One of the advantages of at least some of the new drugs is that one can have a little drinkie which they don't seem to like you doing with wafarin*, depriving a sick person of one of life's little pleasures always struck me as a cruelty.
*The reason they gave me for the deprivation of alcohol was that varying amounts of alcohol in the blood stream could affect the results of the regular blood tests and so cause unnecessary panic or dangerous increase of doseage. I took the view that if I maintained the same daily alcohol intake as I had at the time of the first blood test it would achieve the same effect - seemed to work OK, but then I was only on the stuff for a month or so.
Mr. Urquhart, that's what baffles me most about ISIS. Most of the people they kill are Muslim. Hard to think of anything less Islamic [not that I'm an authority on the subject].
SoPN for Oldham West is out. No candidate lives in the constituency
OMRLP: Wythenshawe & Sale East UKIP: Eddisbury LD: Altrincham & Sale West Con: Bury North Greens: Liverpool Riverside Labour: Ashton under Lyme
What do you mean no candidate lives there? Surely the head of the local council should live there? Wait a minute, Ashton-under-Lyme is just a few hundred yards from Oldham West.
Mr. Palmer, interesting. I had read a little of that deal heading off problems for her, and a few days ago that her stance of "All Syrians will get refuge in Germany" had shifted to "For one year, and then we'll deport you." She's been barking mad on this subject.
Slow news day? Russia to be banned from world athletics? Osborn 30% cuts Cameron EU ultimatum OECD concern about emerging markets Steel chief defenestrates himself Boris barks like a dog.
...exploding mice.
A good day to bury bad news, of course keeping to the WWI theme so was the July crisis, to cover the fact that most european powers were having an internal crisis at that time.
Britain with Ireland and communists. France and Germany with socialists. Russia with Liberals and Rasputin.
Nah, had to take it for a while about 15 years ago because of a DVT in the leg. It was only a temporary thing, so these days I can lay off the booze if I want.
On the Germany thing there was a cracking article in the online edition of Der Spiegel the other day which is probably still available on their web site. It would seem that Germany, especially in the South and East is being split right down the middle by Frau Merkel's insane decisions.
BTW, there seems to be a serious CDU/CSU challenge against Merkel building up, after the SPD vetoed a deal that they thought they had on pre-scrutiny of refugees.
Just noticed this report in The Local:
"Germany unable to house 300,000 refugees Germany doesn't have the capacity to house hundreds of thousands of the refugees set to arrive in the country over the remainder of the year, a study released on Monday claims."
SoPN for Oldham West is out. No candidate lives in the constituency
OMRLP: Wythenshawe & Sale East UKIP: Eddisbury LD: Altrincham & Sale West Con: Bury North Greens: Liverpool Riverside Labour: Ashton under Lyme
What do you mean no candidate lives there? Surely the head of the local council should live there? Wait a minute, Ashton-under-Lyme is just a few hundred yards from Oldham West.
BTW, there seems to be a serious CDU/CSU challenge against Merkel building up, after the SPD vetoed a deal that they thought they had on pre-scrutiny of refugees.
Just noticed this report in The Local:
"Germany unable to house 300,000 refugees Germany doesn't have the capacity to house hundreds of thousands of the refugees set to arrive in the country over the remainder of the year, a study released on Monday claims."
BTW, there seems to be a serious CDU/CSU challenge against Merkel building up, after the SPD vetoed a deal that they thought they had on pre-scrutiny of refugees.
Just noticed this report in The Local:
"Germany unable to house 300,000 refugees Germany doesn't have the capacity to house hundreds of thousands of the refugees set to arrive in the country over the remainder of the year, a study released on Monday claims."
BTW, there seems to be a serious CDU/CSU challenge against Merkel building up, after the SPD vetoed a deal that they thought they had on pre-scrutiny of refugees.
CDU/CSU 34 SPD 24 Green 10 Die Linke 11 FDP 6 AfD 10
Highest ever poll rating for AfD and the hard left (Green/Linke) seems to be well up on their 2013 result. These numbers wouldn't be enough for a CDU/CSU-FDP coalition and I highly doubt that the CDU would ever legitimise AfD by going into a coalition with them while another grand coalition will only serve to weaken them further and cause more of their support to leech away to the AfD and FDP.
Mr. Palmer, interesting. I had read a little of that deal heading off problems for her, and a few days ago that her stance of "All Syrians will get refuge in Germany" had shifted to "For one year, and then we'll deport you." She's been barking mad on this subject.
How serious do you think the challenge is?
Well, Cicero, an online middleweight political magazine, thinks it's a big deal. I'm a big sceptical myself, and think that journalistic enthusiasm has run away with them. But certainly the row has damaged the CDU in polling, by about 4%, a big shift in stable Germany. The SPD are also slightly down. Beneficiaries are AfD and Green/Left parties, presumably because the issue is polarising people with defectors to both "Stop them all!" and "Let them all come!" camps at the expense of the prevailing "muddle through and tweak policy weekly" approach.
It is rather long by UK standards, it would seem the Hun likes detail in his discussions, but well worth the time it takes to read.
The international, online edition of Der Spiegel is a jolly good magazine especially if one wants an in depth view of events free of the usual bias from UK news sources.
Corbyn, Irish history, the EU, war on the European continent, split infinitives, meteorology, and mouse exclusion clauses: truly he who is tired of PB is tired of life!
I think warfarin-overdosed rodents spontaneously combusting could run and run....
EDIT: Having lived in a thatched cottage for fifteen years, I was rather more concerned about fireworks and those bloody floating lanterns than I was about rodents, although I too had heard of the risk of fire from them burstin' into flame - I often wondered whether t'was true....
As one for whom drug interactions were, if not meat and drink, then a significant part of life, I HATE warfarin. It has it’s uses of course and many people are alive who without it would be dead (or the reverse in the case of rodents) but off-hand (and I’m out of date of course) I can’t think of many drugs, or foods which aren’t either affected by it, or affect it’s operation. Or both! However I’ver never heard of it being associated with spontaneous combustion of rats or mice.
However, I agree whioleheartedly about the floating lanterns.
With Wafarin, the only question is whether the underlying condition kills you before an unfortunate bleed.
Fortunately - as Charles knows better than me - there are several new anticolagulents that are much less likely to kill you.
If you are on Wafarin, you should go to your doctor and discuss the new drugs with him/her.
My Dad is on it big time, is this bad??
It's not bad - it just has a very narrow therapeutic window and you need to be careful with food.
Bad in this context is Lumaxis (never approved). It caused internal bleeding, but the only symptom before collapse was bleeding from the gums... lots of bleeding...
As @rcs1000 says, there's been a huge amount of work in the synthetic pentasaccharide space recently, so I'd look at this class, especially the factor Xa inhibitors.
BTW, there seems to be a serious CDU/CSU challenge against Merkel building up, after the SPD vetoed a deal that they thought they had on pre-scrutiny of refugees.
CDU/CSU 34 SPD 24 Green 10 Die Linke 11 FDP 6 AfD 10
Highest ever poll rating for AfD and the hard left (Green/Linke) seems to be well up on their 2013 result. These numbers wouldn't be enough for a CDU/CSU-FDP coalition and I highly doubt that the CDU would ever legitimise AfD by going into a coalition with them while another grand coalition will only serve to weaken them further and cause more of their support to leech away to the AfD and FDP.
The problem is that although european socialists and right wingers agree on economic policies they differ on social policies, so it's natural that mass immigration would place a strain on their common platform.
The next election in Germany is very far away, that has pluses and minuses for Merkel, the plus is there is no rush to address the problem, the minus is that it gives time to her enemies to organize. Thatcher had the same predicament in 1989.
re: Warfarin for parent GP says must go on it for AF. Professor (Heart specialist) later said, no there are better alternatives which dont require the diet restrictions and monitoring etc GP - Ah but if you have a major accident they dont have a means of stopping a major bleed.....
Hmmm who to believe? Why would the GP not have mentioned the options and preferred more visits to the GP surgery?
BTW, there seems to be a serious CDU/CSU challenge against Merkel building up, after the SPD vetoed a deal that they thought they had on pre-scrutiny of refugees.
CDU/CSU 34 SPD 24 Green 10 Die Linke 11 FDP 6 AfD 10
Highest ever poll rating for AfD and the hard left (Green/Linke) seems to be well up on their 2013 result. These numbers wouldn't be enough for a CDU/CSU-FDP coalition and I highly doubt that the CDU would ever legitimise AfD by going into a coalition with them while another grand coalition will only serve to weaken them further and cause more of their support to leech away to the AfD and FDP.
The problem is that although european socialists and right wingers agree on economic policies they differ on social policies, so it's natural that mass immigration would place a strain on their common platform.
The next election in Germany is very far away, that has pluses and minuses for Merkel, the plus is there is no rush to address the problem, the minus is that it gives time to her enemies to organize. Thatcher had the same predicament in 1989.
Corbyn, Irish history, the EU, war on the European continent, split infinitives, meteorology, and mouse exclusion clauses: truly he who is tired of PB is tired of life!
I think warfarin-overdosed rodents spontaneously combusting could run and run....
EDIT: Having lived in a thatched cottage for fifteen years, I was rather more concerned about fireworks and those bloody floating lanterns than I was about rodents, although I too had heard of the risk of fire from them burstin' into flame - I often wondered whether t'was true....
As one for whom drug interactions were, if not meat and drink, then a significant part of life, I HATE warfarin. It has it’s uses of course and many people are alive who without it would be dead (or the reverse in the case of rodents) but off-hand (and I’m out of date of course) I can’t think of many drugs, or foods which aren’t either affected by it, or affect it’s operation. Or both! However I’ver never heard of it being associated with spontaneous combustion of rats or mice.
However, I agree whioleheartedly about the floating lanterns.
With Wafarin, the only question is whether the underlying condition kills you before an unfortunate bleed.
Fortunately - as Charles knows better than me - there are several new anticolagulents that are much less likely to kill you.
If you are on Wafarin, you should go to your doctor and discuss the new drugs with him/her.
My Dad is on it big time, is this bad??
It's not bad - it just has a very narrow therapeutic window and you need to be careful with food.
Bad in this context is Lumaxis (never approved). It caused internal bleeding, but the only symptom before collapse was bleeding from the gums... lots of bleeding...
As @rcs1000 says, there's been a huge amount of work in the synthetic pentasaccharide space recently, so I'd look at this class, especially the factor Xa inhibitors.
Thanks... I will broach the subject w Mater on the morrow!
It is rather long by UK standards, it would seem the Hun likes detail in his discussions, but well worth the time it takes to read.
The international, online edition of Der Spiegel is a jolly good magazine especially if one wants an in depth view of events free of the usual bias from UK news sources.
This is the reason why Merkel will be seen as the root of the problem rather than part of any solution:
"Merkel believes it is impossible for Germany to seal off its borders. For her, the erection of a fence would not just be ineffectual, but would also represent the end of the European ideal. Having grown up in communist East Germany, she is from a country that cut itself off with walls and barbed wire -- and she doesn't want to relive the experience. She views all other proposals that have been made as mere political posturing."
Thatcher and the poll tax circa 1989 again, her personality excludes a compromise or any acceptable solution. She won't change the policy, so the party will have to change leader.
http://order-order.com/2015/11/09/lucky-brake-aides-failed-to-declare-conflict-of-interest/ "Last week Guido reported on some very fishy goings on down in Sutton, where the Lib Dem council gave a £1 million discount to a company of which neighbouring MP Tom Brake is a trustee. Guido can now reveal that two of Brake’s aides are Sutton LibDem councillors, and both failed to make any declarations of interest at the council meeting last Monday where the dodgy deal was finalised."
It is rather long by UK standards, it would seem the Hun likes detail in his discussions, but well worth the time it takes to read.
The international, online edition of Der Spiegel is a jolly good magazine especially if one wants an in depth view of events free of the usual bias from UK news sources.
This is the reason why Merkel will be seen as the root of the problem rather than part of any solution:
"Merkel believes it is impossible for Germany to seal off its borders. For her, the erection of a fence would not just be ineffectual, but would also represent the end of the European ideal. Having grown up in communist East Germany, she is from a country that cut itself off with walls and barbed wire -- and she doesn't want to relive the experience. She views all other proposals that have been made as mere political posturing."
Thatcher and the poll tax circa 1989 again, her personality excludes a compromise or any acceptable solution. She won't change the policy, so the party will have to change leader.
Very nice link there, Mr. Speedy. That quote hit me in the face like a wet haddock when I first read the article but I never thought of drawing the analogy with Mrs T's final years.
Off topic, I've just walked through Waterloo to catch my usual train home. I spotted two women wearing full-length black niqabs - in fact, they may have been burqas.
I only caught one of the ladies out of the corner of my eye as I was coming off the escalator. I confess, I jumped. Another (different family) young child was cowering behind his mother at the sight.
I don't have a problem with women choosing to wear a hijab. But there seems to me to be something fundamentally inhuman about obscuring your face (yes, I include balaclavas) in public, and most of your body, so you appear like a levitating black tent drifting around the concourse.
These really do seem to scare children, not to mention me.
Edit: I am aware in certain circles that this post probably requires me to attend some diversity training, but still - what sort of religious interpretation is it that requires women to go way behind modesty and obscure all traces of their humanity and identity in public? And should we accept this?
http://order-order.com/2015/11/09/lucky-brake-aides-failed-to-declare-conflict-of-interest/ "Last week Guido reported on some very fishy goings on down in Sutton, where the Lib Dem council gave a £1 million discount to a company of which neighbouring MP Tom Brake is a trustee. Guido can now reveal that two of Brake’s aides are Sutton LibDem councillors, and both failed to make any declarations of interest at the council meeting last Monday where the dodgy deal was finalised."
Off topic, I've just walked through Waterloo to catch my usual train home. I spotted two women wearing full-length black niqabs - in fact, they may have been burqas.
I only caught one of the ladies out of the corner of my eye as I was coming off the escalator. I confess, I jumped. Another (different family) young child was cowering behind his mother at the sight.
I don't have a problem with women choosing to wear a hijab. But there seems to me to be something fundamentally inhuman about obscuring your face (yes, I include balaclavas) in public, and most of your body, so you appear like a levitating black tent drifting around the concourse.
These really do seem to scare children, not to mention me.
Edit: I am aware in certain circles that this post probably requires me to attend some diversity training, but still - what sort of religious interpretation is it that requires women to go way behind modesty and obscure all traces of their humanity and identity in public? And should we accept this?
It dehumanises women and has at best a tenuous connection with religion.
http://order-order.com/2015/11/09/lucky-brake-aides-failed-to-declare-conflict-of-interest/ "Last week Guido reported on some very fishy goings on down in Sutton, where the Lib Dem council gave a £1 million discount to a company of which neighbouring MP Tom Brake is a trustee. Guido can now reveal that two of Brake’s aides are Sutton LibDem councillors, and both failed to make any declarations of interest at the council meeting last Monday where the dodgy deal was finalised."
I smell a by-election coming in Carshalton.
Nah, there cannot be anything wrong, the people are Lib Dems. Of course, a company that got a kick back, sorry discount, from a Council on which two members employed by a director of that company sat would have the Audit Office down around its ears before you could say corrupt practice. In this case it will all be written off as a silly story that missed the key facts.
Corbyn, Irish history, the EU, war on the European continent, split infinitives, meteorology, and mouse exclusion clauses: truly he who is tired of PB is tired of life!
I think warfarin-overdosed rodents spontaneously combusting could run and run....
EDIT: Having lived in a thatched cottage for fifteen years, I was rather more concerned about fireworks and those bloody floating lanterns than I was about rodents, although I too had heard of the risk of fire from them burstin' into flame - I often wondered whether t'was true....
As one for whom drug interactions were, if not meat and drink, then a significant part of life, I HATE warfarin. It has it’s uses of course and many people are alive who without it would be dead (or the reverse in the case of rodents) but off-hand (and I’m out of date of course) I can’t think of many drugs, or foods which aren’t either affected by it, or affect it’s operation. Or both! However I’ver never heard of it being associated with spontaneous combustion of rats or mice.
However, I agree whioleheartedly about the floating lanterns.
With Wafarin, the only question is whether the underlying condition kills you before an unfortunate bleed.
Fortunately - as Charles knows better than me - there are several new anticolagulents that are much less likely to kill you.
If you are on Wafarin, you should go to your doctor and discuss the new drugs with him/her.
Ahem: if you have Protein Factor C deficiency in your blood (as I do) and have had DVT (as I have, twice), Warfarin and other similar drugs like Heparin are a life saver. They make operations and pregnancies safer than they might otherwise be.
I always understood that the way Warfarin worked with rats was that they bled to death.
Off topic, I've just walked through Waterloo to catch my usual train home. I spotted two women wearing full-length black niqabs - in fact, they may have been burqas.
I only caught one of the ladies out of the corner of my eye as I was coming off the escalator. I confess, I jumped. Another (different family) young child was cowering behind his mother at the sight.
I don't have a problem with women choosing to wear a hijab. But there seems to me to be something fundamentally inhuman about obscuring your face (yes, I include balaclavas) in public, and most of your body, so you appear like a levitating black tent drifting around the concourse.
These really do seem to scare children, not to mention me.
Edit: I am aware in certain circles that this post probably requires me to attend some diversity training, but still - what sort of religious interpretation is it that requires women to go way behind modesty and obscure all traces of their humanity and identity in public? And should we accept this?
It dehumanises women and has at best a tenuous connection with religion.
Given most islamic cultures do not practice that, er, practice, it feels like it is probably more of a cultural thing that has been coopted by specific religious interpretations than integral to the whole thing. I'd guess similar things are at play with religious prohibitions of specific foods or haircuts or whatever. But those are purely guesses, I would bow to those with great knowledge of the religions in question.
Corbyn, Irish history, the EU, war on the European continent, split infinitives, meteorology, and mouse exclusion clauses: truly he who is tired of PB is tired of life!
I think warfarin-overdosed rodents spontaneously combusting could run and run....
EDIT: Having lived in a thatched cottage for fifteen years, I was rather more concerned about fireworks and those bloody floating lanterns than I was about rodents, although I too had heard of the risk of fire from them burstin' into flame - I often wondered whether t'was true....
As one for whom drug interactions were, if not meat and drink, then a significant part of life, I HATE warfarin. It has it’s uses of course and many people are alive who without it would be dead (or the reverse in the case of rodents) but off-hand (and I’m out of date of course) I can’t think of many drugs, or foods which aren’t either affected by it, or affect it’s operation. Or both! However I’ver never heard of it being associated with spontaneous combustion of rats or mice.
However, I agree whioleheartedly about the floating lanterns.
With Wafarin, the only question is whether the underlying condition kills you before an unfortunate bleed.
Fortunately - as Charles knows better than me - there are several new anticolagulents that are much less likely to kill you.
If you are on Wafarin, you should go to your doctor and discuss the new drugs with him/her.
My Dad is on it big time, is this bad??
Wafarin is probably the single biggest drug killer in the UK. There are two or three other drugs, which the NHS is quite capable of prescribing, that are safer and more efficacious. The difference is that Wafarin costs the NHS pennies per tablet, but the newer drugs (Xarelta, Pradaxa and Eliquis) cost a lot more.
Fuck me don't say that!
I've emailed you.
Would you mind emailing me as well, please. Thank you.
http://order-order.com/2015/11/09/lucky-brake-aides-failed-to-declare-conflict-of-interest/ "Last week Guido reported on some very fishy goings on down in Sutton, where the Lib Dem council gave a £1 million discount to a company of which neighbouring MP Tom Brake is a trustee. Guido can now reveal that two of Brake’s aides are Sutton LibDem councillors, and both failed to make any declarations of interest at the council meeting last Monday where the dodgy deal was finalised."
I smell a by-election coming in Carshalton.
Nah, there cannot be anything wrong, the people are Lib Dems. Of course, a company that got a kick back, sorry discount, from a Council on which two members employed by a director of that company sat would have the Audit Office down around its ears before you could say corrupt practice. In this case it will all be written off as a silly story that missed the key facts.
In other news, a huge sale of toasters begins today!
Off topic, I've just walked through Waterloo to catch my usual train home. I spotted two women wearing full-length black niqabs - in fact, they may have been burqas.
I only caught one of the ladies out of the corner of my eye as I was coming off the escalator. I confess, I jumped. Another (different family) young child was cowering behind his mother at the sight.
I don't have a problem with women choosing to wear a hijab. But there seems to me to be something fundamentally inhuman about obscuring your face (yes, I include balaclavas) in public, and most of your body, so you appear like a levitating black tent drifting around the concourse.
These really do seem to scare children, not to mention me.
Edit: I am aware in certain circles that this post probably requires me to attend some diversity training, but still - what sort of religious interpretation is it that requires women to go way behind modesty and obscure all traces of their humanity and identity in public? And should we accept this?
Its culture, innit. All cultures are equally valid and the fact that you find a woman's style of dress even worth a comment in a judgemental way proves that you are a racist, probably a fascist, and, all round, a person who deserves at least derision, preferably burning at the stake, and most certainly a spell in a re-education camp.
Off topic, I've just walked through Waterloo to catch my usual train home. I spotted two women wearing full-length black niqabs - in fact, they may have been burqas.
I only caught one of the ladies out of the corner of my eye as I was coming off the escalator. I confess, I jumped. Another (different family) young child was cowering behind his mother at the sight.
I don't have a problem with women choosing to wear a hijab. But there seems to me to be something fundamentally inhuman about obscuring your face (yes, I include balaclavas) in public, and most of your body, so you appear like a levitating black tent drifting around the concourse.
These really do seem to scare children, not to mention me.
Edit: I am aware in certain circles that this post probably requires me to attend some diversity training, but still - what sort of religious interpretation is it that requires women to go way behind modesty and obscure all traces of their humanity and identity in public? And should we accept this?
My short answer would be no. For all the reasons I gave back in January.
I can give you a lengthier answer later. And diversity has nothing to do with it. Diversity - properly understood - does not require tolerating the intolerable.
Well it seems that Alistair Carmichael is now entering his final few days as an MP. Have to love his description of lying a being "south of the standard required."
http://order-order.com/2015/11/09/lucky-brake-aides-failed-to-declare-conflict-of-interest/ "Last week Guido reported on some very fishy goings on down in Sutton, where the Lib Dem council gave a £1 million discount to a company of which neighbouring MP Tom Brake is a trustee. Guido can now reveal that two of Brake’s aides are Sutton LibDem councillors, and both failed to make any declarations of interest at the council meeting last Monday where the dodgy deal was finalised."
If they have a pecuniary interest themselves they wouldn't have to declare the interest at the meeting if it was on their register of interest I believe(and their employment with the MP is on their interests), though it would be a bloody good idea to do so, in addition to not participating, and if the non-pecuniary interest (as this) was so obvious one would hope they would declare as well in any case due to the possible perception of bias and so should also not participate.
My local council recently lost a court decision where a councillor voted on a matter and did not have a pecuniary interest but the judge ruled that a reasonable person might consider them to be possibly biased, and so voided the decision, so if these councillors did vote on the matter in question, that would seem difficult for the council, even though they would not, as I understand it, have technically been required to disclose anything at the meeting. If they did not actually vote themselves, well, that might scrape through as fine, technically?
Well it seems that Alistair Carmichael is now entering his final few days as an MP. Have to love his description of lying a being "south of the standard required."
Sorry, I have just actually looked at the picture at the top of this thread. Was that taken at yesterday's Cenotaph ceremony? If so what in God's name was Blair doing there?
Well it seems that Alistair Carmichael is now entering his final few days as an MP. Have to love his description of lying a being "south of the standard required."
Sorry, I have just actually looked at the picture at the top of this thread. Was that taken at yesterday's Cenotaph ceremony? If so what in God's name was Blair doing there?
Well it seems that Alistair Carmichael is now entering his final few days as an MP. Have to love his description of lying a being "south of the standard required."
Sorry, I have just actually looked at the picture at the top of this thread. Was that taken at yesterday's Cenotaph ceremony? If so what in God's name was Blair doing there?
That's just his way - look behind you now, he's there.
In all honesty, are previous PMs usually invited? I don't ever remember seeing Thatcher at one, but that might have been health related, and I feel like I've seen Major there since his time in office?
Well it seems that Alistair Carmichael is now entering his final few days as an MP. Have to love his description of lying a being "south of the standard required."
Mr Carmichael said that he thought the government probe would not uncover the truth of how the Telegraph came into possession of the document.
He said: "It has to be said that most leak inquiries very rarely establish the source of the leak.
Indeed, the whole thing is comedy gold but the reputational damage the Liberals will get from this could last for years. It also indicates that (at least in Carmichael's mind) he has been hung out to dry by Fluffy,
The party has suffered badly in Scotland but much of that is likely down to the SNP surge rather than innate issues with the party. So far, they are not the "Fib Dems" that they are portrayed as in England. This case will cement that reputation as being untrustworthy liars in Scotland to match their current disdain in England.
Off topic, I've just walked through Waterloo to catch my usual train home. I spotted two women wearing full-length black niqabs - in fact, they may have been burqas.
I only caught one of the ladies out of the corner of my eye as I was coming off the escalator. I confess, I jumped. Another (different family) young child was cowering behind his mother at the sight.
I don't have a problem with women choosing to wear a hijab. But there seems to me to be something fundamentally inhuman about obscuring your face (yes, I include balaclavas) in public, and most of your body, so you appear like a levitating black tent drifting around the concourse.
These really do seem to scare children, not to mention me.
Edit: I am aware in certain circles that this post probably requires me to attend some diversity training, but still - what sort of religious interpretation is it that requires women to go way behind modesty and obscure all traces of their humanity and identity in public? And should we accept this?
My short answer would be no. For all the reasons I gave back in January.
I can give you a lengthier answer later. And diversity has nothing to do with it. Diversity - properly understood - does not require tolerating the intolerable.
I agree, but I don't expect this government (or any government) to do anything about it.
Off topic, I've just walked through Waterloo to catch my usual train home. I spotted two women wearing full-length black niqabs - in fact, they may have been burqas.
I only caught one of the ladies out of the corner of my eye as I was coming off the escalator. I confess, I jumped. Another (different family) young child was cowering behind his mother at the sight.
I don't have a problem with women choosing to wear a hijab. But there seems to me to be something fundamentally inhuman about obscuring your face (yes, I include balaclavas) in public, and most of your body, so you appear like a levitating black tent drifting around the concourse.
These really do seem to scare children, not to mention me.
Edit: I am aware in certain circles that this post probably requires me to attend some diversity training, but still - what sort of religious interpretation is it that requires women to go way behind modesty and obscure all traces of their humanity and identity in public? And should we accept this?
My short answer would be no. For all the reasons I gave back in January.
I can give you a lengthier answer later. And diversity has nothing to do with it. Diversity - properly understood - does not require tolerating the intolerable.
Why is it intolerable, and who decides what it tolerable and intolerable?
Should a woman who wishes to wear such garb in public be allowed to, if it is her unforced wishes? Should women who want to wear this sort of gear (which I personally find distasteful) become second-class citizens?
Because, if you, I, or anyone else cares not to admit it, for many women it is *their* choice.
Going to the other extreme, what about the naked rambler, or women in pop videos who strut provocatively in very revealing gear?
re: Warfarin for parent GP says must go on it for AF. Professor (Heart specialist) later said, no there are better alternatives which dont require the diet restrictions and monitoring etc GP - Ah but if you have a major accident they dont have a means of stopping a major bleed.....
Hmmm who to believe? Why would the GP not have mentioned the options and preferred more visits to the GP surgery?
They are both right...
Question is whether the risk of major bleed is worth the other benefits. Personally I think Xarelto and Pradaxa are ok, less convinced by Eliquis.
Corbyn, Irish history, the EU, war on the European continent, split infinitives, meteorology, and mouse exclusion clauses: truly he who is tired of PB is tired of life!
I think warfarin-overdosed rodents spontaneously combusting could run and run....
EDIT: Having lived in a thatched cottage for fifteen years, I was rather more concerned about fireworks and those bloody floating lanterns than I was about rodents, although I too had heard of the risk of fire from them burstin' into flame - I often wondered whether t'was true....
As one for whom drug interactions were, if not meat and drink, then a significant part of life, I HATE warfarin. It has it’s uses of course and many people are alive who without it would be dead (or the reverse in the case of rodents) but off-hand (and I’m out of date of course) I can’t think of many drugs, or foods which aren’t either affected by it, or affect it’s operation. Or both! However I’ver never heard of it being associated with spontaneous combustion of rats or mice.
However, I agree whioleheartedly about the floating lanterns.
With Wafarin, the only question is whether the underlying condition kills you before an unfortunate bleed.
Fortunately - as Charles knows better than me - there are several new anticolagulents that are much less likely to kill you.
If you are on Wafarin, you should go to your doctor and discuss the new drugs with him/her.
My Dad is on it big time, is this bad??
It's not bad - it just has a very narrow therapeutic window and you need to be careful with food.
Bad in this context is Lumaxis (never approved). It caused internal bleeding, but the only symptom before collapse was bleeding from the gums... lots of bleeding...
As @rcs1000 says, there's been a huge amount of work in the synthetic pentasaccharide space recently, so I'd look at this class, especially the factor Xa inhibitors.
Thanks... I will broach the subject w Mater on the morrow!
No problem. I sold Arixtra, the first factor Xa inhibitor, so got to know the space pretty well and have followed it since then
Off topic, I've just walked through Waterloo to catch my usual train home. I spotted two women wearing full-length black niqabs - in fact, they may have been burqas.
I only caught one of the ladies out of the corner of my eye as I was coming off the escalator. I confess, I jumped. Another (different family) young child was cowering behind his mother at the sight.
I don't have a problem with women choosing to wear a hijab. But there seems to me to be something fundamentally inhuman about obscuring your face (yes, I include balaclavas) in public, and most of your body, so you appear like a levitating black tent drifting around the concourse.
These really do seem to scare children, not to mention me.
Edit: I am aware in certain circles that this post probably requires me to attend some diversity training, but still - what sort of religious interpretation is it that requires women to go way behind modesty and obscure all traces of their humanity and identity in public? And should we accept this?
I find them sinister at worst and unfriendly at best, but...
We have to accept that the country is getting more and more Islamic, and that the Islam that is growing fastest seems to be the more hardcore version
Somehow I think its a similar insecurity to that of St George flag bearing houses that drives this need to show their religion overtly
We are a free country and people can wear what they want, I don't think it should be banned, I just wish there wasn't so many people who wanted to wear it
But if you were able to view a time lapse of the way our society has changed over the last 40 years in terms of number of mosques, change of dress, Trojan horse schools, segregated towns, Halal KFC's etc, it is obvious which direction we are going. I think it's unstoppable. We have to learn to accept that's the way it is now in England
My main fear for the future is that in 50 years time or so, a part of England will want to declare itself an Islamic state, and a foreign country will take their side
Well it seems that Alistair Carmichael is now entering his final few days as an MP. Have to love his description of lying a being "south of the standard required."
Has the SNP already bunged the judge, or are you just hoping here?
After the initial ruling, for Carmichael to survive, the judging panel would have to find that his lying (which is admitted) did not provide him electoral advantage or was not demonstrative of his character.
His chance to win was the first round which he lost, he's now on a very sticky wicket.
I can't believe the Liberals have not conducted private polling to see if he could win a byelection is he resigned. If he loses the case, he is barred from standing. If he resigns he could stand with his apology in public light. His refusal to take the decent option indicates that the Liberals private polling suggests he has no chance.
Sorry, I have just actually looked at the picture at the top of this thread. Was that taken at yesterday's Cenotaph ceremony? If so what in God's name was Blair doing there?
Former PM.
Having Blair at a memorial to the fallen in war, when he was responsible for more British Soldiers being killed and maimed than Saddam Hussein, I find insulting.
The UK goes to war on the orders of a PM, fair enough. Soldiers get killed/hurt in war, fair enough, they knew the risk and it was what the signed on for. But for a PM, for political purposes, to stop the soldiers being properly equipped to fight that war, and being sent in with too few of them to achieve the stated objectives, also for political purposes, is outrageous.
That Blair had the bare faced cheek to turn up at the Cenotaph does not surprise me, that he was invited is disgusting.
Well it seems that Alistair Carmichael is now entering his final few days as an MP. Have to love his description of lying a being "south of the standard required."
Has the SNP already bunged the judge, or are you just hoping here?
After the initial ruling, for Carmichael to survive, the judging panel would have to find that his lying (which is admitted) did not provide him electoral advantage or was not demonstrative of his character.
His chance to win was the first round which he lost, he's now on a very sticky wicket.
I can't believe the Liberals have not conducted private polling to see if he could win a byelection is he resigned. If he loses the case, he is barred from standing. If he resigns he could stand with his apology in public light. His refusal to take the decent option indicates that the Liberals private polling suggests he has no chance.
I would assume, given the positions of the parties and those who would be most motivated to turn out in any by-election, they know they would lose a by-election whenever it happened and whoever stood, and so gambled on standing his ground until 2020 and hoping a new candidate can recover the LDs traditionally strong position there. No encouraging options for them to pick, I think, from a partisan perspective.
''We have to accept that the country is getting more and more Islamic, and that the Islam that is growing fastest seems to be the more hardcore version''
For every woman in a full niqab I see two or three muslim girls in full make up and trendy clothes, trying to shuffle off these traditions.
I wonder whether their children will be 'muslim' at all.
http://order-order.com/2015/11/09/lucky-brake-aides-failed-to-declare-conflict-of-interest/ "Last week Guido reported on some very fishy goings on down in Sutton, where the Lib Dem council gave a £1 million discount to a company of which neighbouring MP Tom Brake is a trustee. Guido can now reveal that two of Brake’s aides are Sutton LibDem councillors, and both failed to make any declarations of interest at the council meeting last Monday where the dodgy deal was finalised."
Well it seems that Alistair Carmichael is now entering his final few days as an MP. Have to love his description of lying a being "south of the standard required."
Has the SNP already bunged the judge, or are you just hoping here?
After the initial ruling, for Carmichael to survive, the judging panel would have to find that his lying (which is admitted) did not provide him electoral advantage or was not demonstrative of his character.
His chance to win was the first round which he lost, he's now on a very sticky wicket.
I can't believe the Liberals have not conducted private polling to see if he could win a byelection is he resigned. If he loses the case, he is barred from standing. If he resigns he could stand with his apology in public light. His refusal to take the decent option indicates that the Liberals private polling suggests he has no chance.
I would assume, given the positions of the parties and those who would be most motivated to turn out in any by-election, they know they would lose a by-election whenever it happened and whoever stood, and so gambled on standing his ground until 2020 and hoping a new candidate can recover the LDs traditionally strong position there. No encouraging options for them to pick, I think, from a partisan perspective.
You're certainly right that there is no good choice for the Liberals as a party. However, there does seem to be an element of "a terrible choice or the worst choice" and the reputational damage to the Fib Dems has to be a worry for Tavish Scott (who looks very, very likely to lose Shetland now.
It could even put Liam McArthur's return in doubt.
Sacrificing Carmichael might hurt them in Westminster but they are already irrelevant there. At least it would allow them to try and recover some ground before Holyrood. Instead they are now facing a humiliating by-election loss.
http://order-order.com/2015/11/09/lucky-brake-aides-failed-to-declare-conflict-of-interest/ "Last week Guido reported on some very fishy goings on down in Sutton, where the Lib Dem council gave a £1 million discount to a company of which neighbouring MP Tom Brake is a trustee. Guido can now reveal that two of Brake’s aides are Sutton LibDem councillors, and both failed to make any declarations of interest at the council meeting last Monday where the dodgy deal was finalised."
What's a trustee of a company?
Presumably a charity using the form of a company limited by guarantee.
Technically he'd be a director, but most people still call them trustees.
Well it seems that Alistair Carmichael is now entering his final few days as an MP. Have to love his description of lying a being "south of the standard required."
Has the SNP already bunged the judge, or are you just hoping here?
After the initial ruling, for Carmichael to survive, the judging panel would have to find that his lying (which is admitted) did not provide him electoral advantage or was not demonstrative of his character.
His chance to win was the first round which he lost, he's now on a very sticky wicket.
I can't believe the Liberals have not conducted private polling to see if he could win a byelection is he resigned. If he loses the case, he is barred from standing. If he resigns he could stand with his apology in public light. His refusal to take the decent option indicates that the Liberals private polling suggests he has no chance.
I would assume, given the positions of the parties and those who would be most motivated to turn out in any by-election, they know they would lose a by-election whenever it happened and whoever stood, and so gambled on standing his ground until 2020 and hoping a new candidate can recover the LDs traditionally strong position there. No encouraging options for them to pick, I think, from a partisan perspective.
You're certainly right that there is no good choice for the Liberals as a party. However, there does seem to be an element of "a terrible choice or the worst choice" and the reputational damage to the Fib Dems has to be a worry for Tavish Scott (who looks very, very likely to lose Shetland now.
It could even put Liam McArthur's return in doubt.
Sacrificing Carmichael might hurt them in Westminster but they are already irrelevant there. At least it would allow them to try and recover some ground before Holyrood. Instead they are now facing a humiliating by-election loss.
Well today is the day that 2 out 8 LD MP's (25% of all LD MP's) are in serious legal troubles that might end up in by-elections.
BTW, there seems to be a serious CDU/CSU challenge against Merkel building up, after the SPD vetoed a deal that they thought they had on pre-scrutiny of refugees.
CDU/CSU 34 SPD 24 Green 10 Die Linke 11 FDP 6 AfD 10
Highest ever poll rating for AfD and the hard left (Green/Linke) seems to be well up on their 2013 result. These numbers wouldn't be enough for a CDU/CSU-FDP coalition and I highly doubt that the CDU would ever legitimise AfD by going into a coalition with them while another grand coalition will only serve to weaken them further and cause more of their support to leech away to the AfD and FDP.
The problem is that although european socialists and right wingers agree on economic policies they differ on social policies, so it's natural that mass immigration would place a strain on their common platform.
The next election in Germany is very far away, that has pluses and minuses for Merkel, the plus is there is no rush to address the problem, the minus is that it gives time to her enemies to organize. Thatcher had the same predicament in 1989.
''We have to accept that the country is getting more and more Islamic, and that the Islam that is growing fastest seems to be the more hardcore version''
For every woman in a full niqab I see two or three muslim girls in full make up and trendy clothes, trying to shuffle off these traditions.
I wonder whether their children will be 'muslim' at all.
If these girls are all "glammed up" how do you know what religion they hold to, if any? What makes you sure they are, "Muslim girls"?
Off topic, I've just walked through Waterloo to catch my usual train home. I spotted two women wearing full-length black niqabs - in fact, they may have been burqas.
I only caught one of the ladies out of the corner of my eye as I was coming off the escalator. I confess, I jumped. Another (different family) young child was cowering behind his mother at the sight.
I don't have a problem with women choosing to wear a hijab. But there seems to me to be something fundamentally inhuman about obscuring your face (yes, I include balaclavas) in public, and most of your body, so you appear like a levitating black tent drifting around the concourse.
These really do seem to scare children, not to mention me.
Edit: I am aware in certain circles that this post probably requires me to attend some diversity training, but still - what sort of religious interpretation is it that requires women to go way behind modesty and obscure all traces of their humanity and identity in public? And should we accept this?
I find them sinister at worst and unfriendly at best, but...
We have to accept that the country is getting more and more Islamic, and that the Islam that is growing fastest seems to be the more hardcore version
Somehow I think its a similar insecurity to that of St George flag bearing houses that drives this need to show their religion overtly
We are a free country and people can wear what they want, I don't think it should be banned, I just wish there wasn't so many people who wanted to wear it
But if you were able to view a time lapse of the way our society has changed over the last 40 years in terms of number of mosques, change of dress, Trojan horse schools, segregated towns, Halal KFC's etc, it is obvious which direction we are going. I think it's unstoppable. We have to learn to accept that's the way it is now in England
My main fear for the future is that in 50 years time or so, a part of England will want to declare itself an Islamic state, and a foreign country will take their side
There are things I agree with and disagree with in that post.
We don't allow people to walk around naked in public, except on designated beaches, because it offends public modesty. I think there's an argument that the face and body should not be totally obscures either.
There should be limits to our tolerance particularly when it is of something so oppressive and intolerant.
Well it seems that Alistair Carmichael is now entering his final few days as an MP. Have to love his description of lying a being "south of the standard required."
Has the SNP already bunged the judge, or are you just hoping here?
After the initial ruling, for Carmichael to survive, the judging panel would have to find that his lying (which is admitted) did not provide him electoral advantage or was not demonstrative of his character.
His chance to win was the first round which he lost, he's now on a very sticky wicket.
I can't believe the Liberals have not conducted private polling to see if he could win a byelection is he resigned. If he loses the case, he is barred from standing. If he resigns he could stand with his apology in public light. His refusal to take the decent option indicates that the Liberals private polling suggests he has no chance.
I would assume, given the positions of the parties and those who would be most motivated to turn out in any by-election, they know they would lose a by-election whenever it happened and whoever stood, and so gambled on standing his ground until 2020 and hoping a new candidate can recover the LDs traditionally strong position there. No encouraging options for them to pick, I think, from a partisan perspective.
You're certainly right that there is no good choice for the Liberals as a party. However, there does seem to be an element of "a terrible choice or the worst choice" and the reputational damage to the Fib Dems has to be a worry for Tavish Scott (who looks very, very likely to lose Shetland now.
It could even put Liam McArthur's return in doubt.
Sacrificing Carmichael might hurt them in Westminster but they are already irrelevant there. At least it would allow them to try and recover some ground before Holyrood. Instead they are now facing a humiliating by-election loss.
Well today is the day that 2 out 8 LD MP's (25% of all LD MP's) are in serious legal troubles that might end up in by-elections.
They're working so hard at cleaning up their reputation after their days in coalition.
If these girls are all "glammed up" how do you know what religion they hold to, if any? What makes you sure they are, "Muslim girls"?
They wear head scarves.
Thank you, Mr. Taffys. I am unsure that your sightings os two or three muslim ladies wearing one form of muslim dress for everyone lady you see wearing another form actually justifies your original concluding statement,
"I wonder whether their children will be 'muslim' at all."
Which style of dress is worn is a cultural thing, not necessarily an indication of religious devotion. See also men's beards.
Off topic, I've just walked through Waterloo to catch my usual train home. I spotted two women wearing full-length black niqabs - in fact, they may have been burqas.
I only caught one of the ladies out of the corner of my eye as I was coming off the escalator. I confess, I jumped. Another (different family) young child was cowering behind his mother at the sight.
I don't have a problem with women choosing to wear a hijab. But there seems to me to be something fundamentally inhuman about obscuring your face (yes, I include balaclavas) in public, and most of your body, so you appear like a levitating black tent drifting around the concourse.
These really do seem to scare children, not to mention me.
Edit: I am aware in certain circles that this post probably requires me to attend some diversity training, but still - what sort of religious interpretation is it that requires women to go way behind modesty and obscure all traces of their humanity and identity in public? And should we accept this?
My short answer would be no. For all the reasons I gave back in January.
I can give you a lengthier answer later. And diversity has nothing to do with it. Diversity - properly understood - does not require tolerating the intolerable.
Why is it intolerable, and who decides what it tolerable and intolerable?
Should a woman who wishes to wear such garb in public be allowed to, if it is her unforced wishes? Should women who want to wear this sort of gear (which I personally find distasteful) become second-class citizens?
Because, if you, I, or anyone else cares not to admit it, for many women it is *their* choice.
Going to the other extreme, what about the naked rambler, or women in pop videos who strut provocatively in very revealing gear?
In my experience, women have much stronger views on the wearing of niqabs and burqas than men do.
Off topic, I've just walked through Waterloo to catch my usual train home. I spotted two women wearing full-length black niqabs - in fact, they may have been burqas.
I only caught one of the ladies out of the corner of my eye as I was coming off the escalator. I confess, I jumped. Another (different family) young child was cowering behind his mother at the sight.
I don't have a problem with women choosing to wear a hijab. But there seems to me to be something fundamentally inhuman about obscuring your face (yes, I include balaclavas) in public, and most of your body, so you appear like a levitating black tent drifting around the concourse.
These really do seem to scare children, not to mention me.
Edit: I am aware in certain circles that this post probably requires me to attend some diversity training, but still - what sort of religious interpretation is it that requires women to go way behind modesty and obscure all traces of their humanity and identity in public? And should we accept this?
I find them sinister at worst and unfriendly at best, but...
We have to accept that the country is getting more and more Islamic, and that the Islam that is growing fastest seems to be the more hardcore version
Somehow I think its a similar insecurity to that of St George flag bearing houses that drives this need to show their religion overtly
We are a free country and people can wear what they want, I don't think it should be banned, I just wish there wasn't so many people who wanted to wear it
But if you were able to view a time lapse of the way our society has changed over the last 40 years in terms of number of mosques, change of dress, Trojan horse schools, segregated towns, Halal KFC's etc, it is obvious which direction we are going. I think it's unstoppable. We have to learn to accept that's the way it is now in England
My main fear for the future is that in 50 years time or so, a part of England will want to declare itself an Islamic state, and a foreign country will take their side
There are things I agree with and disagree with in that post.
We don't allow people to walk around naked in public, except on designated beaches, because it offends public modesty. I think there's an argument that the face and body should not be totally obscures either.
There should be limits to our tolerance particularly when it is of something so oppressive and intolerant.
I can't really see any way of saying to a Muslim lady that she isn't allowed to wear what she wants, without sounding as overbearing as we think their husbands are by insisting she wears a niqab or whatever they're called
We had a free market economy approach to immigration, and these are the results
Sorry, I have just actually looked at the picture at the top of this thread. Was that taken at yesterday's Cenotaph ceremony? If so what in God's name was Blair doing there?
To be fair, without Blair there would be far fewer war deaths for us to remember.
Well it seems that Alistair Carmichael is now entering his final few days as an MP. Have to love his description of lying a being "south of the standard required."
Has the SNP already bunged the judge, or are you just hoping here?
After the initial ruling, for Carmichael to survive, the judging panel would have to find that his lying (which is admitted) did not provide him electoral advantage or was not demonstrative of his character.
His chance to win was the first round which he lost, he's now on a very sticky wicket.
I can't believe the Liberals have not conducted private polling to see if he could win a byelection is he resigned. If he loses the case, he is barred from standing. If he resigns he could stand with his apology in public light. His refusal to take the decent option indicates that the Liberals private polling suggests he has no chance.
I would assume, given the positions of the parties and those who would be most motivated to turn out in any by-election, they know they would lose a by-election whenever it happened and whoever stood, and so gambled on standing his ground until 2020 and hoping a new candidate can recover the LDs traditionally strong position there. No encouraging options for them to pick, I think, from a partisan perspective.
You're certainly right that there is no good choice for the Liberals as a party. However, there does seem to be an element of "a terrible choice or the worst choice" and the reputational damage to the Fib Dems has to be a worry for Tavish Scott (who looks very, very likely to lose Shetland now.
It could even put Liam McArthur's return in doubt.
Sacrificing Carmichael might hurt them in Westminster but they are already irrelevant there. At least it would allow them to try and recover some ground before Holyrood. Instead they are now facing a humiliating by-election loss.
Well today is the day that 2 out 8 LD MP's (25% of all LD MP's) are in serious legal troubles that might end up in by-elections.
They're working so hard at cleaning up their reputation after their days in coalition.
Sorry, I have just actually looked at the picture at the top of this thread. Was that taken at yesterday's Cenotaph ceremony? If so what in God's name was Blair doing there?
To be fair, without Blair there would be far fewer war deaths for us to remember.
Agreed and if the Tories had joined Corbyn in the Lobby instead of agreeing with the WC.
Well it seems that Alistair Carmichael is now entering his final few days as an MP. Have to love his description of lying a being "south of the standard required."
Has the SNP already bunged the judge, or are you just hoping here?
After the initial ruling, for Carmichael to survive, the judging panel would have to find that his lying (which is admitted) did not provide him electoral advantage or was not demonstrative of his character.
His chance to win was the first round which he lost, he's now on a very sticky wicket.
I can't believe the Liberals have not conducted private polling to see if he could win a byelection is he resigned. If he loses the case, he is barred from standing. If he resigns he could stand with his apology in public light. His refusal to take the decent option indicates that the Liberals private polling suggests he has no chance.
I would assume, given the positions of the parties and those who would be most motivated to turn out in any by-election, they know they would lose a by-election whenever it happened and whoever stood, and so gambled on standing his ground until 2020 and hoping a new candidate can recover the LDs traditionally strong position there. No encouraging options for them to pick, I think, from a partisan perspective.
You're certainly right that there is no good choice for the Liberals as a party. However, there does seem to be an element of "a terrible choice or the worst choice" and the reputational damage to the Fib Dems has to be a worry for Tavish Scott (who looks very, very likely to lose Shetland now.
It could even put Liam McArthur's return in doubt.
Sacrificing Carmichael might hurt them in Westminster but they are already irrelevant there. At least it would allow them to try and recover some ground before Holyrood. Instead they are now facing a humiliating by-election loss.
Well today is the day that 2 out 8 LD MP's (25% of all LD MP's) are in serious legal troubles that might end up in by-elections.
They're working so hard at cleaning up their reputation after their days in coalition.
Who is the other MP in legal trouble ?
Tom Brake may be, although it is rather a more tenuous connection than Mr Carmichael
Off topic, I've just walked through Waterloo to catch my usual train home. I spotted two women wearing full-length black niqabs - in fact, they may have been burqas.
I only caught one of the ladies out of the corner of my eye as I was coming off the escalator. I confess, I jumped. Another (different family) young child was cowering behind his mother at the sight.
I don't have a problem with women choosing to wear a hijab. But there seems to me to be something fundamentally inhuman about obscuring your face (yes, I include balaclavas) in public, and most of your body, so you appear like a levitating black tent drifting around the concourse.
These really do seem to scare children, not to mention me.
Edit: I am aware in certain circles that this post probably requires me to attend some diversity training, but still - what sort of religious interpretation is it that requires women to go way behind modesty and obscure all traces of their humanity and identity in public? And should we accept this?
My short answer would be no. For all the reasons I gave back in January.
I can give you a lengthier answer later. And diversity has nothing to do with it. Diversity - properly understood - does not require tolerating the intolerable.
Why is it intolerable, and who decides what it tolerable and intolerable?
Should a woman who wishes to wear such garb in public be allowed to, if it is her unforced wishes? Should women who want to wear this sort of gear (which I personally find distasteful) become second-class citizens?
Because, if you, I, or anyone else cares not to admit it, for many women it is *their* choice.
Going to the other extreme, what about the naked rambler, or women in pop videos who strut provocatively in very revealing gear?
In my experience, women have much stronger views on the wearing of niqabs and burqas than men do.
When I was out for my walk this morning a young lady, whose parents I know, got off a bus in the village. She had bright green dreadlocks and clothes so ripped and torn that they looked as if they had come out of Oxfam's reject bin. She was, of course, making a statement about how she sees herself and the world she lives in. That's fine, I would not dream of suggesting her choice of clothing should be banned or in anyway subject to any legal sanction that does not apply to others. However, only good manners prevented me from, as they say, pointing and laughing.
Off topic, I've just walked through Waterloo to catch my usual train home. I spotted two women wearing full-length black niqabs - in fact, they may have been burqas.
I only caught one of the ladies out of the corner of my eye as I was coming off the escalator. I confess, I jumped. Another (different family) young child was cowering behind his mother at the sight.
I don't have a problem with women choosing to wear a hijab. But there seems to me to be something fundamentally inhuman about obscuring your face (yes, I include balaclavas) in public, and most of your body, so you appear like a levitating black tent drifting around the concourse.
These really do seem to scare children, not to mention me.
Edit: I am aware in certain circles that this post probably requires me to attend some diversity training, but still - what sort of religious interpretation is it that requires women to go way behind modesty and obscure all traces of their humanity and identity in public? And should we accept this?
I find them sinister at worst and unfriendly at best, but...
We have to accept that the country is getting more and more Islamic, and that the Islam that is growing fastest seems to be the more hardcore version
Somehow I think its a similar insecurity to that of St George flag bearing houses that drives this need to show their religion overtly
We are a free country and people can wear what they want, I don't think it should be banned, I just wish there wasn't so many people who wanted to wear it
But if you were able to view a time lapse of the way our society has changed over the last 40 years in terms of number of mosques, change of dress, Trojan horse schools, segregated towns, Halal KFC's etc, it is obvious which direction we
There are things I agree with and disagree with in that post.
We don't allow people to walk around naked in public, except on designated beaches, because it offends public modesty. I think there's an argument that the face and body should not be totally obscures either.
There should be limits to our tolerance particularly when it is of something so oppressive and intolerant.
I can't really see any way of saying to a Muslim lady that she isn't allowed to wear what she wants, without sounding as overbearing as we think their husbands are by insisting she wears a niqab or whatever they're called
We had a free market economy approach to immigration, and these are the results
We are not saying that. We are saying the face and eyes should not be obscure in public.
This is how all humans interact at the most basic level, and where the line should be drawn.
Well it seems that Alistair Carmichael is now entering his final few days as an MP. Have to love his description of lying a being "south of the standard required."
Has the SNP already bunged the judge, or are you just hoping here?
After the initial ruling, for Carmichael to survive, the judging panel would have to find that his lying (which is admitted) did not provide him electoral advantage or was not demonstrative of his character.
His chance to win was the first round which he lost, he's now on a very sticky wicket.
I can't believe the Liberals have not conducted private polling to see if he could win a byelection is he resigned. If he loses the case, he is barred from standing. If he resigns he could stand with his apology in public light. His refusal to take the decent option indicates that the Liberals private polling suggests he has no chance.
I would assume, given the positions of the parties and those who would be most motivated to turn out in any by-election, they know they would lose a by-election whenever it happened and whoever stood, and so gambled on standing his ground until 2020 and hoping a new candidate can recover the LDs traditionally strong position there. No encouraging options for them to pick, I think, from a partisan perspective.
You're certainly right that there is no good choice for the Liberals as a party. However, there does seem to be an element of "a terrible choice or the worst choice" and the reputational damage to the Fib Dems has to be a worry for Tavish Scott (who looks very, very likely to lose Shetland now.
It could even put Liam McArthur's return in doubt.
Sacrificing Carmichael might hurt them in Westminster but they are already irrelevant there. At least it would allow them to try and recover some ground before Holyrood. Instead they are now facing a humiliating by-election loss.
Well today is the day that 2 out 8 LD MP's (25% of all LD MP's) are in serious legal troubles that might end up in by-elections.
They're working so hard at cleaning up their reputation after their days in coalition.
Off topic, I've just walked through Waterloo to catch my usual train home. I spotted two women wearing full-length black niqabs - in fact, they may have been burqas.
I only caught one of the ladies out of the corner of my eye as I was coming off the escalator. I confess, I jumped. Another (different family) young child was cowering behind his mother at the sight.
I don't have a problem with women choosing to wear a hijab. But there seems to me to be something fundamentally inhuman about obscuring your face (yes, I include balaclavas) in public, and most of your body, so you appear like a levitating black tent drifting around the concourse.
These really do seem to scare children, not to mention me.
Edit: I am aware in certain circles that this post probably requires me to attend some diversity training, but still - what sort of religious interpretation is it that requires women to go way behind modesty and obscure all traces of their humanity and identity in public? And should we accept this?
My short answer would be no. For all the reasons I gave back in January.
I can give you a lengthier answer later. And diversity has nothing to do with it. Diversity - properly understood - does not require tolerating the intolerable.
Why is it intolerable, and who decides what it tolerable and intolerable?
Should a woman who wishes to wear such garb in public be allowed to, if it is her unforced wishes? Should women who want to wear this sort of gear (which I personally find distasteful) become second-class citizens?
Because, if you, I, or anyone else cares not to admit it, for many women it is *their* choice.
Going to the other extreme, what about the naked rambler, or women in pop videos who strut provocatively in very revealing gear?
In my experience, women have much stronger views on the wearing of niqabs and burqas than men do.
When I was out for my walk this morning a young lady, whose parents I know, got off a bus in the village. She had bright green dreadlocks and clothes so ripped and torn that they looked as if they had come out of Oxfam's reject bin. She was, of course, making a statement about how she sees herself and the world she lives in. That's fine, I would not dream of suggesting her choice of clothing should be banned or in anyway subject to any legal sanction that does not apply to others. However, only good manners prevented me from, as they say, pointing and laughing.
Off topic, I've just walked through Waterloo to catch my usual train home. I spotted two women wearing full-length black niqabs - in fact, they may have been burqas.
I only caught one of the ladies out of the corner of my eye as I was coming off the escalator. I confess, I jumped. Another (different family) young child was cowering behind his mother at the sight.
I don't have a problem with women choosing to wear a hijab. But there seems to me to be something fundamentally inhuman about obscuring your face (yes, I include balaclavas) in public, and most of your body, so you appear like a levitating black tent drifting around the concourse.
These really do seem to scare children, not to mention me.
Edit: I am aware in certain circles that this post probably requires me to attend some diversity training, but still - what sort of religious interpretation is it that requires women to go way behind modesty and obscure all traces of their humanity and identity in public? And should we accept this?
My short answer would be no. For all the reasons I gave back in January.
I can give you a lengthier answer later. And diversity has nothing to do with it. Diversity - properly understood - does not require tolerating the intolerable.
Why is it intolerable, and who decides what it tolerable and intolerable?
Should a woman who wishes to wear such garb in public be allowed to, if it is her unforced wishes? Should women who want to wear this sort of gear (which I personally find distasteful) become second-class citizens?
Because, if you, I, or anyone else cares not to admit it, for many women it is *their* choice.
Going to the other extreme, what about the naked rambler, or women in pop videos who strut provocatively in very revealing gear?
In my experience, women have much stronger views on the wearing of niqabs and burqas than men do.
Your point being?
It'd be good to get a straw poll amongst those commenting: how many people have talked to a woman wearing such garb, yet alone about why she wears it?
(I answer yes to the first clause, no to the second. Mrs J can answer yes to both).
I'm not keen on the distancing effect (at least on the beholder) of niqabs either, but like most here I don't think we can reasonably ban them - what is seen as decent changes in not just cultural but changes over time: I dare say the Victorians would have seen miniskirts and hot pants as unbearably offensive. We can't sensibly insist that everyone adapts to whatever the current majority view is.
Like Taffys, in my multicultural area I've seen women adapting to use traditional dress while interacting with others much like anyone else. The first time a woman in a full niqab came up to me to ask street directions I was a bit startled, because I associated the clothing with wanting to be distant from men, but I've got used to seeing niqab-wearers behaving exactly like anoyne else on the bus - "have a seat", "thank you dear", etc. Clothes don't change behaviour as much as one might either hope or fear.
Well it seems that Alistair Carmichael is now entering his final few days as an MP. Have to love his description of lying a being "south of the standard required."
Has the SNP already bunged the judge, or are you just hoping here?
After the initial ruling, for Carmichael to survive, the judging panel would have to find that his lying (which is admitted) did not provide him electoral advantage or was not demonstrative of his character.
His chance to win was the first round which he lost, he's now on a very sticky wicket.
I can't believe the Liberals have not conducted private polling to see if he could win a byelection is he resigned. If he loses the case, he is barred from standing. If he resigns he could stand with his apology in public light. His refusal to take the decent option indicates that the Liberals private polling suggests he has no chance.
I would assume, given the positions of the parties and those who would be most motivated to turn out in any by-election, they know they would lose a by-election whenever it happened and whoever stood, and so gambled on standing his ground until 2020 and hoping a new candidate can recover the LDs traditionally strong position there. No encouraging options for them to pick, I think, from a partisan perspective.
You're certainly right that there is no good choice for the Liberals as a party. However, there does seem to be an element of "a terrible choice or the worst choice" and the reputational damage to the Fib Dems has to be a worry for Tavish Scott (who looks very, very likely to lose Shetland now.
It could even put Liam McArthur's return in doubt.
Sacrificing Carmichael might hurt them in Westminster but they are already irrelevant there. At least it would allow them to try and recover some ground before Holyrood. Instead they are now facing a humiliating by-election loss.
Well today is the day that 2 out 8 LD MP's (25% of all LD MP's) are in serious legal troubles that might end up in by-elections.
They're working so hard at cleaning up their reputation after their days in coalition.
Who is the other MP in legal trouble ?
An Independent.
Well today is the day that 2 out 8 LD MP's (25% of all LD MP's) are in serious legal troubles that might end up in by-elections.
Different, Mr. Royale? Why? The only significant difference that I can tell is that the lady has made her own decision as to what to wear, rather than having it, possibly, forced upon her.
Let us look at another item of clothing, the tie. My father, except for very specific occasions would never be seen out of the house without a tie. I, especially in recent years, may have relaxed that stance somewhat, but mostly I will always wear a tie - there are times when I feel uncomfortable if I am not wearing one. Odd possibly, eccentric in this day and age, probably but it is my choice and others can make of it what they will.
So if the lady is wearing what she does because she wants to then she is in the same, point and laugh if you want, class as the young lady and her green dreadlocks and me and my tie. If she is wearing it because she has to then there is a problem that society as a whole needs to address.
We are not saying that. We are saying the face and eyes should not be obscure in public.
This is how all humans interact at the most basic level, and where the line should be drawn.
How do you define 'face covering' ? How do you define 'in public' ?
Are motorcycle helmets covered?
Why do you set the line there?
Tell you what, Mr. J, you put on a full face crash helmet and try and go into your local bank/building society or buy petrol or give evidence in court, or have any meaningful social interaction with people who you don't know. Let us know how you get on.
Off topic, I've just walked through Waterloo to catch my usual train home. I spotted two women wearing full-length black niqabs - in fact, they may have been burqas.
I only caught one of the ladies out of the corner of my eye as I was coming off the escalator. I confess, I jumped. Another (different family) young child was cowering behind his mother at the sight.
I don't have a problem with women choosing to wear a hijab. But there seems to me to be something fundamentally inhuman about obscuring your face (yes, I include balaclavas) in public, and most of your body, so you appear like a levitating black tent drifting around the concourse.
These really do seem to scare children, not to mention me.
Edit: I am aware in certain circles that this post probably requires me to attend some diversity training, but still - what sort of religious interpretation is it that requires women to go way behind modesty and obscure all traces of their humanity and identity in public? And should we accept this?
My short answer would be no. For all the reasons I gave back in January.
I can give you a lengthier answer later. And diversity has nothing to do with it. Diversity - properly understood - does not require tolerating the intolerable.
Why is it intolerable, and who decides what it tolerable and intolerable?
Should a woman who wishes to wear such garb in public be allowed to, if it is her unforced wishes? Should women who want to wear this sort of gear (which I personally find distasteful) become second-class citizens?
Because, if you, I, or anyone else cares not to admit it, for many women it is *their* choice.
Going to the other extreme, what about the naked rambler, or women in pop videos who strut provocatively in very revealing gear?
In my experience, women have much stronger views on the wearing of niqabs and burqas than men do.
Your point being?
It'd be good to get a straw poll amongst those commenting: how many people have talked to a woman wearing such garb, yet alone about why she wears it?
(I answer yes to the first clause, no to the second. Mrs J can answer yes to both).
I have done precisely that on a 100 bus
The only two passengers were a niqab /hijab wearing lady and I... I asked her why she wore it and how her kids recognised her when she picked them up from school if all the ladies were dressed the same w their faces covered
She's said she wore it because only her husband was allowed to see her... I said what if a man complimented her on her eyes, would she have to wear sunglasses?
We are not saying that. We are saying the face and eyes should not be obscure in public.
This is how all humans interact at the most basic level, and where the line should be drawn.
How do you define 'face covering' ? How do you define 'in public' ?
Are motorcycle helmets covered?
Why do you set the line there?
Tell you what, Mr. J, you put on a full face crash helmet and try and go into your local bank/building society or buy petrol or give evidence in court, or have any meaningful social interaction with people who you don't know. Let us know how you get on.
And I would say that banning them in those first three limited circumstances is a hundred percent justified. They're a mile away from banning them 'in public'.
Banning them in the last circumstance you mention is not justified.
Generally, I try (and sometimes fail) to think things should be banned for good, solid reasons, not because I find them objectionable. We should be banning less things for better reasons, not more things for worse reasons.
Off topic, I've just walked through Waterloo to catch my usual train home. I spotted two women wearing full-length black niqabs - in fact, they may have been burqas.
I only caught one of the ladies out of the corner of my eye as I was coming off the escalator. I confess, I jumped. Another (different family) young child was cowering behind his mother at the sight.
I don't have a problem with women choosing to wear a hijab. But there seems to me to be something fundamentally inhuman about obscuring your face (yes, I include balaclavas) in public, and most of your body, so you appear like a levitating black tent drifting around the concourse.
These really do seem to scare children, not to mention me.
Edit: I am aware in certain circles that this post probably requires me to attend some diversity training, but still - what sort of religious interpretation is it that requires women to go way behind modesty and obscure all traces of their humanity and identity in public? And should we accept this?
My short answer would be no. For all the reasons I gave back in January.
I can give you a lengthier answer later. And diversity has nothing to do with it. Diversity - properly understood - does not require tolerating the intolerable.
Why is it intolerable, and who decides what it tolerable and intolerable?
Should a woman who wishes to wear such garb in public be allowed to, if it is her unforced wishes? Should women who want to wear this sort of gear (which I personally find distasteful) become second-class citizens?
Because, if you, I, or anyone else cares not to admit it, for many women it is *their* choice.
Going to the other extreme, what about the naked rambler, or women in pop videos who strut provocatively in very revealing gear?
In my experience, women have much stronger views on the wearing of niqabs and burqas than men do.
Your point being?
It'd be good to get a straw poll amongst those commenting: how many people have talked to a woman wearing such garb, yet alone about why she wears it?
(I answer yes to the first clause, no to the second. Mrs J can answer yes to both).
I have done precisely that on a 100 bus
The only two passengers were a niqab /hijab wearing lady and I... I asked her why she wore it and how her kids recognised her when she picked them up from school if all the ladies were dressed the same w their faces covered
She's said she wore it because only her husband was allowed to see her... I said what if a man complimented her on her eyes, would she have to wear sunglasses?
Comments
OMRLP: Wythenshawe & Sale East
UKIP: Eddisbury
LD: Altrincham & Sale West
Con: Bury North
Greens: Liverpool Riverside
Labour: Ashton under Lyme
*The reason they gave me for the deprivation of alcohol was that varying amounts of alcohol in the blood stream could affect the results of the regular blood tests and so cause unnecessary panic or dangerous increase of doseage. I took the view that if I maintained the same daily alcohol intake as I had at the time of the first blood test it would achieve the same effect - seemed to work OK, but then I was only on the stuff for a month or so.
Surely the head of the local council should live there?
Wait a minute, Ashton-under-Lyme is just a few hundred yards from Oldham West.
Mr. Palmer, interesting. I had read a little of that deal heading off problems for her, and a few days ago that her stance of "All Syrians will get refuge in Germany" had shifted to "For one year, and then we'll deport you." She's been barking mad on this subject.
How serious do you think the challenge is?
Britain with Ireland and communists.
France and Germany with socialists.
Russia with Liberals and Rasputin.
The trouble is that medicines come out of one budget, GP's time another, and, in my time anyway, never the twain etc.
I would hope that things have moved on, of course!
On the Germany thing there was a cracking article in the online edition of Der Spiegel the other day which is probably still available on their web site. It would seem that Germany, especially in the South and East is being split right down the middle by Frau Merkel's insane decisions.
"Germany unable to house 300,000 refugees
Germany doesn't have the capacity to house hundreds of thousands of the refugees set to arrive in the country over the remainder of the year, a study released on Monday claims."
http://www.thelocal.de/20151109/germany-hitting-capacity-to-take-in-refugees
My grandpa was on warfarin. Not sure for how long (several years, at least, I think).
http://www.thelocal.de/20151103/germany-slips-in-english-proficiency-table
http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/insa.htm
CDU/CSU 34
SPD 24
Green 10
Die Linke 11
FDP 6
AfD 10
Highest ever poll rating for AfD and the hard left (Green/Linke) seems to be well up on their 2013 result. These numbers wouldn't be enough for a CDU/CSU-FDP coalition and I highly doubt that the CDU would ever legitimise AfD by going into a coalition with them while another grand coalition will only serve to weaken them further and cause more of their support to leech away to the AfD and FDP.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/merkel-under-fire-as-refugee-crisis-in-germany-worsens-a-1060720.html
It is rather long by UK standards, it would seem the Hun likes detail in his discussions, but well worth the time it takes to read.
The international, online edition of Der Spiegel is a jolly good magazine especially if one wants an in depth view of events free of the usual bias from UK news sources.
Bad in this context is Lumaxis (never approved). It caused internal bleeding, but the only symptom before collapse was bleeding from the gums... lots of bleeding...
As @rcs1000 says, there's been a huge amount of work in the synthetic pentasaccharide space recently, so I'd look at this class, especially the factor Xa inhibitors.
The next election in Germany is very far away, that has pluses and minuses for Merkel, the plus is there is no rush to address the problem, the minus is that it gives time to her enemies to organize.
Thatcher had the same predicament in 1989.
GP says must go on it for AF.
Professor (Heart specialist) later said, no there are better alternatives which dont require the diet restrictions and monitoring etc
GP - Ah but if you have a major accident they dont have a means of stopping a major bleed.....
Hmmm who to believe? Why would the GP not have mentioned the options and preferred more visits to the GP surgery?
"Merkel believes it is impossible for Germany to seal off its borders. For her, the erection of a fence would not just be ineffectual, but would also represent the end of the European ideal. Having grown up in communist East Germany, she is from a country that cut itself off with walls and barbed wire -- and she doesn't want to relive the experience. She views all other proposals that have been made as mere political posturing."
Thatcher and the poll tax circa 1989 again, her personality excludes a compromise or any acceptable solution. She won't change the policy, so the party will have to change leader.
"Last week Guido reported on some very fishy goings on down in Sutton, where the Lib Dem council gave a £1 million discount to a company of which neighbouring MP Tom Brake is a trustee. Guido can now reveal that two of Brake’s aides are Sutton LibDem councillors, and both failed to make any declarations of interest at the council meeting last Monday where the dodgy deal was finalised."
Interesting read, though.
I only caught one of the ladies out of the corner of my eye as I was coming off the escalator. I confess, I jumped. Another (different family) young child was cowering behind his mother at the sight.
I don't have a problem with women choosing to wear a hijab. But there seems to me to be something fundamentally inhuman about obscuring your face (yes, I include balaclavas) in public, and most of your body, so you appear like a levitating black tent drifting around the concourse.
These really do seem to scare children, not to mention me.
Edit: I am aware in certain circles that this post probably requires me to attend some diversity training, but still - what sort of religious interpretation is it that requires women to go way behind modesty and obscure all traces of their humanity and identity in public? And should we accept this?
I always understood that the way Warfarin worked with rats was that they bled to death.
I can give you a lengthier answer later. And diversity has nothing to do with it. Diversity - properly understood - does not require tolerating the intolerable.
" Diversity - properly understood - does not require tolerating the intolerable."
Someone needs to explain that to the people who have been doing the diversity training in the public sector for the past 15 years.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-34760810
My local council recently lost a court decision where a councillor voted on a matter and did not have a pecuniary interest but the judge ruled that a reasonable person might consider them to be possibly biased, and so voided the decision, so if these councillors did vote on the matter in question, that would seem difficult for the council, even though they would not, as I understand it, have technically been required to disclose anything at the meeting. If they did not actually vote themselves, well, that might scrape through as fine, technically?
Mr Carmichael said that he thought the government probe would not uncover the truth of how the Telegraph came into possession of the document.
He said: "It has to be said that most leak inquiries very rarely establish the source of the leak.
In all honesty, are previous PMs usually invited? I don't ever remember seeing Thatcher at one, but that might have been health related, and I feel like I've seen Major there since his time in office?
The party has suffered badly in Scotland but much of that is likely down to the SNP surge rather than innate issues with the party. So far, they are not the "Fib Dems" that they are portrayed as in England. This case will cement that reputation as being untrustworthy liars in Scotland to match their current disdain in England.
Should a woman who wishes to wear such garb in public be allowed to, if it is her unforced wishes? Should women who want to wear this sort of gear (which I personally find distasteful) become second-class citizens?
Because, if you, I, or anyone else cares not to admit it, for many women it is *their* choice.
Going to the other extreme, what about the naked rambler, or women in pop videos who strut provocatively in very revealing gear?
Question is whether the risk of major bleed is worth the other benefits. Personally I think Xarelto and Pradaxa are ok, less convinced by Eliquis.
Head says yes, heart says no.
We have to accept that the country is getting more and more Islamic, and that the Islam that is growing fastest seems to be the more hardcore version
Somehow I think its a similar insecurity to that of St George flag bearing houses that drives this need to show their religion overtly
We are a free country and people can wear what they want, I don't think it should be banned, I just wish there wasn't so many people who wanted to wear it
But if you were able to view a time lapse of the way our society has changed over the last 40 years in terms of number of mosques, change of dress, Trojan horse schools, segregated towns, Halal KFC's etc, it is obvious which direction we are going. I think it's unstoppable. We have to learn to accept that's the way it is now in England
My main fear for the future is that in 50 years time or so, a part of England will want to declare itself an Islamic state, and a foreign country will take their side
His chance to win was the first round which he lost, he's now on a very sticky wicket.
I can't believe the Liberals have not conducted private polling to see if he could win a byelection is he resigned. If he loses the case, he is barred from standing. If he resigns he could stand with his apology in public light. His refusal to take the decent option indicates that the Liberals private polling suggests he has no chance.
The UK goes to war on the orders of a PM, fair enough. Soldiers get killed/hurt in war, fair enough, they knew the risk and it was what the signed on for. But for a PM, for political purposes, to stop the soldiers being properly equipped to fight that war, and being sent in with too few of them to achieve the stated objectives, also for political purposes, is outrageous.
That Blair had the bare faced cheek to turn up at the Cenotaph does not surprise me, that he was invited is disgusting.
For every woman in a full niqab I see two or three muslim girls in full make up and trendy clothes, trying to shuffle off these traditions.
I wonder whether their children will be 'muslim' at all.
1. Hillary loses Minnesota to every GOP candidate except Cruz, Carson does best against her by 9%:
http://kstp.com/article/stories/s3956994.shtml
2. Carson leads Trump in S.Carolina:
http://www.monmouth.edu/assets/0/32212254770/32212254991/32212254992/32212254994/32212254995/30064771087/4a550497-98dc-48f6-9e62-fd4549f38b12.pdf
3. Carson leads nationwide:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article43727049.ece/BINARY/How the survey was conducted
So as I said, the Politico story on Carson had zero effect.
It could even put Liam McArthur's return in doubt.
Sacrificing Carmichael might hurt them in Westminster but they are already irrelevant there. At least it would allow them to try and recover some ground before Holyrood. Instead they are now facing a humiliating by-election loss.
Carson +1,400
Anyone else +0
Looking to lay him off at anything under 10 so some way to go.
Technically he'd be a director, but most people still call them trustees.
http://www.suttonguardian.co.uk/news/13933436.Councillors_face_off_over___1m_discount_deal_for_charity_linked_to_Lib_Dem_MP_Tom_Brake/
They wear head scarves.
We don't allow people to walk around naked in public, except on designated beaches, because it offends public modesty. I think there's an argument that the face and body should not be totally obscures either.
There should be limits to our tolerance particularly when it is of something so oppressive and intolerant.
"I wonder whether their children will be 'muslim' at all."
Which style of dress is worn is a cultural thing, not necessarily an indication of religious devotion. See also men's beards.
We had a free market economy approach to immigration, and these are the results
"We don't allow people to walk around naked in public, except on designated beaches, because it offends public modesty".
I just got a sneak preview of the Saudi Arabian beach volleyball team
http://www.frontpagemag.com/sites/default/files/uploads/2010/04/burqa.jpg
This is how all humans interact at the most basic level, and where the line should be drawn.
It'd be good to get a straw poll amongst those commenting: how many people have talked to a woman wearing such garb, yet alone about why she wears it?
(I answer yes to the first clause, no to the second. Mrs J can answer yes to both).
Like Taffys, in my multicultural area I've seen women adapting to use traditional dress while interacting with others much like anyone else. The first time a woman in a full niqab came up to me to ask street directions I was a bit startled, because I associated the clothing with wanting to be distant from men, but I've got used to seeing niqab-wearers behaving exactly like anoyne else on the bus - "have a seat", "thank you dear", etc. Clothes don't change behaviour as much as one might either hope or fear.
Are motorcycle helmets covered?
Why do you set the line there?
Thompson is independent, former SNP.
Let us look at another item of clothing, the tie. My father, except for very specific occasions would never be seen out of the house without a tie. I, especially in recent years, may have relaxed that stance somewhat, but mostly I will always wear a tie - there are times when I feel uncomfortable if I am not wearing one. Odd possibly, eccentric in this day and age, probably but it is my choice and others can make of it what they will.
So if the lady is wearing what she does because she wants to then she is in the same, point and laugh if you want, class as the young lady and her green dreadlocks and me and my tie. If she is wearing it because she has to then there is a problem that society as a whole needs to address.
New Thread New Thread
"To be fair, without Blair there would be far fewer war deaths for us to remember."
Very good!
The only two passengers were a niqab /hijab wearing lady and I... I asked her why she wore it and how her kids recognised her when she picked them up from school if all the ladies were dressed the same w their faces covered
She's said she wore it because only her husband was allowed to see her... I said what if a man complimented her on her eyes, would she have to wear sunglasses?
We had quite a nice chat and a laugh
Banning them in the last circumstance you mention is not justified.
Generally, I try (and sometimes fail) to think things should be banned for good, solid reasons, not because I find them objectionable. We should be banning less things for better reasons, not more things for worse reasons.