I feel very uncomfortable about this sort of thing. If you have not been convicted the state should not be able to do this . Even though there does appear to be reasonable grounds for the police to have concerns in this case, it goes back to the issue of giving the state powers that you might not be so pleased about if a government of a rather different shade took advantage of.
Surely the obvious solution is to get him a job with North Yorkshire Police. That way, he gets a job and they get to keep a close eye on him.
As a man described by a judge as a narcissist, liar, sexual deviant and violent fantasist, you would expect him to fit right in as well. Indeed he might make Chief Constable in a couple of years.
I suspect he would fit in even better at South Yorks?
I doubt it. The judge didn't say he was mentally deficient as well.
I see. So not thinking your teenage kids going round dressed like a cross between Julia Roberts in pretty woman and a chav out of Little Britain is entirely a good idea (not that mine actually do) makes you a religious zealot now?
I would have responded earlier but my eldests hairshirt sackcloth had a hole in it and needed darning while she is at prayers.
Methinks secularists of all strikes are getting worried about the future. Rightly, because tomorrow belongs to those having larger families and that aint the secularists and atheists.
Not thinking that and trying to enforce your thoughts on adults is two very different things.
As a father of two very young girls (2 years for one, and 2 months for the other) I have this to look forward to. I'd like to hope that when they are older they have been brought up with self respect and to know their own boundaries but it will be their choices ultimately.
While I might want a shotgun when they're older, the idea they should be compelled to cover up by a man or a priest is abhorrent.
I see. So not thinking your teenage kids going round dressed like a cross between Julia Roberts in pretty woman and a chav out of Little Britain is entirely a good idea (not that mine actually do) makes you a religious zealot now?
I would have responded earlier but my eldests hairshirt sackcloth had a hole in it and needed darning while she is at prayers.
Methinks secularists of all strikes are getting worried about the future. Rightly, because tomorrow belongs to those having larger families and that aint the secularists and atheists.
Not thinking that and trying to enforce your thoughts on adults is two very different things.
As a father of two very young girls (2 years for one, and 2 months for the other) I have this to look forward to. I'd like to hope that when they are older they have been brought up with self respect and to know their own boundaries but it will be their choices ultimately.
While I might want a shotgun when they're older, the idea they should be compelled to cover up by a man or a priest is abhorrent.
I don't think they ever have been in the UK other than by general social disapproval - and I reckon that 90% of that came/comes from their womanly peers rather than men.
I don't want my daughter to grow up in a city where these horrible hoods and sacks are regarded as acceptable streetwear because some people think "women mustn't be seen".
I drove through the centre of Birmingham late one Friday night and saw many drunken young women dressed like sluts. Many people don't want their children to grow up in a city where such dress is regarded as acceptable streetwear because they uphold "the right to be a drunken slut in public".
Ah. You have accepted your hijab argument was ridiculous bollocks, and a stupid attempt at strawmanning. Well done.
Now we have the "slut" argument. Jesus.
These children shouldn't be in Birmingham city centre late at night. They should be in bed.
SeanT, insults and sarcasm are no compensation for your not arguing in a grown-up fashion. Nor is accusing someone else of making a straw man argument when you haven't bothered to understand what they're saying. Rottenborough, well, you're just exclaiming. There may be a good case for banning the burqa and hijab outside of the home (as they were banned in at least one MUSLIM country I know of - Tunisia - until a few years ago), but CycleFree was NOT making such an argument.
What she quoted depended on a shallow universalisation of "freedom" and "compulsion" at opposite poles. Well that won't do. Examine the social pressures that cause people to wear this kind of clothing rather than that; their views on sexuality and what is decent; your own views on what you consider to be decent and acceptable in what context; how those views are mediated through social institutions; what is acceptable for men and what is acceptable for women; and how people (such as yourself) tolerate or do not tolerate other people acting in accordance with their own views, in what context. THAT, my friends, is the area in which this discussion should take place. Yes it is about sexuality.
To propose a position that depends most of all on polarised concepts of "freedom" and "compulsion" is to dodge the difficulties and in fact to provide a cover for prejudice.
We are all prejudiced to some extent. Hiding it behind shouts of "freedom" isn't persuasive.
You can turn on the TV in the morning and watch smiling presenters defend the right to cheat on your spouse, etc. You can indeed watch hordes of young women dressed like sluts in public if you go to a city centre on a Friday or Saturday evening. I'm right about that, and it's relevant. Deal with the issues and appreciate why people wear these or those clothes in what contexts and why behaviour differs across cultures.
The issue cannot be resolved by relying most of all on Tory and Women's Institute concepts of "freedom" and "compulsion" most of all. (to be continued)
I feel very uncomfortable about this sort of thing. If you have not been convicted the state should not be able to do this . Even though there does appear to be reasonable grounds for the police to have concerns in this case, it goes back to the issue of giving the state powers that you might not be so pleased about if a government of a rather different shade took advantage of.
Quite. Hopefully the publicity will get him a good lawyer pro bono.
The lessons we learn from this case are:
1. Never speak to a psychiatrist and expect them to keep your discussions confidential.
Sadly this and other events show that NHS Medical staff are now state apparatchiks who have to be treated with caution in what you tell them because it will be taken down and may be used as evidence against you.
If they were private sector the exact same laws would apply.
Right, so say I own a theatre that's putting on a play. I can allow women in the audience to wear hijabs if I want, right? We're talking about a Tory paradise where the rights of property owners are paramount. Tickets may have been sold publicly, but the theatre is not a public place. People are there because they have agreed a contract with me, the owner. Now say hijabs are banned publicly, as some wish. Ladies wishing to watch the play may wear hijabs, yes, without breaking the law? Is it OK if they park in the car park and walk to the foyer? Or does that depend on whether I own the car park? How about getting out of a car in front of the theatre and crossing the pavement? Is that OK? Or if they wish to wear hijabs in the theatre, must they arrive without them, necks bared to male onlookers, hair too, and then put them on once they're inside?
Perhaps you want the police outside shaking their heads as women get out of cars wearing hijabs, saying "More neck, please, love" and "I can't see your hair". And SeanT, please don't tell me I'm setting up a straw man argument. I'm not. The hijab is an item of clothing designed to cover up a woman's hair, neck, sternum and cleavage. Or is it OK if a nun does it but not a Moooslim?
I feel very uncomfortable about this sort of thing. If you have not been convicted the state should not be able to do this . Even though there does appear to be reasonable grounds for the police to have concerns in this case, it goes back to the issue of giving the state powers that you might not be so pleased about if a government of a rather different shade took advantage of.
Quite. Hopefully the publicity will get him a good lawyer pro bono.
The lessons we learn from this case are:
1. Never speak to a psychiatrist and expect them to keep your discussions confidential.
Sadly this and other events show that NHS Medical staff are now state apparatchiks who have to be treated with caution in what you tell them because it will be taken down and may be used as evidence against you.
If they were private sector the exact same laws would apply.
I wonder whether they might just be a little more discrete?
Right, so say I own a theatre that's putting on a play. I can allow women in the audience to wear hijabs if I want, right? We're talking about a Tory paradise where the rights of property owners are paramount. Tickets may have been sold publicly, but the theatre is not a public place. People are there because they have agreed a contract with me, the owner. Now say hijabs are banned publicly, as some wish. Ladies wishing to watch the play may wear hijabs, yes, without breaking the law? Is it OK if they park in the car park and walk to the foyer? Or does that depend on whether I own the car park? How about getting out of a car in front of the theatre and crossing the pavement? Is that OK? Or if they wish to wear hijabs in the theatre, must they arrive without them, necks bared to male onlookers, hair too, and then put them on once they're inside?
Perhaps you want the police outside shaking their heads as women get out of cars wearing hijabs, saying "More neck, please love" and "I can't see your hair". And SeanT, don't tell me I'm setting up a straw man argument. I'm notThe hijab is an item of clothing designed to cover up a woman's hair, neck, sternum and cleavage. Or is it OK if a nun does it but not a Moooslim?
A ban on the burqa is coming anyway, to all of Europe, so we might as well get on with it
I'd agree there is a much stronger argument for banning the burqa than the hijab. Banning the hijab in Britain I would see as a provocation, often argued for by those who aren't open about their reasons. That said, I know observant Muslim women who believe that the Tunisian government's decision to allow the wearing of the hijab outside of the home was a step that gave a boost to the kind of criminal extreme-sexist men who are signing up in droves in that country to fight for Daesh.
Until recently most women one saw in London wearing burqas were the wives of ultra-rich sheikhs from the Gulf. Ban the burqa and they probably wouldn't let their wives out of the home at all.
Another consideration here is the prevalence of sexual hypocrisy among Muslim men. And where are the limits of criminalising social pressures that are considered to be harmful?
Right, so say I own a theatre that's putting on a play. I can allow women in the audience to wear hijabs if I want, right? We're talking about a Tory paradise where the rights of property owners are paramount. Tickets may have been sold publicly, but the theatre is not a public place. People are there because they have agreed a contract with me, the owner. Now say hijabs are banned publicly, as some wish. Ladies wishing to watch the play may wear hijabs, yes, without breaking the law? Is it OK if they park in the car park and walk to the foyer? Or does that depend on whether I own the car park? How about getting out of a car in front of the theatre and crossing the pavement? Is that OK? Or if they wish to wear hijabs in the theatre, must they arrive without them, necks bared to male onlookers, hair too, and then put them on once they're inside?
Perhaps you want the police outside shaking their heads as women get out of cars wearing hijabs, saying "More neck, please love" and "I can't see your hair". And SeanT, don't tell me I'm setting up a straw man argument. I'm notThe hijab is an item of clothing designed to cover up a woman's hair, neck, sternum and cleavage. Or is it OK if a nun does it but not a Moooslim?
Hope folk are enjoying the sport. When I saw Nick Skelton's lips going on the podium, I wanted to give the man a hug.
Bit hot-tempered in here today. Can I suggest having a calm relaxing read of this classic book about blowing other people's brains out, instead?
That link is to a beautifully scanned edition of Sniping in France by Hesketh Vernon Hesketh-Prichard, DSO, MC, FRGS, FZS - British explorer, adventurer, big-game hunter, marksman, and possessor of an absolutely top-notch name to boot. Guest appearance by John Buchan! For those with an interest in travel literature, Hesketh-Prichard also wrote an account of his trek across Haiti in 1899 - apparently the first white man to cross the interior of the island since it had been transformed into a republic ruled by former slaves in the 1803 revolution. That book is also available online, with the charmingly politically-correct title Where Black Rules White.
I'm going to stick to the diving, GB seem to score when I'm not watching...
That and when SeanT predicts failure.... Both of you keep it up!
lol. I am often ridiculously rubbish at sports predix
I've worked out my problem. When I am emotionally over-invested in something happening, I presume and predict the opposite outcome, as a kind of hedge against disappointment. e.g. I really want Team GB to do well, so I predicted they would flop in Rio
I do the same for English rugby, sometimes the cricket, and most rightwing political victories
And Scottish Independence, though frankly I think I'm the same.
SeanT, insults and sarcasm are no compensation for your not arguing in a grown-up fashion. Nor is accusing someone else of making a straw man argument when you haven't bothered to understand what they're saying. Rottenborough, well, you're just exclaiming. There may be a good case for banning the burqa and hijab outside of the home (as they were banned in at least one MUSLIM country I know of - Tunisia - until a few years ago), but CycleFree was NOT making such an argument.
What she quoted depended on a shallow universalisation of "freedom" and "compulsion" at opposite poles. Well that won't do. Examine the social pressures that cause people to wear this kind of clothing rather than that; their views on sexuality and what is decent; your own views on what you consider to be decent and acceptable in what context; how those views are mediated through social institutions; what is acceptable for men and what is acceptable for women; and how people (such as yourself) tolerate or do not tolerate other people acting in accordance with their own views, in what context. THAT, my friends, is the area in which this discussion should take place. Yes it is about sexuality.
To propose a position that depends most of all on polarised concepts of "freedom" and "compulsion" is to dodge the difficulties and in fact to provide a cover for prejudice.
We are all prejudiced to some extent. Hiding it behind shouts of "freedom" isn't persuasive.
You can turn on the TV in the morning and watch smiling presenters defend the right to cheat on your spouse, etc. You can indeed watch hordes of young women dressed like sluts in public if you go to a city centre on a Friday or Saturday evening. I'm right about that, and it's relevant. Deal with the issues and appreciate why people wear these or those clothes in what contexts and why behaviour differs across cultures.
It is indeed about different views of sexuality, amongst other things. But concepts of freedom and compulsion are not shallow. This is perhaps not the place to go into this in detail but there are some very good, long and thoughtful articles on this topic which are well worth reading. Happy to share if you (or others) are interested.
I think that those who think that the burqa is simply an issue of allowing Muslim women the freedom to wear a piece of religious or cultural clothing are the ones in danger of being shallow and missing what lies behind the push to impose a very limited and fundamentalist view of what Islam is and what that means for those Western countries with significant Muslim communities.
Anyway, thanks for the debate and have a good weekend all.
I reckon we will *just* fall short. But then, I tend to the pessimistic in certain respects (see my other comment)
Maybe but if we do it it will be an astonishing achievement and the Chinese will certainly not be happy. Even if we stay in third place we have only managed that 4 times, in 2012, 1920, 1912 and 1900
I'm going to stick to the diving, GB seem to score when I'm not watching...
That and when SeanT predicts failure.... Both of you keep it up!
lol. I am often ridiculously rubbish at sports predix
I've worked out my problem. When I am emotionally over-invested in something happening, I presume and predict the opposite outcome, as a kind of hedge against disappointment. e.g. I really want Team GB to do well, so I predicted they would flop in Rio
I do the same for English rugby, sometimes the cricket, and most rightwing political victories
You will never, ever match my fabulous sporting prediction on PB, when I criticised Alistair Cook for putting Australia in and said England would face a huge total...
Anecdotal evidence about burqas - was last month on a flight from Dubai to Kiev. Many more burqas got on the plane in Dubai than got off in Kiev.
Trying to clock up the air miles by not leaving the plane?
Ha! More like the Arabs being aware of different cultures. They came off the plane dressed in western clothes with a headscarf, leaving the abayas in the bag.
My view from that is that it's a critical mass thing, people wouldn't wear them in eg. Bradford if no-one else did - but when lots are wearing them there are pressures on individuals to conform.
Kicky kicky in PJs really is an odd sport. It basically one legged kicking competition.
they can punch aswell.
I've watched 4-5 bouts at these games, and although occasionally they make an odd stiff armed motion with their hand, like a mock punch, I don't think I've actually seen one connect or even look like it was intended to connect, are there some sort of restrictions on when and how they can do it?
Kicky kicky in PJs really is an odd sport. It basically one legged kicking competition.
they can punch aswell.
I've watched 4-5 bouts at these games, and although occasionally they make an odd stiff armed motion with their hand, like a mock punch, I don't think I've actually seen one connect or even look like it was intended to connect, are there some sort of restrictions on when and how they can do it?
You can't punch to the head. I think attempting a body punch would just leave you too open to a kick at the top levels.
Kicky kicky in PJs really is an odd sport. It basically one legged kicking competition.
they can punch aswell.
I've watched 4-5 bouts at these games, and although occasionally they make an odd stiff armed motion with their hand, like a mock punch, I don't think I've actually seen one connect or even look like it was intended to connect, are there some sort of restrictions on when and how they can do it?
You can't punch to the head. I think attempting a body punch would just leave you too open to a kick at the top levels.
It strikes me like the pyjama wrestling. If a normal person were to engage with a world class judo player they would be on their arse in seconds, but at the highest level they seem to spend a lot of time cancelling each other out.
I'm going to stick to the diving, GB seem to score when I'm not watching...
That and when SeanT predicts failure.... Both of you keep it up!
lol. I am often ridiculously rubbish at sports predix
I've worked out my problem. When I am emotionally over-invested in something happening, I presume and predict the opposite outcome, as a kind of hedge against disappointment. e.g. I really want Team GB to do well, so I predicted they would flop in Rio
I do the same for English rugby, sometimes the cricket, and most rightwing political victories
And Scottish Independence, though frankly I think I'm the same.
Actually Sindyref is one I called right. I stuck by my early prediction of a narrow NO win, and I was vindicated.
Yes, thanks from me too Jack. Despite all the doubters, SeanT et al, I was heavily into the 40% - 45% Yes band, largely on account of your unwavering conviction as regards the final outcome.
Oi!
I had YES at 47.1 (out by 2.42) and turnout at 82.83 (out by just 1.76) - which, combined, probably puts me in the top ten percent of regular commenters?
Whatever! We won! Where's my money Union Divvie?
Can I also politely call attention to a certain Mister antifrank of this manor, who is FOURTH FROM BOTTOM, having predicted a YES vote of 57%.
If I was a client, and he was my lawyer, I'd be a tad concerned.
(and EDIT: I was closer to the final result than JackW's notorious ARSE)
I swear, raving on behalf of or against Thatcher to get almost sexually excited seems about the only thing dinosaurs from the 70s and 80s and children who think they are revolutionaries or the new Thatcher agree upon - we should create a permanent space where these bozos can drone on attacking or defending Thatcher to their heart's content while everyone else gets on with modern problems.
Comments
As a father of two very young girls (2 years for one, and 2 months for the other) I have this to look forward to. I'd like to hope that when they are older they have been brought up with self respect and to know their own boundaries but it will be their choices ultimately.
While I might want a shotgun when they're older, the idea they should be compelled to cover up by a man or a priest is abhorrent.
OMG - Daley's entry was superb - and he goes into the lead after 3rd dive.
I used to be obsessed by hockey and I wanted to be Imran Sherwani
What she quoted depended on a shallow universalisation of "freedom" and "compulsion" at opposite poles. Well that won't do. Examine the social pressures that cause people to wear this kind of clothing rather than that; their views on sexuality and what is decent; your own views on what you consider to be decent and acceptable in what context; how those views are mediated through social institutions; what is acceptable for men and what is acceptable for women; and how people (such as yourself) tolerate or do not tolerate other people acting in accordance with their own views, in what context. THAT, my friends, is the area in which this discussion should take place. Yes it is about sexuality.
To propose a position that depends most of all on polarised concepts of "freedom" and "compulsion" is to dodge the difficulties and in fact to provide a cover for prejudice.
We are all prejudiced to some extent. Hiding it behind shouts of "freedom" isn't persuasive.
You can turn on the TV in the morning and watch smiling presenters defend the right to cheat on your spouse, etc. You can indeed watch hordes of young women dressed like sluts in public if you go to a city centre on a Friday or Saturday evening. I'm right about that, and it's relevant. Deal with the issues and appreciate why people wear these or those clothes in what contexts and why behaviour differs across cultures.
The issue cannot be resolved by relying most of all on Tory and Women's Institute concepts of "freedom" and "compulsion" most of all.
(to be continued)
Right, so say I own a theatre that's putting on a play. I can allow women in the audience to wear hijabs if I want, right? We're talking about a Tory paradise where the rights of property owners are paramount. Tickets may have been sold publicly, but the theatre is not a public place. People are there because they have agreed a contract with me, the owner. Now say hijabs are banned publicly, as some wish. Ladies wishing to watch the play may wear hijabs, yes, without breaking the law? Is it OK if they park in the car park and walk to the foyer? Or does that depend on whether I own the car park? How about getting out of a car in front of the theatre and crossing the pavement? Is that OK? Or if they wish to wear hijabs in the theatre, must they arrive without them, necks bared to male onlookers, hair too, and then put them on once they're inside?
Perhaps you want the police outside shaking their heads as women get out of cars wearing hijabs, saying "More neck, please, love" and "I can't see your hair". And SeanT, please don't tell me I'm setting up a straw man argument. I'm not. The hijab is an item of clothing designed to cover up a woman's hair, neck, sternum and cleavage. Or is it OK if a nun does it but not a Moooslim?
Half time, 2-2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1908_Summer_Olympics_medal_table
Until recently most women one saw in London wearing burqas were the wives of ultra-rich sheikhs from the Gulf. Ban the burqa and they probably wouldn't let their wives out of the home at all.
Another consideration here is the prevalence of sexual hypocrisy among Muslim men. And where are the limits of criminalising social pressures that are considered to be harmful?
Then there's the Jewish burqa.
Truly the most pressing of global examples of the problem.
Bit hot-tempered in here today. Can I suggest having a calm relaxing read of this classic book about blowing other people's brains out, instead?
That link is to a beautifully scanned edition of Sniping in France by Hesketh Vernon Hesketh-Prichard, DSO, MC, FRGS, FZS - British explorer, adventurer, big-game hunter, marksman, and possessor of an absolutely top-notch name to boot. Guest appearance by John Buchan! For those with an interest in travel literature, Hesketh-Prichard also wrote an account of his trek across Haiti in 1899 - apparently the first white man to cross the interior of the island since it had been transformed into a republic ruled by former slaves in the 1803 revolution. That book is also available online, with the charmingly politically-correct title Where Black Rules White.
I think that those who think that the burqa is simply an issue of allowing Muslim women the freedom to wear a piece of religious or cultural clothing are the ones in danger of being shallow and missing what lies behind the push to impose a very limited and fundamentalist view of what Islam is and what that means for those Western countries with significant Muslim communities.
Anyway, thanks for the debate and have a good weekend all.
...at the start of the 2015 Trent Bridge Test.
My view from that is that it's a critical mass thing, people wouldn't wear them in eg. Bradford if no-one else did - but when lots are wearing them there are pressures on individuals to conform.
It's like appointing Hannibal as military commander and expecting to win a war
"The group, which was estimated to number around 100 in 2008 and several hundred in 2011, is concentrated in the town of Beit Shemesh."
So not exactly 'coming to a street near you', is it.
You're trying too hard and it's getting painful to watch.
Kicky kicky seems similar.
Omg, I beginning to sound like John Looney...
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/09/20/the-winner-of-the-indyref-competition-is/
Edit: or at least that's what the stats say, is that really right? It could be.
In Sheffield...
Extra time or straight to penalties if it's level at the end?
It's how the Germans lost against the Dutch
EDIT - phew
I swear, raving on behalf of or against Thatcher to get almost sexually excited seems about the only thing dinosaurs from the 70s and 80s and children who think they are revolutionaries or the new Thatcher agree upon - we should create a permanent space where these bozos can drone on attacking or defending Thatcher to their heart's content while everyone else gets on with modern problems.
I'm in my 40s.
Might be nice if people tried to move on and deal with the issues of 21st century, rather than the mid to late 1980s.