeal by the PM broadcast simultaneously on all available channels appealing to the public to reconsider.

 

It would then be explained that this action by the public was endangering the population and playing into the hands of terrorists and criminals.

 

The requirements of national security would be invoked, it would be explained that the police and security forces were being hampered in their sworn duty to protect the great British public.

 

Then it would be explained regretfully that if this action by the public did not cease with immediate effect it would be necessary to take strong action which could include curfews and ultimately - and regrettably martial law.

 

The point being of course that the government would have a very good case, as it would cripple the law enforcement and security services in the country.

 

Whether we like it or not, surveillance including recording, face recognition programs and police and security access to private systems as well as state systems plays a huge part in our security.

 

Obviously you could be right, the government could decide to abrogate all responsibility for state security and go and have a beer.

 

But if I was a betting man I know where my money would go.

 

---------- Post added 10-11-2014 at 11:16 ----------

 

Good grief! You are really dim aren't you?

I cite relevant legislation yet you can only say that the government won't stand for it. Your opinion because it would effect your beloved CCTV .

You cite miners strike and football matches and as I have told you many times, legislation was already in place for this. Have another look and read it slowly.

Once again, how would 140,000 officers disrobe 64 million people wearing face coverings?

How would they differentiate between legal and illegal face coverings? Or would they all be illegal?

Ask your ' mate'

 

---------- Post added 09-11-2014 at 23:22 ----------

 

 

He can't or won't.

 

 

 

Your obsession with relevant legislation is ludicrous. It is completely immaterial to the point being made.

 

What does it matter whether it's current, past or to be enacted?

 

We have thousands of laws, the government uses them if applicable if not they enact new ones as and when they wish.

 

The presence or absence of legislation needed to deal with a situation will not impact on the authorities ability to deal with it.

 

For Gods sake get over your unhealthy fetish about relevant legislation, what brought it about, did you get a B plus in the security guard exam?

 

How would the police deal with it? You really are not good at simple joined up thinking are you?

 

This countries police and security forces have an enormous amount of experience with handling an insubordinate public which they gained over thirty years in Northern Ireland.

 

They don't have to take the masks off millions at the same time do they?

 

All they have to do is handle it one at a time all over the country, the impositions of on the spot fines or the confiscation of your car if you were caught driving in a mask would soon dissuade ongoing dissention.

 

Yes, they would ban all face coverings, which is what they have done in all the countries where they have had the sense to ban this anomaly, that way everyone is treat equally which is what should happen, as opposed to pandering to a minority who are taking the pee and treating their country of residence with contempt.

[ronthenekred]

I maintain that if we, the general public, decided to hide our identity in public as a matter of course then covering your face in public would be banned, because the circumstances would dictate it, yes?

 

Yes, if the governments employers (the people) were ignored in favour of denying the very people it represents. Do you understand the basic relationship between government and the people and how they work within a democracy?

 

So you think that the government would simply accept the situation?

 

They would have no choice, unless they wish to ignore the people and become a junta.

 

Obviously you could be right, the government could decide to abrogate all responsibility for state security and go and have a beer.

 

Yes I could be right if I actually said that, but I didn't.

 

State security would be to accept the will of the people not dictate with force against it on the grounds that "hey we've wasted all that money on cameras, now eat baton you plebs."