' No blame for the members who overwhelmingly elected Corbyn? "
How can you blame the members for not choosing one of four candidates who were arguably worse than Ed? If I'd had a vote I too might have gone for the 'lucky dip' candidate
Do you really think Yvette Cooper as leader would have been as disastrous for Labour as Corbyn is? I never thought she was much good, but surely she'd better than a thick communist..
Yes, all the other 3 were worse than Corbyn, that is why I preferred him in the end, because he is a low risk low reward candidate. With Corbyn at least Labour won't lose any more votes, something that was not a guarantee with the other 3.
' No blame for the members who overwhelmingly elected Corbyn? "
How can you blame the members for not choosing one of four candidates who were arguably worse than Ed? If I'd had a vote I too might have gone for the 'lucky dip' candidate
Do you really think Yvette Cooper as leader would have been as disastrous for Labour as Corbyn is? I never thought she was much good, but surely she'd better than a thick communist..
Yes, all the other 3 were worse than Corbyn, that is why I preferred him in the end, because he is a low risk low reward candidate. With Corbyn at least Labour won't lose any more votes, something that was not a guarantee with the other 3.
You really believe that labour wont lose more votes with Corbyn as leader. You have to be admired for your blind loyalty
And the Telegraph. And Bloomberg. And Others it seems (thanks google). The Cameron Identity might be free though, as people still argue about what he stands for.
"But veiling is also part of a web of apolitical, cultural and quasi-religious traditions such as honour murder and Female Genital Mutilation designed to entrap women in a position of abject servility."
What a low opinion the writer has for women which I suspect tells you more about his background than the women he writes about. I know l know little of the Muslim rituals at first hand but a lot about the Hasidim which is a sect of ultra orthodox Jews.
The women also appear to have a raw deal but to characterize them as being either subservient or in any sense second class citizens couldn't be further from the truth. It's a way of life that they have chosen and which they embrace. Indeed my impression is of many very feisty women and rather wimpish men. How could it be otherwise when they are bringing up 10 or 12 children?
How do you know the women have chosen it and embrace it?
I can see three reasons for wearing a hijab/niqab: (1) you've been forced to do so by your husband/father, backed by either implicit or explicit threats, (2) broader social-cultural pressure means you feel you have to wear one or your life will become difficult (3) you really do want to wear one, in which case you've been brainwashed to have some pretty unhealthy views about men and women through the influence of extreme religious dogma.
None are good.
Your problem is in assuming, in the third case, that it is brainwashing. Essentially you are saying there can be no free will when it comes to the wearing of these items.
Ataturk banned the veil - modern Turkey seems to be going backwards.
Off topic, I watched the first three Bourne movies today. They were incredibly...mediocre. These movies revolutionized the modern action film?
Does that mean you like the Bourne Legacy?
I may have had a day off (I might be able to sneak comments to PB on a working day, but not watch 3 movies), but I would struggle to get through 4 movies in a single day. That one will have to wait.
' No blame for the members who overwhelmingly elected Corbyn? "
How can you blame the members for not choosing one of four candidates who were arguably worse than Ed? If I'd had a vote I too might have gone for the 'lucky dip' candidate
Do you really think Yvette Cooper as leader would have been as disastrous for Labour as Corbyn is? I never thought she was much good, but surely she'd better than a thick communist..
Yes, all the other 3 were worse than Corbyn, that is why I preferred him in the end, because he is a low risk low reward candidate. With Corbyn at least Labour won't lose any more votes, something that was not a guarantee with the other 3.
You really believe that labour wont lose more votes with Corbyn as leader. You have to be admired for your blind loyalty
How low do you think their vote will go?
They got 9,347,304 votes in May.
Where would you place the evens bar?
I did some number crunching a few weeks ago, if Corbyn is Michael Foot de nos jours, then Labour will fall to 6,991,479 which is 22.7% of the vote
I think we've sort of done the burqa to death, several times over, but I'd like to agree with Hurst Llama, who drew a distinction between women choosing to wear it - a matter of taste/modesty on which it would be illegitimate to legislate - and women being forced to wear it - a much more serious issue of which dress is a small part. In reality both things are happening to different women, and we need to do all we can to address the real problem of oppression rather than try to guess at it by judging the state of mind of passers-by.
I don't think it's especially difficult to imagine women who feel a bit of both, too - dressing in what their reactionary relatives think is a provocative way (i.e. not covered up) might not be a challenge they necessarily want to take right now, especially if they're relatively new to Britain and still feeling their way. It's important to try to offer routes out of an oppressive environment, and I'm for instance in favour of compulsory English classes for anyone seeking residence, but figuratively stripping people off isn't going to do it, even if it makes us feel more comfortable.
' No blame for the members who overwhelmingly elected Corbyn? "
How can you blame the members for not choosing one of four candidates who were arguably worse than Ed? If I'd had a vote I too might have gone for the 'lucky dip' candidate
Do you really think Yvette Cooper as leader would have been as disastrous for Labour as Corbyn is? I never thought she was much good, but surely she'd better than a thick communist..
Yes, all the other 3 were worse than Corbyn, that is why I preferred him in the end, because he is a low risk low reward candidate. With Corbyn at least Labour won't lose any more votes, something that was not a guarantee with the other 3.
You really believe that?
Sounds silly, but considering Corbyn really did run the best campaign and came across as the best candidate, can it be ruled out? I don't think so.
As I've said many times, I don't like burqas or niqabs. But there are many things I don't like, and I'm not sure I should be calling for them to be generally banned. (*) After recent conversations with a friend, arranged marriages are something I'm massively against as the line between 'arranged' and 'forced' can be so thin as to be non-existent - coercion can play a major part into someone saying 'yes'.
The core of the problem is not the burka: it is the pressure from family and friends that 'forces' someone to wear it who would otherwise not. In such cases, it is very similar to forced marriages - the problem is not the victims, but the people doing the forcing. Banning them 'in public' except in certain circumstances (e.g. courts) would just hurt women and do nothing about the core problem.
And would also hurt the women who, out of their own free will, want to wear it.
I agree that the primary problem is the people doing the coercion. And we need to do very much more about them and about forced marriages and the rest. But even with forced marriages, the argument was put that the girls would suffer because they would be isolated from their families and sometimes this does happen. That easily becomes an argument for a moral laziness which argues that because the women suffer as a result of what is done to them - whether by the original coercers or by those trying to help - we had better do nothing.
But just because it is difficult to do something does not mean that we should do nothing. It sends out an important signal that it is not OK to coerce women and that is a very important signal for our society to send out, especially at a time when we are seeing the recrudescence of some pretty barbaric practices against women such as forced marriages, honour killings, FGM etc.
I fully agree that it should be banned for all under-age women. It should not be permitted on public transport, courts, schools etc., either. We interact with each other when out in public using our faces in this society. When in Rome... and all that. If women don't want to do that - of their own free will - and I am a tad sceptical about how free such a will is, frankly - then they accept the consequences or move to a society more in keeping with their views, as they are free to do.
And I am prepared to accept that such a ban may mean that some women who genuinely want to wear it freely can't. Too bad. They are in no worse a position than some men who genuinely want to walk around naked but can't.
I had to leave the last thread so was not able to comment. Can I suggest that those who think it would be utterly intolerable to ban the burqa read the following - which sets out the argument far more eloquently than I could.
Much to both agree and disagree with in that, Ms Free. For one disagreement (and it is a biggie): "And now we see women covered up on the basis that if they were not so they would be responsible for inciting mens lusts',"
In some cases, yes. In others women are choosing to do it out of their own free will. I don't want to see such women excluded from society, which is what a ban 'in public' would entail. There is some evidence that the headscarf ban in Turkey has had some fairly evil consequences.
As I've said many times, I don't like burqas or niqabs. But there are many things I don't like, and I'm not sure I should be calling for them to be generally banned. (*) After recent conversations with a friend, arranged marriages are something I'm massively against as the line between 'arranged' and 'forced' can be so thin as to be non-existent - coercion can play a major part into someone saying 'yes'. But banning arranged marriages? No, as people can take part in them of their own free will. With 'forced' marriages, of course, there is no free will.
(The definitions, problems and scale of arranged, coerced and forced marriage should perhaps be talked about more)
The core of the problem is not the burka: it is the pressure from family and friends that 'forces' someone to wear it who would otherwise not. In such cases, it is very similar to forced marriages - the problem is not the victims, but the people doing the forcing. Banning them 'in public' except in certain circumstances (e.g. courts) would just hurt women and do nothing about the core problem.
And would also hurt the women who, out of their own free will, want to wear it.
(*) Girls are a different matter to women; for a whole host of reasons (including health) the wearing of such garb should be illegal until 16 or 18, when the woman is mature enough to make such a decision).
In the beginning we had virtue signalling, then we had religious signalling. What next? Throwing people off of buildings?
And the Telegraph. And Bloomberg. And Others it seems (thanks google). The Cameron Identity might be free though, as people still argue about what he stands for.
' No blame for the members who overwhelmingly elected Corbyn? "
How can you blame the members for not choosing one of four candidates who were arguably worse than Ed? If I'd had a vote I too might have gone for the 'lucky dip' candidate
Do you really think Yvette Cooper as leader would have been as disastrous for Labour as Corbyn is? I never thought she was much good, but surely she'd better than a thick communist..
She only got roughly 1/3 the leadership votes that the "thick Communist" got.
"But veiling is also part of a web of apolitical, cultural and quasi-religious traditions such as honour murder and Female Genital Mutilation designed to entrap women in a position of abject servility."
What a low opinion the writer has for women which I suspect tells you more about his background than the women he writes about. I know l know little of the Muslim rituals at first hand but a lot about the Hasidim which is a sect of ultra orthodox Jews.
The women also appear to have a raw deal but to characterize them as being either subservient or in any sense second class citizens couldn't be further from the truth. It's a way of life that they have chosen and which they embrace. Indeed my impression is of many very feisty women and rather wimpish men. How could it be otherwise when they are bringing up 10 or 12 children?
How do you know the women have chosen it and embrace it?
I can see three reasons for wearing a hijab/niqab: (1) you've been forced to do so by your husband/father, backed by either implicit or explicit threats, (2) broader social-cultural pressure means you feel you have to wear one or your life will become difficult (3) you really do want to wear one, in which case you've been brainwashed to have some pretty unhealthy views about men and women through the influence of extreme religious dogma.
None are good.
Your problem is in assuming, in the third case, that it is brainwashing. Essentially you are saying there can be no free will when it comes to the wearing of these items.
Ataturk banned the veil - modern Turkey seems to be going backwards.
Probably the biggest objection to banning the burqa in this country would be because the French have already done it.
' No blame for the members who overwhelmingly elected Corbyn? "
How can you blame the members for not choosing one of four candidates who were arguably worse than Ed? If I'd had a vote I too might have gone for the 'lucky dip' candidate
Do you really think Yvette Cooper as leader would have been as disastrous for Labour as Corbyn is? I never thought she was much good, but surely she'd better than a thick communist..
Yes, all the other 3 were worse than Corbyn, that is why I preferred him in the end, because he is a low risk low reward candidate. With Corbyn at least Labour won't lose any more votes, something that was not a guarantee with the other 3.
You really believe that?
Sounds silly, but considering Corbyn really did run the best campaign and came across as the best candidate, can it be ruled out? I don't think so.
Would you bet on Corbyn beating Miliband's vote tally?
And the Telegraph. And Bloomberg. And Others it seems (thanks google). The Cameron Identity might be free though, as people still argue about what he stands for.
It all depends on your attitude to risk, which is a core skill of gamblers.
The figures may not be applicable to an individual who may have other risk factors, but broadly work out as:
1/100 chance per year of a stroke while in AF. 1/200 chance per year of a stroke while in AF and on Warfarin.
So the number needed to treat to prevent one stroke by the use of warfarin is 200. This can be sold to patients (or Daily Express headline writers) as:
Warfarin halves the chance of a stroke.
Or
You would have to take warfarin for 200 years to prevent yourself having a stroke.
Both statements are equally correct, and it largely depends on what attitude you take to risk and to health that determines the best course of action. Drug companies stress the first one but they would do, wouldn't they?
There are a number of other drugs with considerable side effects that have similar numbers needed to treat, or in other words drugs that are having no benefit for the vast majority of patients.
Some of the newer drugs have fewer side effects or monitoring required so alter the balance of benefit vs harm. Additionally it is reasonable to suck it and see. If there are no side-effects then even a high NNT may be acceptable to the patient. If it proves to have a lot of side-effects then stopping is not unreasonable.
Note: None of this should be applied without understanding the individual risk via a discussion with a competent doctor!
It is my understanding that Wafarin deaths are under-reported, because there are people that have other accidents - say they fall of their bike - and then bleed to death because of the wafarin.
' No blame for the members who overwhelmingly elected Corbyn? "
How can you blame the members for not choosing one of four candidates who were arguably worse than Ed? If I'd had a vote I too might have gone for the 'lucky dip' candidate
Do you really think Yvette Cooper as leader would have been as disastrous for Labour as Corbyn is? I never thought she was much good, but surely she'd better than a thick communist..
Yes, all the other 3 were worse than Corbyn, that is why I preferred him in the end, because he is a low risk low reward candidate. With Corbyn at least Labour won't lose any more votes, something that was not a guarantee with the other 3.
You really believe that?
Sounds silly, but considering Corbyn really did run the best campaign and came across as the best candidate, can it be ruled out? I don't think so.
Would you bet on Corbyn beating Miliband's vote tally?
Not at this stage. If he's still there in a year, maybe.
And the Telegraph. And Bloomberg. And Others it seems (thanks google). The Cameron Identity might be free though, as people still argue about what he stands for.
' No blame for the members who overwhelmingly elected Corbyn? "
How can you blame the members for not choosing one of four candidates who were arguably worse than Ed? If I'd had a vote I too might have gone for the 'lucky dip' candidate
Do you really think Yvette Cooper as leader would have been as disastrous for Labour as Corbyn is? I never thought she was much good, but surely she'd better than a thick communist..
She only got roughly 1/3 the leadership votes that the "thick Communist" got.
Do you want to bet on thick Commy beating weird Ed in number of votes at the GE?
Your problem is in assuming, in the third case, that it is brainwashing. Essentially you are saying there can be no free will when it comes to the wearing of these items.
When it comes to fully obscuring the whole body, face and eyes whenever you leave the house as a cultural norm then, yes, I don't think that is something we should accept in this country. Because we know it's not free will: it's based on a brutal form of Islam as Cyclefree points out below.
It's a sign of the subjugation of women, not their free will. The beliefs that lead to it should be confronted.
There's a great deal I could say in response to this about many religious practices - not just in Islam - but this probably isn't the time or forum. But let's just say I think you're wrong about the free will aspect.
In the meantime, let's move onto the practical.
If we were to ban them, have you considered the effect this would have? A woman who believed (in your eyes mistakenly) that she had to wear it would be faced with two choices: to break with her belief, or not leave the house (for the widest definition of 'in public'). She would not be able to attend doctor's surgeries or hospitals, universities or her children's schools.
Is that right, for something that essentially causes no harm except offence to some people? Especially (and you disagree with this) the woman might be wearing it willingly?
Then there is the issue that a ban does not solve the nub of the problem: if a woman is being forced to wear this garb, then the issue lies with the person or people doing the forcing, not the woman, who is a victim. A ban does nothing to address the perpetrators, and only further victimises the victim.
' No blame for the members who overwhelmingly elected Corbyn? "
How can you blame the members for not choosing one of four candidates who were arguably worse than Ed? If I'd had a vote I too might have gone for the 'lucky dip' candidate
Do you really think Yvette Cooper as leader would have been as disastrous for Labour as Corbyn is? I never thought she was much good, but surely she'd better than a thick communist..
Yes, all the other 3 were worse than Corbyn, that is why I preferred him in the end, because he is a low risk low reward candidate. With Corbyn at least Labour won't lose any more votes, something that was not a guarantee with the other 3.
You really believe that labour wont lose more votes with Corbyn as leader. You have to be admired for your blind loyalty
How low do you think their vote will go?
They got 9,347,304 votes in May.
Where would you place the evens bar?
I did some number crunching a few weeks ago, if Corbyn is Michael Foot de nos jours, then Labour will fall to 6,991,479 which is 22.7% of the vote
Interesting. If anyone's stupid enough to take me up on it, I'll offer £100 at evens that Corbyn beats that vote share figure. Void if he's replaced before the election.
It all depends on your attitude to risk, which is a core skill of gamblers.
The figures may not be applicable to an individual who may have other risk factors, but broadly work out as:
1/100 chance per year of a stroke while in AF. 1/200 chance per year of a stroke while in AF and on Warfarin.
So the number needed to treat to prevent one stroke by the use of warfarin is 200. This can be sold to patients (or Daily Express headline writers) as:
Warfarin halves the chance of a stroke.
Or
You would have to take warfarin for 200 years to prevent yourself having a stroke.
Both statements are equally correct, and it largely depends on what attitude you take to risk and to health that determines the best course of action. Drug companies stress the first one but they would do, wouldn't they?
There are a number of other drugs with considerable side effects that have similar numbers needed to treat, or in other words drugs that are having no benefit for the vast majority of patients.
Some of the newer drugs have fewer side effects or monitoring required so alter the balance of benefit vs harm. Additionally it is reasonable to suck it and see. If there are no side-effects then even a high NNT may be acceptable to the patient. If it proves to have a lot of side-effects then stopping is not unreasonable.
Note: None of this should be applied without understanding the individual risk via a discussion with a competent doctor!
Warfarin and similar drugs have the highest rates of adverse events of any drugs on the market. One issue is that they reduce the risk of stroke by preventing blood clots, however, sometimes people need the blood to clot e.g. if they have cut themselves. Some people have bled to death. For example in 2011 there were 500 deaths on Pradaxa in the US.
The bigger picture is that atrial fibrillation contributes to 130,000 deaths a year in the US, while VTE (another condition these drugs are prescribed for) causes 500,000 deaths annually in the US.
' No blame for the members who overwhelmingly elected Corbyn? "
How can you blame the members for not choosing one of four candidates who were arguably worse than Ed? If I'd had a vote I too might have gone for the 'lucky dip' candidate
Do you really think Yvette Cooper as leader would have been as disastrous for Labour as Corbyn is? I never thought she was much good, but surely she'd better than a thick communist..
Yes, all the other 3 were worse than Corbyn, that is why I preferred him in the end, because he is a low risk low reward candidate. With Corbyn at least Labour won't lose any more votes, something that was not a guarantee with the other 3.
You really believe that?
Sounds silly, but considering Corbyn really did run the best campaign and came across as the best candidate, can it be ruled out? I don't think so.
Would you bet on Corbyn beating Miliband's vote tally?
Not at this stage. If he's still there in a year, maybe.
The vote would be dependent on Corbyn being there at the election
' No blame for the members who overwhelmingly elected Corbyn? "
How can you blame the members for not choosing one of four candidates who were arguably worse than Ed? If I'd had a vote I too might have gone for the 'lucky dip' candidate
Do you really think Yvette Cooper as leader would have been as disastrous for Labour as Corbyn is? I never thought she was much good, but surely she'd better than a thick communist..
She only got roughly 1/3 the leadership votes that the "thick Communist" got.
Do you want to bet on thick Commy beating weird Ed in number of votes at the GE?
' No blame for the members who overwhelmingly elected Corbyn? "
How can you blame the members for not choosing one of four candidates who were arguably worse than Ed? If I'd had a vote I too might have gone for the 'lucky dip' candidate
Do you really think Yvette Cooper as leader would have been as disastrous for Labour as Corbyn is? I never thought she was much good, but surely she'd better than a thick communist..
Yes, all the other 3 were worse than Corbyn, that is why I preferred him in the end, because he is a low risk low reward candidate. With Corbyn at least Labour won't lose any more votes, something that was not a guarantee with the other 3.
You really believe that labour wont lose more votes with Corbyn as leader. You have to be admired for your blind loyalty
How low do you think their vote will go?
They got 9,347,304 votes in May.
Where would you place the evens bar?
I did some number crunching a few weeks ago, if Corbyn is Michael Foot de nos jours, then Labour will fall to 6,991,479 which is 22.7% of the vote
Interesting. If anyone's stupid enough to take me up on it, I'll offer £100 at evens that Corbyn beats that vote share figure. Void if he's replaced before the election.
I suspect Corbyn is no Foot, Foot got shafted by the Alliance.
I think we've sort of done the burqa to death, several times over, but I'd like to agree with Hurst Llama, who drew a distinction between women choosing to wear it - a matter of taste/modesty on which it would be illegitimate to legislate - and women being forced to wear it - a much more serious issue of which dress is a small part. In reality both things are happening to different women, and we need to do all we can to address the real problem of oppression rather than try to guess at it by judging the state of mind of passers-by.
I don't think it's especially difficult to imagine women who feel a bit of both, too - dressing in what their reactionary relatives think is a provocative way (i.e. not covered up) might not be a challenge they necessarily want to take right now, especially if they're relatively new to Britain and still feeling their way. It's important to try to offer routes out of an oppressive environment, and I'm for instance in favour of compulsory English classes for anyone seeking residence, but figuratively stripping people off isn't going to do it, even if it makes us feel more comfortable.
Figuratively stripping women off does not make me feel comfortable. Quite the contrary. I'd rather we weren't in a position where we have to do it. But sometimes the choice is between confronting an oppressive and intolerant world view which, if not checked, will make society worse and taking some action now, even if it feels - somehow - unEnglish to be banning one particular item of clothing. We wouldn't need to ban such a garb if we had been a bit more astute about not allowing the spread in this country of the ghastly ideology behind it.
But if you don't challenge bad ideas you find yourself having to challenge clothing. I'd rather do the former, frankly. But it's a minority taste, I accept.
As I've said many times, I don't like burqas or niqabs. But there are many things I don't like, and I'm not sure I should be calling for them to be generally banned. (*) After recent conversations with a friend, arranged marriages are something I'm massively against as the line between 'arranged' and 'forced' can be so thin as to be non-existent - coercion can play a major part into someone saying 'yes'.
The core of the problem is not the burka: it is the pressure from family and friends that 'forces' someone to wear it who would otherwise not. In such cases, it is very similar to forced marriages - the problem is not the victims, but the people doing the forcing. Banning them 'in public' except in certain circumstances (e.g. courts) would just hurt women and do nothing about the core problem.
And would also hurt the women who, out of their own free will, want to wear it.
I agree that the primary problem is the people doing the coercion. And we need to do very much more about them and about forced marriages and the rest. But even with forced marriages, the argument was put that the girls would suffer because they would be isolated from their families and sometimes this does happen. That easily becomes an argument for a moral laziness which argues that because the women suffer as a result of what is done to them - whether by the original coercers or by those trying to help - we had better do nothing.
But just because it is difficult to do something does not mean that we should do nothing. It sends out an important signal that it is not OK to coerce women and that is a very important signal for our society to send out, especially at a time when we are seeing the recrudescence of some pretty barbaric practices against women such as forced marriages, honour killings, FGM etc.
I fully agree that it should be banned for all under-age women. It should not be permitted on public transport, courts, schools etc., either. We interact with each other when out in public using our faces in this society. When in Rome... and all that. If women don't want to do that - of their own free will - and I am a tad sceptical about how free such a will is, frankly - then they accept the consequences or move to a society more in keeping with their views, as they are free to do.
And I am prepared to accept that such a ban may mean that some women who genuinely want to wear it freely can't. Too bad. They are in no worse a position than some men who genuinely want to walk around naked but can't.
Very well said. Can you run for parliament please?
' No blame for the members who overwhelmingly elected Corbyn? "
How can you blame the members for not choosing one of four candidates who were arguably worse than Ed? If I'd had a vote I too might have gone for the 'lucky dip' candidate
Do you really think Yvette Cooper as leader would have been as disastrous for Labour as Corbyn is? I never thought she was much good, but surely she'd better than a thick communist..
She only got roughly 1/3 the leadership votes that the "thick Communist" got.
Do you want to bet on thick Commy beating weird Ed in number of votes at the GE?
Willing to bet 100 bajillion Bit-Camerons
How about a tenner to the site or a charity if you're too scared to have a proper bet?
The Times are reporting that half of migrants from the EU are on benefits
If that includes all low income workers from the EU on working and child tax credit then that's perfectly possible.
I mean that I'd be more confident making an actual money backed prediction for 2020 if he's still in place then - at present, this early on, I'm not. Given how betting on Tory seat numbers lost me money last time, I need to be cautious! Thank goodness for that UKIP MPs bet I had though.
Good night all
Edit: Re Bourne, I just find it less interesting if all someone is interested in is personal safety and revenge, by and large. I know Bond has plenty of the latter in particular as well, but things feel more exciting if the hero has larger concerns at stake.
Has there ever been a TV show or film about a gay couple as the protagonists where the fact they are gay, and their struggle for acceptance etc, is not mentioned or important to the plot at all?
Edit: this came to me after reading the sky+ blurb for London Spy, which doesn't mention that the couple are two men! How bizarre! I have the answer to my question
There's is a part of me that wants to say "Rosemary & Thyme", but...probably not. The 1970's film "Thunderbolt & Lightfoot" makes more sense if you assume that George Kennedy, Clint Eastwood and Jeff Bridges are gay, than if you assume they're straight. The problem with answering this question is: if it isn't mentioned nor important to the plot, then unless it specifically says so in the publicity, the couple is assumed to be straight friends..sometimes vehemently. If you're willing to accept Omar as the protagonist of "The Wire" instead of the antihero, then that could count.
I wasn't a big fan of Hugh Fearnely-Whittingstall but his programme about waste is very good. Really highlights how wasteful our society has become. He blames supermarkets, but they really just cater to our needs. We as a society have become far too remote from food production, we need more programmes and to take kids to farms and show them the production process.
I think we've sort of done the burqa to death, several times over, but I'd like to agree with Hurst Llama, who drew a distinction between women choosing to wear it - a matter of taste/modesty on which it would be illegitimate to legislate - and women being forced to wear it - a much more serious issue of which dress is a small part. In reality both things are happening to different women, and we need to do all we can to address the real problem of oppression rather than try to guess at it by judging the state of mind of passers-by.
I don't think it's especially difficult to imagine women who feel a bit of both, too - dressing in what their reactionary relatives think is a provocative way (i.e. not covered up) might not be a challenge they necessarily want to take right now, especially if they're relatively new to Britain and still feeling their way. It's important to try to offer routes out of an oppressive environment, and I'm for instance in favour of compulsory English classes for anyone seeking residence, but figuratively stripping people off isn't going to do it, even if it makes us feel more comfortable.
Figuratively stripping women off does not make me feel comfortable. Quite the contrary. I'd rather we weren't in a position where we have to do it. But sometimes the choice is between confronting an oppressive and intolerant world view which, if not checked, will make society worse and taking some action now, even if it feels - somehow - unEnglish to be banning one particular item of clothing. We wouldn't need to ban such a garb if we had been a bit more astute about not allowing the spread in this country of the ghastly ideology behind it.
But if you don't challenge bad ideas you find yourself having to challenge clothing. I'd rather do the former, frankly. But it's a minority taste, I accept.
Thanks for linking to that blog. Some very interesting articles there.
I think we've sort of done the burqa to death, several times over, but I'd like to agree with Hurst Llama, who drew a distinction between women choosing to wear it - a matter of taste/modesty on which it would be illegitimate to legislate - and women being forced to wear it - a much more serious issue of which dress is a small part. In reality both things are happening to different women, and we need to do all we can to address the real problem of oppression rather than try to guess at it by judging the state of mind of passers-by.
I don't think it's especially difficult to imagine women who feel a bit of both, too - dressing in what their reactionary relatives think is a provocative way (i.e. not covered up) might not be a challenge they necessarily want to take right now, especially if they're relatively new to Britain and still feeling their way. It's important to try to offer routes out of an oppressive environment, and I'm for instance in favour of compulsory English classes for anyone seeking residence, but figuratively stripping people off isn't going to do it, even if it makes us feel more comfortable.
Do you think that a culture which puts its women in burqas encourages its men to think that grooming non burqa wearing girls for sex is religiously legitimate?
Much to agree with there. The burqa is an insult to both men (implicitly accusing them of being incapable of seeing or speaking to a woman without wanting to rape her) and to women (implicitly turning wearers into the property of men, and implying that non-wearers are sluts). They are not a neutral garb.
It's worth bearing in mind the history of the burqa.
Until the mid 19C it was very much a minorty choice. And then the British banned it in Egypt (even going around and tearing veils off) on the grounds it subjugated women.
As a result it became extremely popular - but purely as a nationalist symbol of resistance, not anything to do with religion
Fits in with my theory of it being equivalent to working class St George flag waving
It's not really class - more a statement that they reject the values of the West. It's a rejection of everythng we stand for
And I am prepared to accept that such a ban may mean that some women who genuinely want to wear it freely can't. Too bad. They are in no worse a position than some men who genuinely want to walk around naked but can't.
' No blame for the members who overwhelmingly elected Corbyn? "
How can you blame the members for not choosing one of four candidates who were arguably worse than Ed? If I'd had a vote I too might have gone for the 'lucky dip' candidate
Do you really think Yvette Cooper as leader would have been as disastrous for Labour as Corbyn is? I never thought she was much good, but surely she'd better than a thick communist..
Yes, all the other 3 were worse than Corbyn, that is why I preferred him in the end, because he is a low risk low reward candidate. With Corbyn at least Labour won't lose any more votes, something that was not a guarantee with the other 3.
You really believe that?
Sounds silly, but considering Corbyn really did run the best campaign and came across as the best candidate, can it be ruled out? I don't think so.
I think we've sort of done the burqa to death, several times over, but I'd like to agree with Hurst Llama, who drew a distinction between women choosing to wear it - a matter of taste/modesty on which it would be illegitimate to legislate - and women being forced to wear it - a much more serious issue of which dress is a small part. In reality both things are happening to different women, and we need to do all we can to address the real problem of oppression rather than try to guess at it by judging the state of mind of passers-by.
I don't think it's especially difficult to imagine women who feel a bit of both, too - dressing in what their reactionary relatives think is a provocative way (i.e. not covered up) might not be a challenge they necessarily want to take right now, especially if they're relatively new to Britain and still feeling their way. It's important to try to offer routes out of an oppressive environment, and I'm for instance in favour of compulsory English classes for anyone seeking residence, but figuratively stripping people off isn't going to do it, even if it makes us feel more comfortable.
Do you think that a culture which puts its women in burqas encourages its men to think that grooming non burqa wearing girls for sex is religiously legitimate?
Women as chattels, to be used and traded at whim.
What is the Labour party about if not opposing such attitudes?
' No blame for the members who overwhelmingly elected Corbyn? "
How can you blame the members for not choosing one of four candidates who were arguably worse than Ed? If I'd had a vote I too might have gone for the 'lucky dip' candidate
Do you really think Yvette Cooper as leader would have been as disastrous for Labour as Corbyn is? I never thought she was much good, but surely she'd better than a thick communist..
Yes, all the other 3 were worse than Corbyn, that is why I preferred him in the end, because he is a low risk low reward candidate. With Corbyn at least Labour won't lose any more votes, something that was not a guarantee with the other 3.
You really believe that?
Sounds silly, but considering Corbyn really did run the best campaign and came across as the best candidate, can it be ruled out? I don't think so.
Your bookie must be loving you
I haven't put money on that one yet, just considering possibilities. I deal only in small amounts, but at the GE, despite losing more bets than I won, I still came out marginally ahead!
I agree that the primary problem is the people doing the coercion. And we need to do very much more about them and about forced marriages and the rest. But even with forced marriages, the argument was put that the girls would suffer because they would be isolated from their families and sometimes this does happen. That easily becomes an argument for a moral laziness which argues that because the women suffer as a result of what is done to them - whether by the original coercers or by those trying to help - we had better do nothing.
But just because it is difficult to do something does not mean that we should do nothing. It sends out an important signal that it is not OK to coerce women and that is a very important signal for our society to send out, especially at a time when we are seeing the recrudescence of some pretty barbaric practices against women such as forced marriages, honour killings, FGM etc.
(snip)
And I am prepared to accept that such a ban may mean that some women who genuinely want to wear it freely can't. Too bad. They are in no worse a position than some men who genuinely want to walk around naked but can't.
I think there is a fundamental difference between coerced / forced marriages and wearing the niqab or hijab. A forced marriage has long-term effects that last a lifetime: for one thing, there's a good argument that sex within a forced marriage is rape, children result, meaning that leaving a forced marriage is difficult. Leaving aside health issues due to lack of sunlight, a woman could choose not to wear a niqab or hijab (or leave the people who are forcing them to wear it) much more easily. It's just headgear.
As an aside, what other practices would you extend this hard line to? Male circumcision of children for religious or cultural reasons? After all, it is permanently physically imprinting the parents' religious choice on a child who may want to make a very different choice of their own when they are adults.
I'd say that's an order of magnitude worse than the niqab or hijab.
On topic: I've very sceptical about this polling. It follows a neutral question with one which invites the respondent to think again on the basis that the government/Cameron say 'British interests are now protected'. It doesn't balance this even to the extent of saying 'but Nigel Farage and the Daily Telegraph say that nothing has changed'. I really don't think you can conclude anything from such a poll.
Your problem is in assuming, in the third case, that it is brainwashing. Essentially you are saying there can be no free will when it comes to the wearing of these items.
When it comes to fully obscuring the whole body, face and eyes whenever you leave the house as a cultural norm then, yes, I don't think that is something we should accept in this country. Because we know it's not free will: it's based on a brutal form of Islam as Cyclefree points out below.
There's a great deal I could say in response to this about many religious practices - not just in Islam - but this probably isn't the time or forum. But let's just say I think you're wrong about the free will aspect.
In the meantime, let's move onto the practical.
If we were to ban them, have you considered the effect this would have? A woman who believed (in your eyes mistakenly) that she had to wear it would be faced with two choices: to break with her belief, or not leave the house (for the widest definition of 'in public'). She would not be able to attend doctor's surgeries or hospitals, universities or her children's schools.
Is that right, for something that essentially causes no harm except offence to some people? Especially (and you disagree with this) the woman might be wearing it willingly?
Then there is the issue that a ban does not solve the nub of the problem: if a woman is being forced to wear this garb, then the issue lies with the person or people doing the forcing, not the woman, who is a victim. A ban does nothing to address the perpetrators, and only further victimises the victim.
I think your first point is an exaggeration. Let me be clear again: we are talking about banning the obscuring of the face and eyes in public, the most basic form of human interaction. Wearing a hijab and full modest dress otherwise would be perfectly acceptable. We make that distinction because to make eye contact and read the emotional expressions on another's face is the most basic part of an integrated and functioning human society. Therefore it does do harm to our society by tolerating it: it automatically creates divisions and isolates people within it.
We talk about compulsory teaching of English for a similar reason - but 80% of communication is non-verbal, so by tolerating it we really tacitly endorsing the isolation of these women and fragmenting our own society.
I don't disagree with your final point but I think this would remove that power from those men because the women couldn't legally leave the house dressed as they wish they would. Therefore it would help culturally abnormalise it in the UK to the point where it simply died out, and women were at least empowered to the extent that the world could see them.
On burquas, I do find it amusing that many of those who are indignant about the banning of things which some find offensive want to ban the burqua because they find it offensive.
Live and let live is my philosophy. Personally, if I were banning anything, rather than the burqua it would be safety pins through eyebrows, but I don't have to look at, or hire, anyone who is so repulsive as to sport one, so I wouldn't ban any such item.
I think we've sort of done the burqa to death, several times over, but I'd like to agree with Hurst Llama, who drew a distinction between women choosing to wear it - a matter of taste/modesty on which it would be illegitimate to legislate - and women being forced to wear it - a much more serious issue of which dress is a small part. In reality both things are happening to different women, and we need to do all we can to address the real problem of oppression rather than try to guess at it by judging the state of mind of passers-by.
I don't think it's especially difficult to imagine women who feel a bit of both, too - dressing in what their reactionary relatives think is a provocative way (i.e. not covered up) might not be a challenge they necessarily want to take right now, especially if they're relatively new to Britain and still feeling their way. It's important to try to offer routes out of an oppressive environment, and I'm for instance in favour of compulsory English classes for anyone seeking residence, but figuratively stripping people off isn't going to do it, even if it makes us feel more comfortable.
Do you think that a culture which puts its women in burqas encourages its men to think that grooming non burqa wearing girls for sex is religiously legitimate?
Women as chattels, to be used and traded at whim.
What is the Labour party about if not opposing such attitudes?
What astonishes me is the tolerance of this on the Right too, including by several pb Tories too. I am very surprised, and disappointed too, to be honest.
I think we've sort of done the burqa to death, several times over, but I'd like to agree with Hurst Llama, who drew a distinction between women choosing to wear it - a matter of taste/modesty on which it would be illegitimate to legislate - and women being forced to wear it - a much more serious issue of which dress is a small part. In reality both things are happening to different women, and we need to do all we can to address the real problem of oppression rather than try to guess at it by judging the state of mind of passers-by.
I don't think it's especially difficult to imagine women who feel a bit of both, too - dressing in what their reactionary relatives think is a provocative way (i.e. not covered up) might not be a challenge they necessarily want to take right now, especially if they're relatively new to Britain and still feeling their way. It's important to try to offer routes out of an oppressive environment, and I'm for instance in favour of compulsory English classes for anyone seeking residence, but figuratively stripping people off isn't going to do it, even if it makes us feel more comfortable.
Do you think that a culture which puts its women in burqas encourages its men to think that grooming non burqa wearing girls for sex is religiously legitimate?
Women as chattels, to be used and traded at whim.
What is the Labour party about if not opposing such attitudes?
During my working life I travelled to Pakistan on business quite frequently. I had a particularly strong relationship with one Pakistani client who tried to persuade me to stay with him rather than in a hotel. As an encouragement, he said I could bring my home comforts with me. My wife was not amused.
During my working life I travelled to Pakistan on business quite frequently. I had a particularly strong relationship with one Pakistani client who tried to persuade me to stay with him rather than in a hotel. As an encouragement, he said I could bring my home comforts with me. My wife was not amused.
On topic: I've very sceptical about this polling. It follows a neutral question with one which invites the respondent to think again on the basis that the government/Cameron say 'British interests are now protected'. It doesn't balance this even to the extent of saying 'but Nigel Farage and the Daily Telegraph say that nothing has changed'. I really don't think you can conclude anything from such a poll.
Mr Nabavi with a slightly unflattering comment about the Tories
I agree, though. Also, I think some people answering these types of questions might be projecting their own view of "renegotiation" onto the question (i.e. whatever they personally think are the advantages/disadvantages of the EU) - but, inevitably, the reality of the renegotiated terms (or lack thereof) will not match the expectations of at least some people.
On burquas, I do find it amusing that many of those who are indignant about the banning of things which some find offensive want to ban the burqua because they find it offensive.
Live and let live is my philosophy. Personally, if I were banning anything, rather than the burqua it would be safety pins through eyebrows, but I don't have to look, or hire anyone who is so repulsive as to sport one, so I wouldn't ban any such item.
I think the point has been made very well downthread that it's not a case of banning it for the sake of personal offence, but because it represents female repression and accentuates their isolation in our society. It's a divisive cultural cancer that's feeding off a warped and extreme interpretation of the worst form of religious bigotry. It crosses a line.
I find the ability of conservatives to draw a moral equivalence between this, wearing business ties and sporting eyebrow piercings - with a straight face - to be astonishing.
Interesting your good Samaritan story. I know that Ultra Orthodox have many contradictions that have to be reconciled. Taking a gentile in his car is probably less of a sin than not helping someone in trouble.
I was once supposed to go to an orthodox wedding which involved me driving on a Saturday. This was apparently unacceptable until someone had the brainwave that I could sit on a hot water bottle because it was OK to travel on water. That's funny but it wasn't a joke.
There are religious laws which the ultra orthodox won't break and there are cultural norms which is where the misogyny possibly comes in. I sat behind three burka clad women watching 'Breaking The Waves' in an outdoor cinema in Istanbul where they giggled like schoolgirls during the male nude scene. Obviously Mohamed hadn't ruled on it. An orthodox Jew doesn't go to the cinema because it's considered a waste of Torah reading time.
I went to an Egyptian clients house to meet his wife. A most charming and cultured woman who didn't join us for dinner because "women don't go to restaurants" That's cultural. No orthodox Jew would go to a restaurant because they wouldn't be able to use the cutlery let alone eat. That's religion.
I shot an ad for Union Carbide (Eveready batteries) where a couple bump into each other at university fall in love by the pyramids get married on a Falouka and grow old together. Only snag the couple wouldn't touch each other. They wouldn't even hold hands. Religious or cultural I don't know
During my working life I travelled to Pakistan on business quite frequently. I had a particularly strong relationship with one Pakistani client who tried to persuade me to stay with him rather than in a hotel. As an encouragement, he said I could bring my home comforts with me. My wife was not amused.
Did you take up the offer?
Had I done so I would have feared for the Pakistani's life and that would have ruined the business relationship.
"Comrades, this is your Captain. It is an honour to speak to you today, and I am honoured to be sailing with you on the maiden voyage of our motherland's most recent achievement. Once more, we play our dangerous game, a game of chess against our old adversary — The Conservative Party! For a hundred years, your fathers before you and your older brothers played this game and played it well. But today the game is different. We have the advantage. It reminds me of the heady days of 1945 and Clement Atlee, when the world trembled at the sound of our Nationalisations! Well, they will tremble again — at the sound of our Progressiveness. The order is: engage the Corbyn Drive!
"Comrades, our own Parliamentary Party doesn't know our full potential. They will do everything possible to test us; but they will only test their own embarrassment. We will leave our MPs behind, we will pass through the Conservative patrols, past their sonar nets, and lay off their largest constituency, and listen to their chortling and tittering... while we conduct Austerity Debates! Then, and when we are finished, the only sound they will hear is our laughter, while we sail to Brighton, where the sun is warm, and so is the... Comradeship!
I think the point has been made very well downthread that it's not a case of banning it for the sake of personal offence, but because it represents female repression and accentuates their isolation in our society. It's a divisive cultural cancer that's feeding off a warped and extreme interpretation of the worst form of religious bigotry. It crosses a line.
I find the ability of conservatives to draw a moral equivalence between this, wearing business ties and sporting eyebrow piercings - with a straight face - to be astonishing.
The point has been made but it's a bogus one. What you are saying is that you think it 'represents female repression' and that this is unacceptable. Why do you assume that? It is patronising in the extreme. Basically, it's none of your business what the lady chooses to wear. I'm staggered that anyone who claims to be a conservative thinks it is.
I agree that the primary problem is the people doing the coercion. And we need to do very much more about them and about forced marriages and the rest. But even with forced marriages, the argument was put that the girls would suffer because they would be isolated from their families and sometimes this does happen. That easily becomes an argument for a moral laziness which argues that because the women suffer as a result of what is done to them - whether by the original coercers or by those trying to help - we had better do nothing.
But just because it is difficult to do something does not mean that we should do nothing.
(snip)
And I am prepared to accept that such a ban may mean that some women who genuinely want to wear it freely can't. Too bad. They are in no worse a position than some men who genuinely want to walk around naked but can't.
I think there is a fundamental difference between coerced / forced marriages and wearing the niqab or hijab. A forced marriage has long-term effects that last a lifetime: for one thing, there's a good argument that sex within a forced marriage is rape, children result, meaning that leaving a forced marriage is difficult. Leaving aside health issues due to lack of sunlight, a woman could choose not to wear a niqab or hijab (or leave the people who are forcing them to wear it) much more easily. It's just headgear.
As an aside, what other practices would you extend this hard line to? Male circumcision of children for religious or cultural reasons? After all, it is permanently physically imprinting the parents' religious choice on a child who may want to make a very different choice of their own when they are adults.
I'd say that's an order of magnitude worse than the niqab or hijab.
I don't feel able to comment on male circumcision TBH. I have had sex with circumcised males (if that is not too much information) and it has not inhibited either his or my enjoyment. Male circumcision does happen when adult for perfectly legitimate medical reasons.
Male circumcision is not a "F*ck you" to Western society. It does not prevent the boy from playing a full part in that society. It is not a withdrawal from the society so that it makes it very much harder for normal social interaction to take place. So I don't think it really comparable to the burqa, though I accept that it cannot be reversed (I assume).
FGM is already banned, rightly so. Forced marriage: ditto. It is no more than abduction and rape.
I am not generally in favour of banning things. But I am most certainly not in favour of giving the enemies of the free liberal society a free hand. And those who want veiled women and all the rest of it are IMO the enemies of a free liberal Western society.
I think your first point is an exaggeration. Let me be clear again: we are talking about banning the obscuring of the face and eyes in public, the most basic form of human interaction. Wearing a hijab and full modest dress otherwise would be perfectly acceptable. We make that distinction because to make eye contact and read the emotional expressions on another's face is the most basic part of an integrated and functioning human society. Therefore it does do harm to our society by tolerating it: it automatically creates divisions and isolates people within it.
We talk about compulsory teaching of English for a similar reason - but 80% of communication is non-verbal, so by tolerating it we really tacitly endorsing the isolation of these women and fragmenting our own society.
I don't disagree with your final point but I think this would remove that power from those men because the women couldn't legally leave the house dressed as they wish they would. Therefore it would help culturally abnormalise it in the UK to the point where it simply died out, and women were at least empowered to the extent that the world could see them.
My first point is not an exaggeration. It's what's been happening in Turkey with the headscarf ban. As an example, women who want to wear headscarves were not going to university, and there is some anecdotal evidence that women are suffering because they feel they cannot attend doctors surgeries or hospitals. (I think I might have given Mr Dancer a false answer on this a few days ago: I think the wearing of headscarves is still officially banned, but the AKP has worked around the ban with other laws.)
Worse, in some cases jobs are becoming polarised: some companies in more secular parts of the country are subtly refusing to employ women who wear headscarves; those in more conservative parts of the country are subtly refusing to employ women who do not wear headscarves.
As for your last paragraph: the men who force women to wear these things do it as a form of control, whether knowingly or not. Not allowing their women to leave the house would just be another form of control.
Again I stress I don't like the things. I'm not in favour of them for much the same reasons you give. But I fail to see what good a ban would do, and much harm it might cause.
As an aside, Ataturk banned the wearing of Fez by men. Some men who continued to wear them were executed. Ouch.
I'm now a tad worried about all the Warfarin discussion. For reasons too boring to elaborate on, I have had to take this medecine from time to time. Apparently it can also cause osteoporosis.
I had a very heavy fall 10 days ago on my leg. Bloody awful bruising on upper leg. Now spread to lower leg. Apparently internal bleeding spreading according to nurse but nothing to worry about because can walk. Blood test results tomorrow. Thank God for opaque tights.
If I die overnight I will have been wittering about burqas. How sad is that!
Much to agree with there. The burqa is an insult to both men (implicitly accusing them of being incapable of seeing or speaking to a woman without wanting to rape her) and to women (implicitly turning wearers into the property of men, and implying that non-wearers are sluts). They are not a neutral garb.
It's worth bearing in mind the history of the burqa.
Until the mid 19C it was very much a minorty choice. And then the British banned it in Egypt (even going around and tearing veils off) on the grounds it subjugated women.
As a result it became extremely popular - but purely as a nationalist symbol of resistance, not anything to do with religion
Fits in with my theory of it being equivalent to working class St George flag waving
It's not really class - more a statement that they reject the values of the West. It's a rejection of everythng we stand for
I'm not saying it is class. I'm saying that groups of People, can be from class, religion, race, politics, that feel their identities or world views are being repressed, feel insecure and show flags/wear uniforms to show the world their displeasure or as a statement as you say
I'm now a tad worried about all the Warfarin discussion. For reasons too boring to elaborate on, I have had to take this medecine from time to time. Apparently it can also cause osteoporosis.
I had a very heavy fall 10 days ago on my leg. Bloody awful bruising on upper leg. Now spread to lower leg. Apparently internal bleeding spreading according to nurse but nothing to worry about because can walk. Blood test results tomorrow. Thank God for opaque tights.
If I die overnight I will have been wittering about burqas. How sad is that!
Night all.
Good night @Cyclefree - looking forward to your comments on what I hope will be a typically eclectic PB day tomorrow.
I am watching the BBC World News report on WADA's document on Russian athletics doping. They have a panel answering press questions including a man with the wonderful porn actor name of Dick Pound.
Then they had an interview with someone called Lord Coe. He looks 12 and sounds pathetic.
Brendan Rodgers is being lined up to be interim manager of Chelsea were they to sack Jose Mourinho.
Yes please! We have Chelsea in Dec.
If Liverpool draw at Man City, Arsenal at WBA and Leicester win at Newcastle then Leicester City are top a third of the way through the season. All of those are quite possible!
I think the point has been made very well downthread that it's not a case of banning it for the sake of personal offence, but because it represents female repression and accentuates their isolation in our society. It's a divisive cultural cancer that's feeding off a warped and extreme interpretation of the worst form of religious bigotry. It crosses a line.
I find the ability of conservatives to draw a moral equivalence between this, wearing business ties and sporting eyebrow piercings - with a straight face - to be astonishing.
The point has been made but it's a bogus one. What you are saying is that you think it 'represents female repression' and that this is unacceptable. Why do you assume that? It is patronising in the extreme. Basically, it's none of your business what the lady chooses to wear. I'm staggered that anyone who claims to be a conservative thinks it is.
You too are assuming that she chooses to wear it rather than being forced to. You are at risk of turning a blind eye to what the burqa represents, its consequences for women (which are well attested to by many), why it has spread at this time and what those who want women to wear it are trying to achieve. It is not, as Dr Sox rightly said, a neutral item of clothing.
And now good night all and thanks for the lively discussion, as always.
I am watching the BBC World News report on WADA's document on Russian athletics doping. They have a panel answering press questions including a man with the wonderful porn actor name of Dick Pound.
I had to come back for this one - I recall years ago being made aware of Mr Pound's book on the Olympics (below). If you think his name is porny, the cover image won't help disabuse you of the thought.
"I'm now a tad worried about all the Warfarin discussion. For reasons too boring to elaborate on, I have had to take this medecine from time to time. Apparently it can also cause osteoporosis."
It's a rat killer. The smart people with arrhythmia take Apixaban
I don't feel able to comment on male circumcision TBH. I have had sex with circumcised males (if that is not too much information) and it has not inhibited either his or my enjoyment. Male circumcision does happen when adult for perfectly legitimate medical reasons.
Male circumcision is not a "F*ck you" to Western society. It does not prevent the boy from playing a full part in that society. It is not a withdrawal from the society so that it makes it very much harder for normal social interaction to take place. So I don't think it really comparable to the burqa, though I accept that it cannot be reversed (I assume).
FGM is already banned, rightly so. Forced marriage: ditto. It is no more than abduction and rape.
I am not generally in favour of banning things. But I am most certainly not in favour of giving the enemies of the free liberal society a free hand. And those who want veiled women and all the rest of it are IMO the enemies of a free liberal Western society.
You miss the point on male circumcision (fnarr, fnarr). It is everyone's right to choose what religion they want to be. Circumcising a baby or child for religious and/or cultural reasons is a way of inflicting the parents' choice of religion and culture onto that child physically.
It's physically maiming a child for non-medical reasons. As such, it's child abuse. And so yes, it's far worse than the burqa, if an equivalence can be made.
(I had a friend at university who was very strident on this issue. His parents had circumcised him, and he wondered what damned right they'd had to do it)
Brendan Rodgers is being lined up to be interim manager of Chelsea were they to sack Jose Mourinho.
Yes please! We have Chelsea in Dec.
If Liverpool draw at Man City, Arsenal at WBA and Leicester win at Newcastle then Leicester City are top a third of the way through the season. All of those are quite possible!
Am on Jamie Vardy long term bets so hope you all do well.
I don't feel able to comment on male circumcision TBH. I have had sex with circumcised males (if that is not too much information) and it has not inhibited either his or my enjoyment. Male circumcision does happen when adult for perfectly legitimate medical reasons.
Male circumcision is not a "F*ck you" to Western society. It does not prevent the boy from playing a full part in that society. It is not a withdrawal from the society so that it makes it very much harder for normal social interaction to take place. So I don't think it really comparable to the burqa, though I accept that it cannot be reversed (I assume).
FGM is already banned, rightly so. Forced marriage: ditto. It is no more than abduction and rape.
I am not generally in favour of banning things. But I am most certainly not in favour of giving the enemies of the free liberal society a free hand. And those who want veiled women and all the rest of it are IMO the enemies of a free liberal Western society.
You miss the point on male circumcision (fnarr, fnarr). It is everyone's right to choose what religion they want to be. Circumcising a baby or child for religious and/or cultural reasons is a way of inflicting the parents' choice of religion and culture onto that child physically.
It's physically maiming a child for non-medical reasons. As such, it's child abuse. And so yes, it's far worse than the burqa, if an equivalence can be made.
(I had a friend at university who was very strident on this issue. His parents had circumcised him, and he wondered what damned right they'd had to do it)
But this is getting waaaaaay off-topic.
In this video Ayaan Hirsi Ali (who knows what she's talking about) explains why male circumcision can often be a more invasive procedure than some forms of FGM, contrary to what most people believe:
I am watching the BBC World News report on WADA's document on Russian athletics doping. They have a panel answering press questions including a man with the wonderful porn actor name of Dick Pound.
I had to come back for this one - I recall years ago being made aware of Mr Pound's book on the Olympics (below). If you think his name is porny, the cover image won't help disabuse you of the thought.
From the review it sounds fairly accurate - the Olympics is more and more a freak show. The politicization of the 2012 closing ceremony with the whole NHS thing didn't help either.
Tories have a hive mind? A sort of political Borg/Cyberman?
No, it's just that the modern conservative party is Cameron's party. It's his creation, and people who vote for it trust him, if they didn't they would have voted something else.
If Corbyn would contemplate any other position he too would have carried his party's base with him, because Labour voters trust Corbyn more than their MP's.
Has there ever been a TV show or film about a gay couple as the protagonists where the fact they are gay, and their struggle for acceptance etc, is not mentioned or important to the plot at all?
Edit: this came to me after reading the sky+ blurb for London Spy, which doesn't mention that the couple are two men! How bizarre! I have the answer to my question
There's is a part of me that wants to say "Rosemary & Thyme", but...probably not. The 1970's film "Thunderbolt & Lightfoot" makes more sense if you assume that George Kennedy, Clint Eastwood and Jeff Bridges are gay, than if you assume they're straight. The problem with answering this question is: if it isn't mentioned nor important to the plot, then unless it specifically says so in the publicity, the couple is assumed to be straight friends..sometimes vehemently. If you're willing to accept Omar as the protagonist of "The Wire" instead of the antihero, then that could count.
The two fellows in London Spy were more than friends that's for sure
Has there ever been a TV show or film about a gay couple as the protagonists where the fact they are gay, and their struggle for acceptance etc, is not mentioned or important to the plot at all?
Edit: this came to me after reading the sky+ blurb for London Spy, which doesn't mention that the couple are two men! How bizarre! I have the answer to my question
There's is a part of me that wants to say "Rosemary & Thyme", but...probably not. The 1970's film "Thunderbolt & Lightfoot" makes more sense if you assume that George Kennedy, Clint Eastwood and Jeff Bridges are gay, than if you assume they're straight. The problem with answering this question is: if it isn't mentioned nor important to the plot, then unless it specifically says so in the publicity, the couple is assumed to be straight friends..sometimes vehemently. If you're willing to accept Omar as the protagonist of "The Wire" instead of the antihero, then that could count.
The two fellows in London Spy were more than friends that's for sure
Morecambe and Wise were often shown in bed together.
Has there ever been a TV show or film about a gay couple as the protagonists where the fact they are gay, and their struggle for acceptance etc, is not mentioned or important to the plot at all?
Edit: this came to me after reading the sky+ blurb for London Spy, which doesn't mention that the couple are two men! How bizarre! I have the answer to my question
There's is a part of me that wants to say "Rosemary & Thyme", but...probably not. The 1970's film "Thunderbolt & Lightfoot" makes more sense if you assume that George Kennedy, Clint Eastwood and Jeff Bridges are gay, than if you assume they're straight. The problem with answering this question is: if it isn't mentioned nor important to the plot, then unless it specifically says so in the publicity, the couple is assumed to be straight friends..sometimes vehemently. If you're willing to accept Omar as the protagonist of "The Wire" instead of the antihero, then that could count.
The two fellows in London Spy were more than friends that's for sure
Morecambe and Wise were often shown in bed together.
But Eric would always be smoking his Luton colored pipe which would obviously preclude any nefarious activity.
He was born in a lodging house in Braunau am inn to a customs official, just another harmless mewling puking infant. Who could possibly have known what he would turn out to be?
Now Operation Foxley - everyone would support that.
Has there ever been a TV show or film about a gay couple as the protagonists where the fact they are gay, and their struggle for acceptance etc, is not mentioned or important to the plot at all?
Edit: this came to me after reading the sky+ blurb for London Spy, which doesn't mention that the couple are two men! How bizarre! I have the answer to my question
The centrality of Cameron to the referendum is a double-edged sword. When he fails to blackmail the EU into doing the impossible*, the papers will take him to the cleaners, and loads of swing voters will pile into the Leave camp.
*I suppose he might have a rabbit ready to pull out of his EU hat, but he's leaving it very late to perform the trick...
He was born in a lodging house in Braunau am inn to a customs official, just another harmless mewling puking infant. Who could possibly have known what he would turn out to be?
Now Operation Foxley - everyone would support that.
as British comedian Richard Herring tweets :
If you happen to kill a baby, simply claim as yr defence to be from the future averting a terrible genocide
He was born in a lodging house in Braunau am inn to a customs official, just another harmless mewling puking infant. Who could possibly have known what he would turn out to be?
Now Operation Foxley - everyone would support that.
as British comedian Richard Herring tweets :
If you happen to kill a baby, simply claim as yr defence to be from the future averting a terrible genocide
OK I admit - you ran rings round me logically on that one
Today's Google Doodle (sadly US only, I think) celebrates Heddy Lamarr, a Holywood actress and beauty who developed (and co-patented) a technology that helped us win the war, and we all use today in our mobile phones.
Comments
They got 9,347,304 votes in May.
Where would you place the evens bar?
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2015/10/how-can-labour-break-osborne-supremacy
Edit:
And the Telegraph. And Bloomberg. And Others it seems (thanks google). The Cameron Identity might be free though, as people still argue about what he stands for.
I don't think it's especially difficult to imagine women who feel a bit of both, too - dressing in what their reactionary relatives think is a provocative way (i.e. not covered up) might not be a challenge they necessarily want to take right now, especially if they're relatively new to Britain and still feeling their way. It's important to try to offer routes out of an oppressive environment, and I'm for instance in favour of compulsory English classes for anyone seeking residence, but figuratively stripping people off isn't going to do it, even if it makes us feel more comfortable.
But just because it is difficult to do something does not mean that we should do nothing. It sends out an important signal that it is not OK to coerce women and that is a very important signal for our society to send out, especially at a time when we are seeing the recrudescence of some pretty barbaric practices against women such as forced marriages, honour killings, FGM etc.
I fully agree that it should be banned for all under-age women. It should not be permitted on public transport, courts, schools etc., either. We interact with each other when out in public using our faces in this society. When in Rome... and all that. If women don't want to do that - of their own free will - and I am a tad sceptical about how free such a will is, frankly - then they accept the consequences or move to a society more in keeping with their views, as they are free to do.
And I am prepared to accept that such a ban may mean that some women who genuinely want to wear it freely can't. Too bad. They are in no worse a position than some men who genuinely want to walk around naked but can't.
No-one English really wants to follow the French.
In the meantime, let's move onto the practical.
If we were to ban them, have you considered the effect this would have? A woman who believed (in your eyes mistakenly) that she had to wear it would be faced with two choices: to break with her belief, or not leave the house (for the widest definition of 'in public'). She would not be able to attend doctor's surgeries or hospitals, universities or her children's schools.
Is that right, for something that essentially causes no harm except offence to some people? Especially (and you disagree with this) the woman might be wearing it willingly?
Then there is the issue that a ban does not solve the nub of the problem: if a woman is being forced to wear this garb, then the issue lies with the person or people doing the forcing, not the woman, who is a victim. A ban does nothing to address the perpetrators, and only further victimises the victim.
The bigger picture is that atrial fibrillation contributes to 130,000 deaths a year in the US, while VTE (another condition these drugs are prescribed for) causes 500,000 deaths annually in the US.
But if you don't challenge bad ideas you find yourself having to challenge clothing. I'd rather do the former, frankly. But it's a minority taste, I accept.
Good night all
Edit: Re Bourne, I just find it less interesting if all someone is interested in is personal safety and revenge, by and large. I know Bond has plenty of the latter in particular as well, but things feel more exciting if the hero has larger concerns at stake.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTZ0eASWwAIFHnb.jpg
What is the Labour party about if not opposing such attitudes?
As an aside, what other practices would you extend this hard line to? Male circumcision of children for religious or cultural reasons? After all, it is permanently physically imprinting the parents' religious choice on a child who may want to make a very different choice of their own when they are adults.
I'd say that's an order of magnitude worse than the niqab or hijab.
We talk about compulsory teaching of English for a similar reason - but 80% of communication is non-verbal, so by tolerating it we really tacitly endorsing the isolation of these women and fragmenting our own society.
I don't disagree with your final point but I think this would remove that power from those men because the women couldn't legally leave the house dressed as they wish they would. Therefore it would help culturally abnormalise it in the UK to the point where it simply died out, and women were at least empowered to the extent that the world could see them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_German_federal_election#Poll_results
Live and let live is my philosophy. Personally, if I were banning anything, rather than the burqua it would be safety pins through eyebrows, but I don't have to look at, or hire, anyone who is so repulsive as to sport one, so I wouldn't ban any such item.
And with that, a very good night to you all.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/?cartoon=11984850&cc=11971107
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Dutch_general_election#Opinion_polls
I agree, though. Also, I think some people answering these types of questions might be projecting their own view of "renegotiation" onto the question (i.e. whatever they personally think are the advantages/disadvantages of the EU) - but, inevitably, the reality of the renegotiated terms (or lack thereof) will not match the expectations of at least some people.
I find the ability of conservatives to draw a moral equivalence between this, wearing business ties and sporting eyebrow piercings - with a straight face - to be astonishing.
The final of Miss Bumbum in Brazil is on tonight.
Does anyone know of a live stream for the event?
Interesting your good Samaritan story. I know that Ultra Orthodox have many contradictions that have to be reconciled. Taking a gentile in his car is probably less of a sin than not helping someone in trouble.
I was once supposed to go to an orthodox wedding which involved me driving on a Saturday. This was apparently unacceptable until someone had the brainwave that I could sit on a hot water bottle because it was OK to travel on water. That's funny but it wasn't a joke.
There are religious laws which the ultra orthodox won't break and there are cultural norms which is where the misogyny possibly comes in. I sat behind three burka clad women watching 'Breaking The Waves' in an outdoor cinema in Istanbul where they giggled like schoolgirls during the male nude scene. Obviously Mohamed hadn't ruled on it. An orthodox Jew doesn't go to the cinema because it's considered a waste of Torah reading time.
I went to an Egyptian clients house to meet his wife. A most charming and cultured woman who didn't join us for dinner because "women don't go to restaurants" That's cultural. No orthodox Jew would go to a restaurant because they wouldn't be able to use the cutlery let alone eat. That's religion.
I shot an ad for Union Carbide (Eveready batteries) where a couple bump into each other at university fall in love by the pyramids get married on a Falouka and grow old together. Only snag the couple wouldn't touch each other. They wouldn't even hold hands. Religious or cultural I don't know
"Comrades, our own Parliamentary Party doesn't know our full potential. They will do everything possible to test us; but they will only test their own embarrassment. We will leave our MPs behind, we will pass through the Conservative patrols, past their sonar nets, and lay off their largest constituency, and listen to their chortling and tittering... while we conduct Austerity Debates! Then, and when we are finished, the only sound they will hear is our laughter, while we sail to Brighton, where the sun is warm, and so is the... Comradeship!
"A great day, Comrades! We sail into history!"
Male circumcision is not a "F*ck you" to Western society. It does not prevent the boy from playing a full part in that society. It is not a withdrawal from the society so that it makes it very much harder for normal social interaction to take place. So I don't think it really comparable to the burqa, though I accept that it cannot be reversed (I assume).
FGM is already banned, rightly so. Forced marriage: ditto. It is no more than abduction and rape.
I am not generally in favour of banning things. But I am most certainly not in favour of giving the enemies of the free liberal society a free hand. And those who want veiled women and all the rest of it are IMO the enemies of a free liberal Western society.
Worse, in some cases jobs are becoming polarised: some companies in more secular parts of the country are subtly refusing to employ women who wear headscarves; those in more conservative parts of the country are subtly refusing to employ women who do not wear headscarves.
As for your last paragraph: the men who force women to wear these things do it as a form of control, whether knowingly or not. Not allowing their women to leave the house would just be another form of control.
Again I stress I don't like the things. I'm not in favour of them for much the same reasons you give. But I fail to see what good a ban would do, and much harm it might cause.
As an aside, Ataturk banned the wearing of Fez by men. Some men who continued to wear them were executed. Ouch.
Brendan Rodgers is being lined up to be interim manager of Chelsea were they to sack Jose Mourinho.
I had a very heavy fall 10 days ago on my leg. Bloody awful bruising on upper leg. Now spread to lower leg. Apparently internal bleeding spreading according to nurse but nothing to worry about because can walk. Blood test results tomorrow. Thank God for opaque tights.
If I die overnight I will have been wittering about burqas. How sad is that!
Night all.
The problem is, it is not a philosophy shared by the people you are being so generous to.
ie AV all day.
Then they had an interview with someone called Lord Coe. He looks 12 and sounds pathetic.
If Liverpool draw at Man City, Arsenal at WBA and Leicester win at Newcastle then Leicester City are top a third of the way through the season. All of those are quite possible!
And now good night all and thanks for the lively discussion, as always.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Inside-Olympics-Behind---scenes-Politics/dp/0470834544/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1447110677&sr=8-1&keywords=dick+pound
"I'm now a tad worried about all the Warfarin discussion. For reasons too boring to elaborate on, I have had to take this medecine from time to time. Apparently it can also cause osteoporosis."
It's a rat killer. The smart people with arrhythmia take Apixaban
It's physically maiming a child for non-medical reasons. As such, it's child abuse. And so yes, it's far worse than the burqa, if an equivalence can be made.
(I had a friend at university who was very strident on this issue. His parents had circumcised him, and he wondered what damned right they'd had to do it)
But this is getting waaaaaay off-topic.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaEoQVZnN8I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Daz9fFrL-Y
Contains the best one liner ever.....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jeb-bush-on-killing-baby-hitler_5640e1b6e4b0411d3071da54?eoy9zfr
Now Operation Foxley - everyone would support that.
*I suppose he might have a rabbit ready to pull out of his EU hat, but he's leaving it very late to perform the trick...
If you happen to kill a baby, simply claim as yr defence to be from the future averting a terrible genocide
As for the other stuff. Yawn. She may have been involved with a man who had something to do with it.