''f*** off. It's a symbol of male oppression and nothing to be celebrated.
As a poster under that article said, muslims seem to be obsessed with female 'modesty', and any form of head covering in this context carries with it the implication that women who don;t wear it are immodest.
These are political statements, not items of clothing.
Chicago university tells generation snowflake to bugger off. Hopefully the Ivy League and California colleges follow suit.
These kids are in for a shock when they get to the real world. The local radio here has been running a story on a survey of graduates entering the job market this Autumn.
Apparently, the biggest factor in deciding where to work is apparently work/life balance, even more so than the salary. For graduate trainee jobs!
If some snowflake asked me that in an interview they'd get a reply along the lines that work and life will be balanced, we won't be asking more than 50% of the hours in a week from them! Before politely placing their CV in the round filing cabinet under the desk.
They also don't seem to understand that the employers choose them, rather than the other way around!
I note out of interest that he was Duke, Marquess and Earl of Wellington and Viscount Wellington, but not Baron Wellington. Not a lot of people know that.
Although he only needs the one word: Wellington.
There is an anecdote about his son, towards the end of his great father's life, who lamented something along the lines of "imagine how people will feel when 'the Duke of Wellington' is announced and only I walk in".
''f*** off. It's a symbol of male oppression and nothing to be celebrated.
As a poster under that article said, muslims seem to be obsessed with female 'modesty', and any form of head covering in this context carries with it the implication that women who don;t wear it are immodest.
These are political statements, not items of clothing.
Burqas are just weird, creepy and sinister.
To try and take any anti Muslim feeling out of it, consider how one might feel if a white, English Christian moved in next door and forbade you from looking at or talking to his wife, then a week or so later you noticed she was covered head to toe in dark robes whenever she left the house. I'd think they were a couple of oddballs, and would like it if they moved.
Sources close to the company warned that short notice and previous incidents at the event, including staff being spat at and verbally abused, made it impossible for G4S to accept the offer.
Kinder gentler politics...imagine their reaction if Tories were found doing this to minimum wage workers for just doing their job.
''f*** off. It's a symbol of male oppression and nothing to be celebrated.
As a poster under that article said, muslims seem to be obsessed with female 'modesty', and any form of head covering in this context carries with it the implication that women who don;t wear it are immodest.
These are political statements, not items of clothing.
do you really think govts should be regulating clothing, whatever the motivation?
Sources close to the company warned that short notice and previous incidents at the event, including staff being spat at and verbally abused, made it impossible for G4S to accept the offer.
What were Labour expecting, that after all the abuse G4S would let them roll over and tickle their tummy? Best case scenario was they would come up with a quote and put a zero on the end. Labour really couldn't run a bath right now.
Sources close to the company warned that short notice and previous incidents at the event, including staff being spat at and verbally abused, made it impossible for G4S to accept the offer.
Kinder gentler politics...
Wasn’t there a journalist who was all in favour of oafs spitting on people – Guardian I think.
''f*** off. It's a symbol of male oppression and nothing to be celebrated.
As a poster under that article said, muslims seem to be obsessed with female 'modesty', and any form of head covering in this context carries with it the implication that women who don;t wear it are immodest.
These are political statements, not items of clothing.
do you really think govts should be regulating clothing, whatever the motivation?
They do for motorcyclists (helmets) on the grounds of safety - indeed, safety regulations dictate a lot of clothing requirements.
I think in general governments should regulate as little as possible, but in these days of terrorism and crime, it is justifiable to require that the face be visible.
Private insurance is a non-starter as the bulk of a patient's costs are in the last 18 months or so of life.
With you on the German system. We cannot fix the NHS as it currently stands. It has to satisfy infinite demand with a finite budget.
I had heard similar figures (50% in the last 6 months) so I did a little digging. An interesting article from NIH analyzing claims data for 3.75 million insurees. Only 12% is spent on over 85s, largely because the cohort is so much smaller, many having died before then.
On the other hand, 5% of those who are in critical care, which presumably includes many older people in the last days of their lives, and many younger trauma patients who do not survive, accounts for 50% of medical spending. [These figures are from the prestigious Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and show that most recipients in this 5% are neonates with complications and the elderly)
Another study, looking just at Medicare funding (provided for patients over 65, with end stage renal disease or on social security disability payments), shows that 30% is spent is spent on the 5% who die that year, and that one third of that expenditure is on the last month of life. Further, the study shows that those patients who received less medical care in that period ended up with better death experiences ...
That's very useful. Thank you! I'll see if I can dig out my sources. Not very organised these days.
IIRC, from the days when I had to work with such figures the “average" over 70 year old has roughly ten times as many prescriptions per annum as the average 45 year old.
Chicago university tells generation snowflake to bugger off. Hopefully the Ivy League and California colleges follow suit.
These kids are in for a shock when they get to the real world. The local radio here has been running a story on a survey of graduates entering the job market this Autumn.
Apparently, the biggest factor in deciding where to work is apparently work/life balance, even more so than the salary. For graduate trainee jobs!
If some snowflake asked me that in an interview they'd get a reply along the lines that work and life will be balanced, we won't be asking more than 50% of the hours in a week from them! Before politely placing their CV in the round filing cabinet under the desk.
They also don't seem to understand that the employers choose them, rather than the other way around!
''f*** off. It's a symbol of male oppression and nothing to be celebrated.
As a poster under that article said, muslims seem to be obsessed with female 'modesty', and any form of head covering in this context carries with it the implication that women who don;t wear it are immodest.
These are political statements, not items of clothing.
do you really think govts should be regulating clothing, whatever the motivation?
At the extremes, yes - or at least, they should have the right to. Obscenity, health and safety and public decency are all reasons that most will find legitimate for governments to regulate clothing to some degree. Social or cultural reasons are far more tricky and will inevitably divide libertarians from conservatives but I think there's a good argument for banning any face covering other than where justified by compelling health and safety reasons (motorbike helmets while riding, for example)
''f*** off. It's a symbol of male oppression and nothing to be celebrated.
As a poster under that article said, muslims seem to be obsessed with female 'modesty', and any form of head covering in this context carries with it the implication that women who don;t wear it are immodest.
These are political statements, not items of clothing.
do you really think govts should be regulating clothing, whatever the motivation?
There is an organisation in the middle East that wants to take over and destroy the western way of life. They demand their women are covered head to toe in burqas, niqabs whatever they are called. So refusing to allow such clothing to be worn here would be one way of outlawing potential support ,stealth though that support may be
Sources close to the company warned that short notice and previous incidents at the event, including staff being spat at and verbally abused, made it impossible for G4S to accept the offer.
What were Labour expecting, that after all the abuse G4S would let them roll over and tickle their tummy? Best case scenario was they would come up with a quote and put a zero on the end. Labour really couldn't run a bath right now.
Did make me chuckle the virgin train trolling...20% off for labourites, extra 5% off for Tories.
''f*** off. It's a symbol of male oppression and nothing to be celebrated.
As a poster under that article said, muslims seem to be obsessed with female 'modesty', and any form of head covering in this context carries with it the implication that women who don;t wear it are immodest.
These are political statements, not items of clothing.
I seem to recall St Paul saying something like “if a woman be not covered, let her be shorn” and certainly in my youth women normally wore hats in Church, although not so much in Chapel.
''f*** off. It's a symbol of male oppression and nothing to be celebrated.
As a poster under that article said, muslims seem to be obsessed with female 'modesty', and any form of head covering in this context carries with it the implication that women who don;t wear it are immodest.
These are political statements, not items of clothing.
do you really think govts should be regulating clothing, whatever the motivation?
The wearing of a swastika is banned in both France and Germany, so it already happens.
Sources close to the company warned that short notice and previous incidents at the event, including staff being spat at and verbally abused, made it impossible for G4S to accept the offer.
Kinder gentler politics...
Wasn’t there a journalist who was all in favour of oafs spitting on people – Guardian I think.
Aurelian had the title Restorer of the World, which he probably deserved.
Didn't stop him getting murdered in odd circumstances, alas. I do wonder if the tetrarchy would have come in had he reigned for a decade more.
I've discovered a fun character for your blog, Empress Irene. Empress Regent of the Byzantine Empire from 780-792, Co-Ruler from 792-797 and Empress Regnant from 797-802. She was suspected of having had her husband murdered. She only permitted her son Constantine to come to the Throne, upon condition that he proclaimed her to be co-Ruler, and then later had him blinded so brutally, when he showed signs of truculence, that he died shortly afterwards. She then usurped the Throne, and ruled on her own for five years. Constantine himself was a charmer, who liked to rip out the tongues of people who upset him, as well as ordering the usual blindings and geldings.
Irene is much revered in the Orthodox Church for restoring icons to places of veneration.
''I seem to recall St Paul saying something like “if a woman be not covered, let her be shorn” and certainly in my youth woemn normally wore hats in Church, although not so much in Chapel. ''
You take what was written in biblical times seriously? Still, I'm sure many radical muslims would agree with you. They still live in the past.
an incoming hostile president (Trump?) can kill Obamacare overnight by resetting the 'tax rate' on it to zero.
I believe Congress has already prohibited the IRS from expending any resources on collecting the penalty for failing to purchase health insurance.
Really? Obamacare is already dead then.
Not quite. The IRS can withhold the tax rebates due to those who haven't bought insurance. But it is dying, visibly:
19 April: UnitedHealthcare (the largest single healthcare insurer) to withdraw from all but a handful of Obamacare exchanges 17 August: Aetna announces it will withdraw from 70% of Obamacare exchanges 24 August: Oscar Health Insurance to withdraw from NJ market
My own insurer dropped out of the market in January. Fortunately, my policy was automatically transferred to another company.
''f*** off. It's a symbol of male oppression and nothing to be celebrated.
As a poster under that article said, muslims seem to be obsessed with female 'modesty', and any form of head covering in this context carries with it the implication that women who don;t wear it are immodest.
These are political statements, not items of clothing.
do you really think govts should be regulating clothing, whatever the motivation?
They do for motorcyclists (helmets) on the grounds of safety - indeed, safety regulations dictate a lot of clothing requirements.
I think in general governments should regulate as little as possible, but in these days of terrorism and crime, it is justifiable to require that the face be visible.
''The wearing of a swastika is banned in both France and Germany, so it already happens.''
True but that's a symbol. Imagine EDL supporters wearing jodhpurs and jackboots, and goose stepping around the place.
Hey they're just trousers and shoes, right? they;re just protecting themselves from the elements!! they don;t mean anything by it! We should be able to wear what we want!
''f*** off. It's a symbol of male oppression and nothing to be celebrated.
As a poster under that article said, muslims seem to be obsessed with female 'modesty', and any form of head covering in this context carries with it the implication that women who don;t wear it are immodest.
These are political statements, not items of clothing.
do you really think govts should be regulating clothing, whatever the motivation?
The wearing of a swastika is banned in both France and Germany, so it already happens.
''f*** off. It's a symbol of male oppression and nothing to be celebrated.
As a poster under that article said, muslims seem to be obsessed with female 'modesty', and any form of head covering in this context carries with it the implication that women who don;t wear it are immodest.
These are political statements, not items of clothing.
do you really think govts should be regulating clothing, whatever the motivation?
They do for motorcyclists (helmets) on the grounds of safety - indeed, safety regulations dictate a lot of clothing requirements.
I think in general governments should regulate as little as possible, but in these days of terrorism and crime, it is justifiable to require that the face be visible.
isn't the face visible with the burqini (sp?)?
With the Hijab yes, with the niqab, not so much...
''I seem to recall St Paul saying something like “if a woman be not covered, let her be shorn” and certainly in my youth woemn normally wore hats in Church, although not so much in Chapel. ''
You take what was written in biblical times seriously? Still, I'm sure many radical muslims would agree with you. They still live in the past.
Do you go out of your way to misread people’s posts or does it come naturally?
I was endeavouring to make the point that until relatively recently Christians expected women to cover their heads when engaged in religious practices. I am neither a Christian (now) nor a Muslim/
''f*** off. It's a symbol of male oppression and nothing to be celebrated.
As a poster under that article said, muslims seem to be obsessed with female 'modesty', and any form of head covering in this context carries with it the implication that women who don;t wear it are immodest.
These are political statements, not items of clothing.
do you really think govts should be regulating clothing, whatever the motivation?
They do for motorcyclists (helmets) on the grounds of safety - indeed, safety regulations dictate a lot of clothing requirements.
I think in general governments should regulate as little as possible, but in these days of terrorism and crime, it is justifiable to require that the face be visible.
isn't the face visible with the burqini (sp?)?
With the Hijab yes, with the niqab, not so much...
''f*** off. It's a symbol of male oppression and nothing to be celebrated.
As a poster under that article said, muslims seem to be obsessed with female 'modesty', and any form of head covering in this context carries with it the implication that women who don;t wear it are immodest.
These are political statements, not items of clothing.
do you really think govts should be regulating clothing, whatever the motivation?
There is an organisation in the middle East that wants to take over and destroy the western way of life. They demand their women are covered head to toe in burqas, niqabs whatever they are called. So refusing to allow such clothing to be worn here would be one way of outlawing potential support ,stealth though that support may be
wearing clothes on a beach is not destroying anything.
certain people would like to restrict the rights of muslims. they are entitled to express that opinion
''f*** off. It's a symbol of male oppression and nothing to be celebrated.
As a poster under that article said, muslims seem to be obsessed with female 'modesty', and any form of head covering in this context carries with it the implication that women who don;t wear it are immodest.
These are political statements, not items of clothing.
do you really think govts should be regulating clothing, whatever the motivation?
The wearing of a swastika is banned in both France and Germany, so it already happens.
well, they ought to repeal that law then, imo
Its a case of what some people, who tend to be university educated elites, think versus what the normal man in the street thinks of as common sense.
If ISIS made all their men wear eyepatches, and then lots of muslim men in the UK started wearing them too, would you think it offensive to peoples liberty if the UK govt made wearing eyepatches illegal?
''f*** off. It's a symbol of male oppression and nothing to be celebrated.
As a poster under that article said, muslims seem to be obsessed with female 'modesty', and any form of head covering in this context carries with it the implication that women who don;t wear it are immodest.
These are political statements, not items of clothing.
do you really think govts should be regulating clothing, whatever the motivation?
There is an organisation in the middle East that wants to take over and destroy the western way of life. They demand their women are covered head to toe in burqas, niqabs whatever they are called. So refusing to allow such clothing to be worn here would be one way of outlawing potential support ,stealth though that support may be
wearing clothes on a beach is not destroying anything.
certain people would like to restrict the rights of muslims. they are entitled to express that opinion
''f*** off. It's a symbol of male oppression and nothing to be celebrated.
As a poster under that article said, muslims seem to be obsessed with female 'modesty', and any form of head covering in this context carries with it the implication that women who don;t wear it are immodest.
These are political statements, not items of clothing.
I seem to recall St Paul saying something like “if a woman be not covered, let her be shorn” and certainly in my youth women normally wore hats in Church, although not so much in Chapel.
If you don't wear a hat, you need to shave your bits????
''I was endeavouring to make the point that until relatively recently Christians expected women to cover their heads when engaged in religious practices. I am neither a Christian (now) nor a Muslim''
If that is your point, I'm not even sure its correct. I can't think of a time when women were hounded out of churches for not wearing a nice hat.
Since when was being at work or on the beach being engaged in religious practices? Muslim women reserve the right to wear the veil at all times. Why? because they believe in the concept of female 'modesty' and want to shove it down our throats.
''f*** off. It's a symbol of male oppression and nothing to be celebrated.
As a poster under that article said, muslims seem to be obsessed with female 'modesty', and any form of head covering in this context carries with it the implication that women who don;t wear it are immodest.
These are political statements, not items of clothing.
do you really think govts should be regulating clothing, whatever the motivation?
The wearing of a swastika is banned in both France and Germany, so it already happens.
well, they ought to repeal that law then, imo
Its a case of what some people, who tend to be university educated elites, think versus what the normal man in the street thinks of as common sense.
If ISIS made all their men wear eyepatches, and then lots of muslim men in the UK started wearing them too, would you think it offensive to peoples liberty if the UK govt made wearing eyepatches illegal?
Meanwhile, whilst we discuss an idiotic ban on burkinis, this sums up the West's approach to fixating on the trivial whilst denying the obvious: "They have confirmed that a man shouted "Allahu Akbar" during the attack, but said there is no indication that radicalisation or political motives were involved."
''f*** off. It's a symbol of male oppression and nothing to be celebrated.
As a poster under that article said, muslims seem to be obsessed with female 'modesty', and any form of head covering in this context carries with it the implication that women who don;t wear it are immodest.
These are political statements, not items of clothing.
do you really think govts should be regulating clothing, whatever the motivation?
There is an organisation in the middle East that wants to take over and destroy the western way of life. They demand their women are covered head to toe in burqas, niqabs whatever they are called. So refusing to allow such clothing to be worn here would be one way of outlawing potential support ,stealth though that support may be
wearing clothes on a beach is not destroying anything.
certain people would like to restrict the rights of muslims. they are entitled to express that opinion
''f*** off. It's a symbol of male oppression and nothing to be celebrated.
As a poster under that article said, muslims seem to be obsessed with female 'modesty', and any form of head covering in this context carries with it the implication that women who don;t wear it are immodest.
These are political statements, not items of clothing.
I seem to recall St Paul saying something like “if a woman be not covered, let her be shorn” and certainly in my youth women normally wore hats in Church, although not so much in Chapel.
If you don't wear a hat, you need to shave your bits????
Meanwhile, whilst we discuss an idiotic ban on burkinis, this sums up the West's approach to fixating on the trivial whilst denying the obvious: "They have confirmed that a man shouted "Allahu Akbar" during the attack, but said there is no indication that radicalisation or political motives were involved."
I notice how little coverage the Islamic reader chap murder has got...ISIS supporters, and one has fled to Syria, apparently murdered all because he practiced some healing technique....after being told it seemed mostly like a "backlash" attack.
I somehow doubt the coverage would be so low key if had turned out to be said backlash.
Mr. Urquhart, very little indeed, but the BBC did (down the running order) at least make plain it was ISIS supporters who did it.
The cowardice and incompetence of politicians may take Europe down a very dark path. If mainstream parties won't accept reality, voters will look beyond the mainstream.
''f*** off. It's a symbol of male oppression and nothing to be celebrated.
As a poster under that article said, muslims seem to be obsessed with female 'modesty', and any form of head covering in this context carries with it the implication that women who don;t wear it are immodest.
These are political statements, not items of clothing.
do you really think govts should be regulating clothing, whatever the motivation?
They do for motorcyclists (helmets) on the grounds of safety - indeed, safety regulations dictate a lot of clothing requirements.
I think in general governments should regulate as little as possible, but in these days of terrorism and crime, it is justifiable to require that the face be visible.
isn't the face visible with the burqini (sp?)?
Yes. Subject to H&S regulations, I don't have a particular problem with them myself. The full burqa, including niqab (I think? The veil anyway), is a different matter.
''f*** off. It's a symbol of male oppression and nothing to be celebrated.
As a poster under that article said, muslims seem to be obsessed with female 'modesty', and any form of head covering in this context carries with it the implication that women who don;t wear it are immodest.
These are political statements, not items of clothing.
do you really think govts should be regulating clothing, whatever the motivation?
There is an organisation in the middle East that wants to take over and destroy the western way of life. They demand their women are covered head to toe in burqas, niqabs whatever they are called. So refusing to allow such clothing to be worn here would be one way of outlawing potential support ,stealth though that support may be
wearing clothes on a beach is not destroying anything.
certain people would like to restrict the rights of muslims. they are entitled to express that opinion
In Muslim majority countries, the Islamists want you to wear what they tell you. When they are a minority in non-Muslim countries, they want to wear what they want to.
''I'm interested to know where this new French law leaves people who go diving. There's very little difference between the burqini and a diver's wetsuit, from what I can see.''
Try diving in a burkini in Britain in January, and you will see the difference. That's if the exposure isn;t too bad.
A diving suit traps a layer of water between it and your skin, which the body warms up. Ie It looks like that to perform a function.
''f*** off. It's a symbol of male oppression and nothing to be celebrated.
As a poster under that article said, muslims seem to be obsessed with female 'modesty', and any form of head covering in this context carries with it the implication that women who don;t wear it are immodest.
These are political statements, not items of clothing.
I seem to recall St Paul saying something like “if a woman be not covered, let her be shorn” and certainly in my youth women normally wore hats in Church, although not so much in Chapel.
If you don't wear a hat, you need to shave your bits????
It's a shame the Greeks got hold of early Christianity. They were misogynistic to the core.
''f*** off. It's a symbol of male oppression and nothing to be celebrated.
As a poster under that article said, muslims seem to be obsessed with female 'modesty', and any form of head covering in this context carries with it the implication that women who don;t wear it are immodest.
These are political statements, not items of clothing.
do you really think govts should be regulating clothing, whatever the motivation?
The wearing of a swastika is banned in both France and Germany, so it already happens.
well, they ought to repeal that law then, imo
Its a case of what some people, who tend to be university educated elites, think versus what the normal man in the street thinks of as common sense.
If ISIS made all their men wear eyepatches, and then lots of muslim men in the UK started wearing them too, would you think it offensive to peoples liberty if the UK govt made wearing eyepatches illegal?
i can't tell if you're serious or not
Is that pseudo-intellectual for "I am so clever I am pretending not to understand that"?
''I'm interested to know where this new French law leaves people who go diving. There's very little difference between the burqini and a diver's wetsuit, from what I can see.''
Try diving in a burkini in Britain in January, and you will see the difference. That's if the exposure isn;t too bad. n A diving suit traps a layer of water between it and your skin, which the body warms up. Ie It looks like that to perform a function.
What is the Burkini's function?
I should think it's pretty good against sunburn.
but probably it is mainly a political/cultural symbol. do you want to ban these?
Chicago university tells generation snowflake to bugger off. Hopefully the Ivy League and California colleges follow suit.
These kids are in for a shock when they get to the real world. The local radio here has been running a story on a survey of graduates entering the job market this Autumn.
Apparently, the biggest factor in deciding where to work is apparently work/life balance, even more so than the salary. For graduate trainee jobs!
If some snowflake asked me that in an interview they'd get a reply along the lines that work and life will be balanced, we won't be asking more than 50% of the hours in a week from them! Before politely placing their CV in the round filing cabinet under the desk.
They also don't seem to understand that the employers choose them, rather than the other way around!
Surely it works both ways for many jobs. If you have a skill that is in demand or show good potential, then it's likely that you'll be able to choose from a number of job offers. I've been in that situation in the past, and I certainly wouldn't have chosen to work for a boss with your attitude!
''well, they ought to repeal that law then, imo ''
Goodness me no. The Swastika is a symbol, its not an item of clothing. Its not even nominally functional, and was never meant to be.
My view the veil is more like a badge than an item of clothing. And its a badge that says 'women should be modest'.
No - it is a device that excludes them from mainstream society, an instrument of control.
Nazis made people wear clothes that identified them as an inferior part of the species not to be mixed with. Extremist Islamists wear clothes that identify people not wearing them as inferior.
''f*** off. It's a symbol of male oppression and nothing to be celebrated.
As a poster under that article said, muslims seem to be obsessed with female 'modesty', and any form of head covering in this context carries with it the implication that women who don;t wear it are immodest.
These are political statements, not items of clothing.
do you really think govts should be regulating clothing, whatever the motivation?
There is an organisation in the middle East that wants to take over and destroy the western way of life. They demand their women are covered head to toe in burqas, niqabs whatever they are called. So refusing to allow such clothing to be worn here would be one way of outlawing potential support ,stealth though that support may be
wearing clothes on a beach is not destroying anything.
certain people would like to restrict the rights of muslims. they are entitled to express that opinion
In Muslim majority countries, the Islamists want you to wear what they tell you. When they are a minority in non-Muslim countries, they want to wear what they want to.
''f*** off. It's a symbol of male oppression and nothing to be celebrated.
As a poster under that article said, muslims seem to be obsessed with female 'modesty', and any form of head covering in this context carries with it the implication that women who don;t wear it are immodest.
These are political statements, not items of clothing.
do you really think govts should be regulating clothing, whatever the motivation?
The wearing of a swastika is banned in both France and Germany, so it already happens.
well, they ought to repeal that law then, imo
Its a case of what some people, who tend to be university educated elites, think versus what the normal man in the street thinks of as common sense.
If ISIS made all their men wear eyepatches, and then lots of muslim men in the UK started wearing them too, would you think it offensive to peoples liberty if the UK govt made wearing eyepatches illegal?
i can't tell if you're serious or not
Is that pseudo-intellectual for "I am so clever I am pretending not to understand that"?
you seemed to be employing reductio ad absurdum without appreciating the absurdity, so i wondered if it was a double bluff. obviously not
''I'm interested to know where this new French law leaves people who go diving. There's very little difference between the burqini and a diver's wetsuit, from what I can see.''
Try diving in a burkini in Britain in January, and you will see the difference. That's if the exposure isn;t too bad.
A diving suit traps a layer of water between it and your skin, which the body warms up. Ie It looks like that to perform a function.
What is the Burkini's function?
Obviously there is a difference, but not that great in visual terms. Do people ever start off on diving trips from a beach? Will they be allowed to wear their wetsuits before they are away from the shore?
If they are, then erstwhile burqini wearers can presumably change to a wetsuit and avoid prosecution.
Nuns are members of a specific religious order - not ordinary members of the public. They are not equivalent. If there were female only Islamic orders who wore a similar attire, I'd have no problem.
The niqab and burka have no place in our society - full stop. Headscarves are okay.
''f*** off. It's a symbol of male oppression and nothing to be celebrated.
As a poster under that article said, muslims seem to be obsessed with female 'modesty', and any form of head covering in this context carries with it the implication that women who don;t wear it are immodest.
These are political statements, not items of clothing.
do you really think govts should be regulating clothing, whatever the motivation?
They do for motorcyclists (helmets) on the grounds of safety - indeed, safety regulations dictate a lot of clothing requirements.
I think in general governments should regulate as little as possible, but in these days of terrorism and crime, it is justifiable to require that the face be visible.
''I'm interested to know where this new French law leaves people who go diving. There's very little difference between the burqini and a diver's wetsuit, from what I can see.''
Try diving in a burkini in Britain in January, and you will see the difference. That's if the exposure isn;t too bad.
A diving suit traps a layer of water between it and your skin, which the body warms up. Ie It looks like that to perform a function.
What is the Burkini's function?
Obviously there is a difference, but not that great in visual terms. Do people ever start off on diving trips from a beach? Will they be allowed to wear their wetsuits before they are away from the shore?
If they are, then erstwhile burqini wearers can presumably change to a wetsuit and avoid prosecution.
At a cost in terms of comfort.
For me the dividing line (if you'll exclude the pun) is the face. Cover your hair and wear a three piece suit on the beach for all I care. But covering the face sets you apart from society.
Chicago university tells generation snowflake to bugger off. Hopefully the Ivy League and California colleges follow suit.
These kids are in for a shock when they get to the real world. The local radio here has been running a story on a survey of graduates entering the job market this Autumn.
Apparently, the biggest factor in deciding where to work is apparently work/life balance, even more so than the salary. For graduate trainee jobs!
If some snowflake asked me that in an interview they'd get a reply along the lines that work and life will be balanced, we won't be asking more than 50% of the hours in a week from them! Before politely placing their CV in the round filing cabinet under the desk.
They also don't seem to understand that the employers choose them, rather than the other way around!
Surely it works both ways for many jobs. If you have a skill that is in demand or show good potential, then it's likely that you'll be able to choose from a number of job offers. I've been in that situation in the past, and I certainly wouldn't have chosen to work for a boss with your attitude!
@ Sandpit Suggest you read Drive by Daniel Pink. In jobs requiring non-routine tasks, such as creativity and problem-solving, companies that give employees autonomy (over hours, tasks, methods and team mates) - which includes setting a good work/life balance - fair far better than those who are controlling, requiring particular hours be kept or too closely monitoring work methods.
Given these are graduates, hopefully they are entering the information economy rather than doing grunt work. If so, they are perhaps onto something that we old codgers have missed - to our own and our companies' detriment.
I've nothing against demanding that all people follow the rule of law.
But when we make laws dictating what exactly people are permitted to wear, it's a good sign that we are drifting away from being a tolerant society. Let's not follow the French example.
''f*** off. It's a symbol of male oppression and nothing to be celebrated.
As a poster under that article said, muslims seem to be obsessed with female 'modesty', and any form of head covering in this context carries with it the implication that women who don;t wear it are immodest.
These are political statements, not items of clothing.
do you really think govts should be regulating clothing, whatever the motivation?
The wearing of a swastika is banned in both France and Germany, so it already happens.
well, they ought to repeal that law then, imo
Its a case of what some people, who tend to be university educated elites, think versus what the normal man in the street thinks of as common sense.
If ISIS made all their men wear eyepatches, and then lots of muslim men in the UK started wearing them too, would you think it offensive to peoples liberty if the UK govt made wearing eyepatches illegal?
i can't tell if you're serious or not
Is that pseudo-intellectual for "I am so clever I am pretending not to understand that"?
you seemed to be employing reductio ad absurdum without appreciating the absurdity, so i wondered if it was a double bluff. obviously not
I've nothing against demanding that all people follow the rule of law.
But when we make laws dictating what exactly people are permitted to wear, it's a good sign that we are drifting away from being a tolerant society. Let's not follow the French example.
I've nothing against demanding that all people follow the rule of law.
But when we make laws dictating what exactly people are permitted to wear, it's a good sign that we are drifting away from being a tolerant society. Let's not follow the French example.
In England, we've always had the attitude of do what you like unless it harms other people. Giving evidence in court wearing a 'bag' would be impossible, because the judge can't see your face. At other times, ... wear it if you really must.
Mr. Enjineeya, I agree that the burkini ban should not exist. I think there's a valid case for a niqab/burkha ban, on grounds of communication, identification, security and a very low level of common culture.
It's not asking people to do as the Romans do and prance around in toga and sandals, just to vaguely take into account the British culture [which would be rather easier if New Labour hadn't spent so long banging on about multi-culturalism].
''I'm interested to know where this new French law leaves people who go diving. There's very little difference between the burqini and a diver's wetsuit, from what I can see.''
Try diving in a burkini in Britain in January, and you will see the difference. That's if the exposure isn;t too bad.
A diving suit traps a layer of water between it and your skin, which the body warms up. Ie It looks like that to perform a function.
What is the Burkini's function?
Obviously there is a difference, but not that great in visual terms. Do people ever start off on diving trips from a beach? Will they be allowed to wear their wetsuits before they are away from the shore?
If they are, then erstwhile burqini wearers can presumably change to a wetsuit and avoid prosecution.
At a cost in terms of comfort.
For me the dividing line (if you'll exclude the pun) is the face. Cover your hair and wear a three piece suit on the beach for all I care. But covering the face sets you apart from society.
What about hoodies? They're often worn so as to cover most of the face.
''I'm interested to know where this new French law leaves people who go diving. There's very little difference between the burqini and a diver's wetsuit, from what I can see.''
Try diving in a burkini in Britain in January, and you will see the difference. That's if the exposure isn;t too bad.
A diving suit traps a layer of water between it and your skin, which the body warms up. Ie It looks like that to perform a function.
What is the Burkini's function?
Obviously there is a difference, but not that great in visual terms. Do people ever start off on diving trips from a beach? Will they be allowed to wear their wetsuits before they are away from the shore?
If they are, then erstwhile burqini wearers can presumably change to a wetsuit and avoid prosecution.
At a cost in terms of comfort.
For me the dividing line (if you'll exclude the pun) is the face. Cover your hair and wear a three piece suit on the beach for all I care. But covering the face sets you apart from society.
What about hoodies? They're often worn so as to cover most of the face.
''I'm interested to know where this new French law leaves people who go diving. There's very little difference between the burqini and a diver's wetsuit, from what I can see.''
Try diving in a burkini in Britain in January, and you will see the difference. That's if the exposure isn;t too bad.
A diving suit traps a layer of water between it and your skin, which the body warms up. Ie It looks like that to perform a function.
What is the Burkini's function?
Obviously there is a difference, but not that great in visual terms. Do people ever start off on diving trips from a beach? Will they be allowed to wear their wetsuits before they are away from the shore?
If they are, then erstwhile burqini wearers can presumably change to a wetsuit and avoid prosecution.
At a cost in terms of comfort.
For me the dividing line (if you'll exclude the pun) is the face. Cover your hair and wear a three piece suit on the beach for all I care. But covering the face sets you apart from society.
What about hoodies? They're often worn so as to cover most of the face.
and why do you think they are worn that way?
"Because he's fuck ugly!" - Nick Frost in 'Hot Fuzz'.
''I'm interested to know where this new French law leaves people who go diving. There's very little difference between the burqini and a diver's wetsuit, from what I can see.''
Try diving in a burkini in Britain in January, and you will see the difference. That's if the exposure isn;t too bad.
A diving suit traps a layer of water between it and your skin, which the body warms up. Ie It looks like that to perform a function.
What is the Burkini's function?
Obviously there is a difference, but not that great in visual terms. Do people ever start off on diving trips from a beach? Will they be allowed to wear their wetsuits before they are away from the shore?
If they are, then erstwhile burqini wearers can presumably change to a wetsuit and avoid prosecution.
At a cost in terms of comfort.
For me the dividing line (if you'll exclude the pun) is the face. Cover your hair and wear a three piece suit on the beach for all I care. But covering the face sets you apart from society.
What about hoodies? They're often worn so as to cover most of the face.
and why do you think they are worn that way?
For fashion reasons and to conceal identity. You want to ban them too?
The burkini is offensive as an idea and on the eyes.
Why shouldn't people be allowed to wear what they want?
Sure; ban covering the face in schools, or in banks, or court, etc.
But it's not the job of the government to tell the citizens what they should or should not wear.
Seems to me from what I understand that the Ataturk generally had the right idea (although it was only after revolution 1970s that it was made across genders). No place for this stuff in courts, government, schools, etc, but if you want to do that in your own personal life go ahead.
Comments
As a poster under that article said, muslims seem to be obsessed with female 'modesty', and any form of head covering in this context carries with it the implication that women who don;t wear it are immodest.
These are political statements, not items of clothing.
The Portugese titles are claimant only since the republic in 1910.
The local radio here has been running a story on a survey of graduates entering the job market this Autumn.
Apparently, the biggest factor in deciding where to work is apparently work/life balance, even more so than the salary. For graduate trainee jobs!
If some snowflake asked me that in an interview they'd get a reply along the lines that work and life will be balanced, we won't be asking more than 50% of the hours in a week from them! Before politely placing their CV in the round filing cabinet under the desk.
They also don't seem to understand that the employers choose them, rather than the other way around!
There is an anecdote about his son, towards the end of his great father's life, who lamented something along the lines of "imagine how people will feel when 'the Duke of Wellington' is announced and only I walk in".
Didn't stop him getting murdered in odd circumstances, alas. I do wonder if the tetrarchy would have come in had he reigned for a decade more.
To try and take any anti Muslim feeling out of it, consider how one might feel if a white, English Christian moved in next door and forbade you from looking at or talking to his wife, then a week or so later you noticed she was covered head to toe in dark robes whenever she left the house. I'd think they were a couple of oddballs, and would like it if they moved.
Kinder gentler politics...imagine their reaction if Tories were found doing this to minimum wage workers for just doing their job.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/08/labours-purge-how-it-works-and-what-it-means
Best case scenario was they would come up with a quote and put a zero on the end. Labour really couldn't run a bath right now.
I think in general governments should regulate as little as possible, but in these days of terrorism and crime, it is justifiable to require that the face be visible.
I seem to recall St Paul saying something like “if a woman be not covered, let her be shorn” and certainly in my youth women normally wore hats in Church, although not so much in Chapel.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/guardian-columnist-on-spitting-protesters-i-really-dont-have-a-problem-with-it/
I am sure that her spittle is so nectar-like that people are joyous at being her human spittoon.
Irene is much revered in the Orthodox Church for restoring icons to places of veneration.
You take what was written in biblical times seriously? Still, I'm sure many radical muslims would agree with you. They still live in the past.
I did a post on Macedonian She-Wolves. Maybe I should write one about Roman She-Wolves. She and Justinian's wife would be a good place to start.
Not quite. The IRS can withhold the tax rebates due to those who haven't bought insurance. But it is dying, visibly:
19 April: UnitedHealthcare (the largest single healthcare insurer) to withdraw from all but a handful of Obamacare exchanges
17 August: Aetna announces it will withdraw from 70% of Obamacare exchanges
24 August: Oscar Health Insurance to withdraw from NJ market
My own insurer dropped out of the market in January. Fortunately, my policy was automatically transferred to another company.
True but that's a symbol. Imagine EDL supporters wearing jodhpurs and jackboots, and goose stepping around the place.
Hey they're just trousers and shoes, right? they;re just protecting themselves from the elements!! they don;t mean anything by it! We should be able to wear what we want!
I was endeavouring to make the point that until relatively recently Christians expected women to cover their heads when engaged in religious practices. I am neither a Christian (now) nor a Muslim/
certain people would like to restrict the rights of muslims. they are entitled to express that opinion
If ISIS made all their men wear eyepatches, and then lots of muslim men in the UK started wearing them too, would you think it offensive to peoples liberty if the UK govt made wearing eyepatches illegal?
If that is your point, I'm not even sure its correct. I can't think of a time when women were hounded out of churches for not wearing a nice hat.
Since when was being at work or on the beach being engaged in religious practices? Muslim women reserve the right to wear the veil at all times. Why? because they believe in the concept of female 'modesty' and want to shove it down our throats.
"They have confirmed that a man shouted "Allahu Akbar" during the attack, but said there is no indication that radicalisation or political motives were involved."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-37182177
http://www.decathlon.co.uk/subea-55mm-for-men-blue-grey-id_8354115.html?iv_=__iv_p_1_g_25792495256_c_93735719216_w_pla-158257559576_n_g_d_c_v__l__t__r_1o6x_pla_y_15177021_f_online_o_2014965_z_GB_i_en_j_158257559576_s__e__h_9045325_ii__vi__&gclid=CO2f9Zrw3M4CFRATGwod-b8J9g
(edited to add: good afternoon, everyone.)
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/08/25/whole-british-television-set-monitored-diversity-new-scheme/
Incidentally, a French court is due to rule on the matter shortly.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37183083
I somehow doubt the coverage would be so low key if had turned out to be said backlash.
Goodness me no. The Swastika is a symbol, its not an item of clothing. Its not even nominally functional, and was never meant to be.
My view the veil is more like a badge than an item of clothing. And its a badge that says 'women should be modest'.
The cowardice and incompetence of politicians may take Europe down a very dark path. If mainstream parties won't accept reality, voters will look beyond the mainstream.
Mulholland Drive voted best film by group of drooling perverts
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/arts-entertainment/mulholland-drive-voted-best-film-by-group-of-drooling-perverts-20160824112867
Do you demand to see their ankles, or what?
(btw the burquini has no veil, I think, the face is uncovered)
Try diving in a burkini in Britain in January, and you will see the difference. That's if the exposure isn;t too bad.
A diving suit traps a layer of water between it and your skin, which the body warms up. Ie It looks like that to perform a function.
What is the Burkini's function?
https://www.morethanjustparks.com
Poor Agent Cooper, still pissed off by the ending
but probably it is mainly a political/cultural symbol. do you want to ban these?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper#The_paradox_of_tolerance
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/768454915211550720
Some men forcing women to wear it and some men forcing then not to.
Seems like a very good reason to let women wear it if they wish to.
If they are, then erstwhile burqini wearers can presumably change to a wetsuit and avoid prosecution.
Trump in 'bigoted woman' gaffe.
"if they wish to"
But that's the problem. If they are culturally "obliged" to wear it, they are not really being given a choice.
Nuns are members of a specific religious order - not ordinary members of the public. They are not equivalent. If there were female only Islamic orders who wore a similar attire, I'd have no problem.
The niqab and burka have no place in our society - full stop. Headscarves are okay.
Look at this radical British woman wearing one:
For me the dividing line (if you'll exclude the pun) is the face. Cover your hair and wear a three piece suit on the beach for all I care. But covering the face sets you apart from society.
Clinton 42 .. Trump 35
http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=7349
Given these are graduates, hopefully they are entering the information economy rather than doing grunt work. If so, they are perhaps onto something that we old codgers have missed - to our own and our companies' detriment.
But when we make laws dictating what exactly people are permitted to wear, it's a good sign that we are drifting away from being a tolerant society. Let's not follow the French example.
It's not asking people to do as the Romans do and prance around in toga and sandals, just to vaguely take into account the British culture [which would be rather easier if New Labour hadn't spent so long banging on about multi-culturalism].
Mr. Charles, I agree entirely.
Sure; ban covering the face in schools, or in banks, or court, etc.
But it's not the job of the government to tell the citizens what they should or should not wear.
And yet, the increasing lack of integration is not good for us, particularly coinciding with the large number of Daves.