At what point should we at least start campaigning for an arms embargo to Saudi Arabia? I know it won't happen because the Americans wouldn't allow it, but this is just grotesque. If it was the Syrian government doing it Trump would already have blitzed their airfields to hell and back again.
Our government still considers Yemen a sales opportunity rather than a war crime.
Why don’t the Saudis have moral agency?
'Moral agency is an individual's ability to make moral judgments based on some notion of right and wrong and to be held accountable for these actions'
Who do you think should be doing the holding to account?
Were Saudi Arabia justified banning women from driving given they wear burqas which restrict vision?
Will Saudi now require women to not wear burqas whilst driving now?
FFS Saudi Arabia does not require women to wear the burka at any time.
The issue was whether they would ban them, not whether they would cease to require them. Google image searches of Saudi women vs Saudi women driving suggest the norm is to wear less restrictive head wear when driving than when not.
Were Saudi Arabia justified banning women from driving given they wear burqas which restrict vision?
Will Saudi now require women to not wear burqas whilst driving now?
FFS Saudi Arabia does not require women to wear the burka at any time.
The issue was whether they would ban them, not whether they would cease to require them. Google image searches of Saudi women vs Saudi women driving suggest the norm is to wear less restrictive head wear when driving than when not.
I think banning them for driving would be a good and pretty uncontroversial idea, even in KSA. The standard of driving there is appalling enough without doing it with a mesh over your eyes.
There’s a pretty horrible civil war going on there, thousands of casualties on both sides and civilians usually caught in the middle of the warring factions. This story is sadly becoming almost typical.
If the Saudi Air Force can't tell the difference between a school bus and a bunch of jihadis, then they should not be dropping bombs.
They should also take advantage of a free eye test at Specsavers.
Alternatively we must assume - and I am afraid it seems all too likely - that it was deliberate and a naked act of terrorism.
One thing I will say for Corbyn is he has consistently called for sanctions on SA over this, but unfortunately being Corbyn he can't divorce it from a dig at the government and the US as well, giving May an alibi for doing nothing.
To be fair the Saudis are there at the request of the Yemeni government, are having missiles fired across the border into their own country by the rebels, and are taking a lot of casualties themselves.
That doesn’t of course mean they shouldn’t be better at targeting airborne bombs, but it’s not as if Western forces haven’t had many problems themselves over the years with dropping bombs in the wrong place.
I’m not sure what calling out Saudi would achieve, unless we also call out Qatar who are funding the other side of Iranian rebels who invaded Yemen to start the conflict.
If the west were to take a united approach, it might be possible to change the Saudis’ behaviour. As it is - and with Trump in the White House - that seems extremely unlikely.
A completely different view on burqa to May and Davidson:
"The burqa (niqab in Arabic) is a symbol. When you see it in a community, it indicates that an ideology and a radical form of Islam are spreading. In my field research on women and sharia law in Britain, South Africa and Middle Eastern countries, I heard this sentence a lot: "Ten years ago, we only had few women with the burqa. Today there are plenty."
"So when you see women in burqa, think of the ideology that is mainstreaming it. We should confront it – Muslims and non-Muslims alike."
Dr Elham Manea is an Islamic scholar in the department of political science at the University of Zurich, Switzerland. (my bold)
He is, of course, completely right. This is how extreme Islam spreads, You start with normalising the Hijab (cf Turkey, Egypt). From there you move to the chador, and it ends with the burqa and niqab. I see few Islamic societies which are proceeding in the opposite direction, to greater freedom for women and more liberal attitude to sex and dress, apart from maybe Morocco and (of late, and from a barbaric base) Saudi Arabia.
And mocking those who choose to wear it is, of course, a sensible contribution to the debate, rather than a cynical political ploy.
Interesting Irish Times article: https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/unionists-didn-t-know-how-good-they-had-it-before-brexit-1.3587116 The DUP is simultaneously resisting social reform while battling over every symbolic inch of Ulster-Britishness. The Irish language was ridiculed so crudely that people previously indifferent or sceptical about legislating its status (the main stumbling block to restarting the Assembly) now support an Act. Such is the DUP’s capacity to provoke support for the causes they oppose. It demands that Northern Ireland remain distinct from the rest of the UK in major social and cultural ways while insisting any divergence in goods regulation would fatally undermine British citizenship. Something has to give....
It's rather sobering to observe Northamptonshire Council finding out what it's like when you run out of other people's money.
It is difficult to supply the needs of the Population for 80 years when they only work for 45, and they demand the expensive early and late years are covered.
A completely different view on burqa to May and Davidson:
"The burqa (niqab in Arabic) is a symbol. When you see it in a community, it indicates that an ideology and a radical form of Islam are spreading. In my field research on women and sharia law in Britain, South Africa and Middle Eastern countries, I heard this sentence a lot: "Ten years ago, we only had few women with the burqa. Today there are plenty."
"So when you see women in burqa, think of the ideology that is mainstreaming it. We should confront it – Muslims and non-Muslims alike."
Dr Elham Manea is an Islamic scholar in the department of political science at the University of Zurich, Switzerland. (my bold)
He is, of course, completely right. This is how extreme Islam spreads, You start with normalising the Hijab (cf Turkey, Egypt). From there you move to the chador, and it ends with the burqa and niqab. I see few Islamic societies which are proceeding in the opposite direction, to greater freedom for women and more liberal attitude to sex and dress, apart from maybe Morocco and (of late, and from a barbaric base) Saudi Arabia.
And mocking those who choose to wear it is, of course, a sensible contribution to the debate, rather than a cynical political ploy.
WTF has that got to do with Boris? I'm talking about the evermore conservative direction of modern Islam. Which is a sad, indeed tragic fact.
You could equally talk about the ever more Islamic direction of modern Conservatism.
It's rather sobering to observe Northamptonshire Council finding out what it's like when you run out of other people's money.
It's rather sobering to observe the Conservative councillors running Northamptonshire Council finding out what it's like when they run out of other people's money.
Even more sobering for the Conservatives when Brexit really kicks in.
It's rather sobering to observe Northamptonshire Council finding out what it's like when you run out of other people's money.
It is difficult to supply the needs of the Population for 80 years when they only work for 45, and they demand the expensive early and late years are covered.
Northamptonshire can be a surprisingly gorgeous county, outside Northampton, that is.
It's one of those weird bits of Britain which is neither quite north nor south, nor is it Black Country (tho it has industry). Some exquisite villages.
Hopefully the population reduction from all its old people dying will make it cheaper to buy nice big country houses there.
When all the ice melts it'll be a lovely coastal area.
A completely different view on burqa to May and Davidson:
"The burqa (niqab in Arabic) is a symbol. When you see it in a community, it indicates that an ideology and a radical form of Islam are spreading. In my field research on women and sharia law in Britain, South Africa and Middle Eastern countries, I heard this sentence a lot: "Ten years ago, we only had few women with the burqa. Today there are plenty."
"So when you see women in burqa, think of the ideology that is mainstreaming it. We should confront it – Muslims and non-Muslims alike."
Dr Elham Manea is an Islamic scholar in the department of political science at the University of Zurich, Switzerland. (my bold)
He is, of course, completely right. This is how extreme Islam spreads, You start with normalising the Hijab (cf Turkey, Egypt). From there you move to the chador, and it ends with the burqa and niqab. I see few Islamic societies which are proceeding in the opposite direction, to greater freedom for women and more liberal attitude to sex and dress, apart from maybe Morocco and (of late, and from a barbaric base) Saudi Arabia.
And mocking those who choose to wear it is, of course, a sensible contribution to the debate, rather than a cynical political ploy.
WTF has that got to do with Boris? I'm talking about the evermore conservative direction of modern Islam. Which is a sad, indeed tragic fact.
Because there is perhaps a useful conversation to be had about that in the UK. Thanks to Johnson, we likely won’t get it.
It's rather sobering to observe Northamptonshire Council finding out what it's like when you run out of other people's money.
It is difficult to supply the needs of the Population for 80 years when they only work for 45, and they demand the expensive early and late years are covered.
Northamptonshire can be a surprisingly gorgeous county, outside Northampton, that is.
It's one of those weird bits of Britain which is neither quite north nor south, nor is it Black Country (tho it has industry). Some exquisite villages.
Hopefully the population reduction from all its old people dying will make it cheaper to buy nice big country houses there.
It's rather sobering to observe Northamptonshire Council finding out what it's like when you run out of other people's money.
It's rather sobering to observe the Conservative councillors running Northamptonshire Council finding out what it's like when they run out of other people's money.
Even more sobering for the Conservatives when Brexit really kicks in.
It doesn't really matter what type of councillors they are. Why make it partisan?
Nobody has yet given me a decent answer as to why we should be discriminating against my friends down under. Have you got one?
That's a great question.
The British haven't offered a reciprocal free movement deal with Australia because British voters hate freedom. (I have no idea whether Australia would accept if offered..
I think it should be obvious from the Australia case that it's better if you can avoid giving the voters the ability to make judgements like this about your life, which they will use to take away your freedom. But if the WTO or the Commonwealth or some other international body also had requirements like this, and British voters grudgingly accepted it to be able to export their jam or whatever, that would be great. Sadly there isn't a bigger, more global version of the EU, although the EU was slowly growing to take in more countries.
So British voters aren't allowed to vote for things they want or don't want?
It's a paradox. How do you compel people to accept "freedoms" that they don't want, and/or don't consider to be freedoms?
You can't ultimately, in a democracy. That's the point. One person's freedom to have a house in Tuscany and drink
It's much more fundamental than that. What attracts a citizen to the EU is the feeling that being part of the EU gives them equal status with other Europeans, whether you're from the most powerful country or the least powerful. If you break that dynamic, then the EU itself loses legitimacy.
Well the EU is a lot less powerful now it has lost a fifth of its GDP, its one world class alpha city, its best universities, its single most prosperous region, the home of the global language, a UNSC and nuclear power, its first or second most important defence spender, and 65m wealthy citizens. And all because that fucking stupid cow Merkel wouldn't budge on Free Movement, though she was happy to allow free movement of 1m refugees to come in to Germany in one year and, you know, sometimes rape German boys and girls when these poor refugees get a bit excited at swimming pools.
Some facts amidst your rant. Cameron didn't push for anything on free movement, not understanding until very late in the day how salient an issue it is. The 'global language' may have been born here but its adoptive parent carries more sway in the world nowadays, sad to say. And the UK will find that it needs almost all of its currently resident EU workforce, to keep social care, the NHS and agriculture going, whatever future policy on immigration the UK Gvt might come up with.
It's rather sobering to observe Northamptonshire Council finding out what it's like when you run out of other people's money.
It's rather sobering to observe the Conservative councillors running Northamptonshire Council finding out what it's like when they run out of other people's money.
Even more sobering for the Conservatives when Brexit really kicks in.
It doesn't really matter what type of councillors they are. Why make it partisan?
Because "running out of other peoples money" is almost exclusively aimed at the left.
Interesting Irish Times article: https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/unionists-didn-t-know-how-good-they-had-it-before-brexit-1.3587116 The DUP is simultaneously resisting social reform while battling over every symbolic inch of Ulster-Britishness. The Irish language was ridiculed so crudely that people previously indifferent or sceptical about legislating its status (the main stumbling block to restarting the Assembly) now support an Act. Such is the DUP’s capacity to provoke support for the causes they oppose. It demands that Northern Ireland remain distinct from the rest of the UK in major social and cultural ways while insisting any divergence in goods regulation would fatally undermine British citizenship. Something has to give....
It's a good point. Part of the UK? Get on board with gay marriage.
Nobody has yet given me a decent answer as to why we should be discriminating against my friends down under. Have you got one?
That's a great question.
The British haven't offered a reciprocal free movement deal with Australia because British voters hate freedom. (I have no idea whether Australia would accept if offered.)
While in the EU British people had freedoms that their fellow British voters wouldn't otherwise have let them have because it wasn't up to their fellow British voters.
I think it should be obvious from the Australia case that it's better if you can avoid giving the voters the ability to make judgements like this about your life, which they will use to take away your freedom. But if the WTO or the Commonwealth or some other international body also had requirements like this, and British voters grudgingly accepted it to be able to export their jam or whatever, that would be great. Sadly there isn't a bigger, more global version of the EU, although the EU was slowly growing to take in more countries.
So British voters aren't allowed to vote for things they want or don't want?
It's a paradox. How do you compel people to accept "freedoms" that they don't want, and/or don't consider to be freedoms?
You can't ultimately, in a democracy. That's the point. One person's freedom to have a house in Tuscany and drink
It's much more fundamental than that. What attracts a citizen to the EU is the feeling that being part of the EU gives them equal status with other Europeans, whether you're from the most powerful country or the least powerful. If you break that dynamic, then the EU itself loses legitimacy.
Well the EU is a lot less powerful now it has lost a fifth of its GDP, its one world class alpha city, its best universities, its single most prosperous region, the home of the global language, a UNSC and nuclear power, its first or second most important defence spender, and 65m wealthy citizens. And all because that fucking stupid cow Merkel wouldn't budge on Free Movement, though she was happy to allow free movement of 1m refugees to come in to Germany in one year and, you know, sometimes rape German boys and girls when these poor refugees get a bit excited at swimming pools.
What have we lost because that well-known Carlton cleaner impersonator David Cameron couldn't run a negotiation or a referendum?
Apropos to SeanT's remark, the wearing of face masks (whatever you call 'em) should be I.L.L.E.G.A.L. while driving.
What if you're driving a high-performance open-top vehicle for which wearing a crash helmet would be prudent?
Or riding a motorbike?
Indeed. But @toms did specify "driving" as opposed to "riding".
All very funny chaps, but have a close look next time you spot somebody wearing a burqa, and ask yourself how safe she would be driving a car (or motorbike) on the Queen's highway. And it does happen when, as a cyclist and pedestrian, I have found it scary.
Dangerous driving is already an offence. If wearing a burqa makes the wearer drive dangerously then the police already have powers to address such offences.
I’d still be interested to know how you’d write legislation that would ban “wearing face masks [...] while driving” without making full face crash helmets illegal.
I suspect that such a change in the law would require some evidence. Is there any to suggest Niqab wearers have more accidents? It is not particularly unusual for me to see Niqab wearing drivers in Leicester, but no worse at driving than anyone else on Humberstone rd!
Typical snowflake argument, just ban them in public , no-one should be allowed to be in public wearing a full face mask, unless it is whilst on a moving motorcycle and type approved at that.
There’s a pretty horrible civil war going on there, thousands of casualties on both sides and civilians usually caught in the middle of the warring factions. This story is sadly becoming almost typical.
If the Saudi Air Force can't tell the difference between a school bus and a bunch of jihadis, then they should not be dropping bombs.
They should also take advantage of a free eye test at Specsavers.
Alternatively we must assume - and I am afraid it seems all too likely - that it was deliberate and a naked act of terrorism.
One thing I will say for Corbyn is he has consistently called for sanctions on SA over this, but unfortunately being Corbyn he can't divorce it from a dig at the government and the US as well, giving May an alibi for doing nothing.
British helpers and technology really doing a great job there.
It's rather sobering to observe Northamptonshire Council finding out what it's like when you run out of other people's money.
It's rather sobering to observe the Conservative councillors running Northamptonshire Council finding out what it's like when they run out of other people's money.
Even more sobering for the Conservatives when Brexit really kicks in.
It doesn't really matter what type of councillors they are. Why make it partisan?
The Tories are at the sharp end of the local government financial crisis because the types of areas that are hitting the buffers first have lots of elderly residents needing care, two-tier authorities reducing the ability to support social care by cuts in other services, and are smaller councils in rural areas - all of which factors point towards heavily Tory councils.
A completely different view on burqa to May and Davidson:
"The burqa (niqab in Arabic) is a symbol. When you see it in a community, it indicates that an ideology and a radical form of Islam are spreading. In my field research on women and sharia law in Britain, South Africa and Middle Eastern countries, I heard this sentence a lot: "Ten years ago, we only had few women with the burqa. Today there are plenty."
"So when you see women in burqa, think of the ideology that is mainstreaming it. We should confront it – Muslims and non-Muslims alike."
Dr Elham Manea is an Islamic scholar in the department of political science at the University of Zurich, Switzerland. (my bold)
And mocking those who choose to wear it is, of course, a sensible contribution to the debate, rather than a cynical political ploy.
WTF has that got to do with Boris? I'm talking about the evermore conservative direction of modern Islam. Which is a sad, indeed tragic fact.
You could equally talk about the ever more Islamic direction of modern Conservatism.
Ruth Davidson's equation between "wearing the niqab" and "wearing the crucifix" nearly made me lose my smoked-salmon-and-sourdough breakfast. I used to like her, as well. Shame.
As whoever I asked earlier did a runner, can I ask you the same question. What is the difference between wearing the niqab for Muslims and wearing a yarmulke or wig for orthodox Jews?
Edit: and I haven't been put off my grilled tuna and glass of rose.
Apropos to SeanT's remark, the wearing of face masks (whatever you call 'em) should be I.L.L.E.G.A.L. while driving.
What if you're driving a high-performance open-top vehicle for which wearing a crash helmet would be prudent?
Or riding a motorbike?
Indeed. But @toms did specify "driving" as opposed to "riding".
All very funny chaps, but have a close look next time you spot somebody wearing a burqa, and ask yourself how safe she would be driving a car (or motorbike) on the Queen's highway. And it does happen when, as a cyclist and pedestrian, I have found it scary.
Dangerous driving is already an offence. If wearing a burqa makes the wearer drive dangerously then the police already have powers to address such offences.
I’d still be interested to know how you’d write legislation that would ban “wearing face masks [...] while driving” without making full face crash helmets illegal.
I suspect that such a change in the law would require some evidence. Is there any to suggest Niqab wearers have more accidents? It is not particularly unusual for me to see Niqab wearing drivers in Leicester, but no worse at driving than anyone else on Humberstone rd!
Typical snowflake argument, just ban them in public , no-one should be allowed to be in public wearing a full face mask, unless it is whilst on a moving motorcycle and type approved at that.
Nobody has yet given me a decent answer as to why we should be discriminating against my friends down under. Have you got one?
That's a great question.
The British haven't offered a reciprocal free movement deal with Australia because British voters hate freedom. (I have no idea whether Australia would accept if offered.)
While in the EU British people had freedoms that their fellow British voters wouldn't otherwise have let them have because it wasn't up to their fellow British voters.
I think it should be obvious from the Australia case that it's better if you can avoid giving the voters the ability to make judgements like this about your life, which they will use to take away your freedom. But if the WTO or the Commonwealth or some other international body also had requirements like this, and British voters grudgingly accepted it to be able to export their jam or whatever, that would be great. Sadly there isn't a bigger, more global version of the EU, although the EU was slowly growing to take in more countries.
So British voters aren't allowed to vote for things they want or don't want?
It's a paradox. How do you compel people to accept "freedoms" that they don't want, and/or don't consider to be freedoms?
You can't ultimately, in a democracy. That's the point. One person's freedom to have a house in Tuscany and drink
It's much more fundamental than that. What attracts a citizen to the EU is the feeling that being part of the EU gives them equal status with other Europeans, whether you're from the most powerful country or the least powerful. If you break that dynamic, then the EU itself loses legitimacy.
Well the EU is a lot less powerful now it has lost a fifth of its GDP, its one world class alpha city, its best universities, its single most prosperous region, the home of the global language, a UNSC and nuclear power, its first or second most important defence spender, and 65m wealthy citizens. And all because that fucking stupid cow Merkel wouldn't budge on Free Movement, though she was happy to allow free movement of 1m refugees to come in to Germany in one year and, you know, sometimes rape German boys and girls when these poor refugees get a bit excited at swimming pools.
While Germany imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 for 7 years and because Blair idiotically refused to do the same apparently even the tiniest token free movement concession from Merkel would be 'betraying the 4 freedoms of the single market'
A completely different view on burqa to May and Davidson:
"The burqa (niqab in Arabic) is a symbol. When you see it in a community, it indicates that an ideology and a radical form of Islam are spreading. In my field research on women and sharia law in Britain, South Africa and Middle Eastern countries, I heard this sentence a lot: "Ten years ago, we only had few women with the burqa. Today there are plenty."
"So when you see women in burqa, think of the ideology that is mainstreaming it. We should confront it – Muslims and non-Muslims alike."
Dr Elham Manea is an Islamic scholar in the department of political science at the University of Zurich, Switzerland. (my bold)
And mocking those who choose to wear it is, of course, a sensible contribution to the debate, rather than a cynical political ploy.
WTF has that got to do with Boris? I'm talking about the evermore conservative direction of modern Islam. Which is a sad, indeed tragic fact.
You could equally talk about the ever more Islamic direction of modern Conservatism.
Ruth Davidson's equation between "wearing the niqab" and "wearing the crucifix" nearly made me lose my smoked-salmon-and-sourdough breakfast. I used to like her, as well. Shame.
You now know what we have known for ages and tried to point out on here. An empty windbag only interested in self promotion , will change any principle in a heartbeat.
A completely different view on burqa to May and Davidson:
"The burqa (niqab in Arabic) is a symbol. When you see it in a community, it indicates that an ideology and a radical form of Islam are spreading. In my field research on women and sharia law in Britain, South Africa and Middle Eastern countries, I heard this sentence a lot: "Ten years ago, we only had few women with the burqa. Today there are plenty."
"So when you see women in burqa, think of the ideology that is mainstreaming it. We should confront it – Muslims and non-Muslims alike."
Dr Elham Manea is an Islamic scholar in the department of political science at the University of Zurich, Switzerland. (my bold)
And mocking those who choose to wear it is, of course, a sensible contribution to the debate, rather than a cynical political ploy.
WTF has that got to do with Boris? I'm talking about the evermore conservative direction of modern Islam. Which is a sad, indeed tragic fact.
You could equally talk about the ever more Islamic direction of modern Conservatism.
Ruth Davidson's equation between "wearing the niqab" and "wearing the crucifix" nearly made me lose my smoked-salmon-and-sourdough breakfast. I used to like her, as well. Shame.
Nobody has yet given me a decent answer as to why we should be discriminating against my friends down under. Have you got one?
That's a great question.
The British haven't offered a reciprocal free movement deal with Australia because British voters hate freedom. (I have no idea whether Australia would accept if offered.
I think it should be obvious from the Australia case that it's better if you can avoid giving the voters the ability to make judgements like this about your life, which they will use to take away your freedom. But if the WTO or the Commonwealth or some other international body also had requirements like this, and British voters grudgingly accepted it to be able to export their jam or whatever, that would be great. Sadly there isn't a bigger, more global version of the EU, although the EU was slowly growing to take in more countries.
So British voters aren't allowed to vote for things they want or don't want?
It's a paradox. How do you compel people to accept "freedoms" that they don't want, and/or don't consider to be freedoms?
You can't ultimately, in a democracy. That's the point. One person's freedom to have a house in Tuscany and drink
It's much more fundamental than that. What attracts a citizen to the EU is the feeling that being part of the EU gives them equal status with other Europeans, whether you're from the most powerful country or the least powerful. If you break that dynamic, then the EU itself loses legitimacy.
Well the EU is a lot less powerful now it has lost a fifth of its GDP, its one world class alpha city, its best universities, its single most prosperous region, the home of the global language, a UNSC and nuclear power, its first or second most important defence spender, and 65m wealthy citizens. And all because that fucking stupid cow Merkel wouldn't budge on Free Movement, though she was happy to allow free movement of 1m refugees to come in to Germany in one year and, you know, sometimes rape German boys and girls when these poor refugees get a bit excited at swimming pools.
While Germany imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 for 7 years and because Blair idiotically refused to do the same apparently even the tiniest token free movement concession from Merkel would be 'betraying the 4 freedoms of the single market'
I understand the politics. But your "idiotically" needs to be evaluated against the clear evidence that we actually needed the workers in order to keep our economy going.
Nobody has yet given me a decent answer as to why we should be discriminating against my friends down under. Have you got one?
That's a great question.
The British haven't offered a reciprocal free movement deal with Australia because British voters hate freedom. (I have no idea whether Australia would accept if offered.)
While in the Emore countries.
So British voters aren't allowed to vote for things they want or don't want?
It's a paradox. How do you compel people to accept "freedoms" that they don't want, and/or don't consider to be freedoms?
You can't ultimately, in a democracy. That's the point. One person's freedom to have a house in Tuscany and drink
It's much more fundamental than that. What attracts a citizen to the EU is the feeling that being part of the EU gives them equal status with other Europeans, whether you're from the most powerful country or the least powerful. If you break that dynamic, then the EU itself loses legitimacy.
Well the ing pools.
What have we lost because that well-known Carlton cleaner impersonator David Cameron couldn't run a negotiation or a referendum?
Agree entirely. I would have reluctantly but loyally voted Remain if he'd come back with SOMETHING. But the comparison between his ambitious Bloomberg speech - what he wanted - and the Deal - what he got - was so lamentable I switched to Leave in about five minutes.
He will be a strange character for historians to judge. In some ways a very smooth operator and a capable politician (compare him to TMay and Corbyn!!), and yet his arrogance, complacency and his lazy belief in his own ability to wing it led him into the most catastrophic series of errors.
I wonder how he will be seen. The essay crisis prime minister who, in the end, utterly fucked up the most important essay in modern British political history.
The Baldwin to May's Chamberlain and Boris' Churchill?
Nobody has yet given me a decent answer as to why we should be discriminating against my friends down under. Have you got one?
That's a great question.
The British haven't offered a reciprocal free movement deal with Australia because British voters hate freedom. (I have no idea whether Australia would accept if offered.)
While in the Emore countries.
So British voters aren't allowed to vote for things they want or don't want?
It's a paradox. How do you compel people to accept "freedoms" that they don't want, and/or don't consider to be freedoms?
You can't ultimately, in a democracy. That's the point. One person's freedom to have a house in Tuscany and drink
It's much more fundamental than that. What attracts a citizen to the EU is the feeling that being part of the EU gives them equal status with other Europeans, whether you're from the most powerful country or the least powerful. If you break that dynamic, then the EU itself loses legitimacy.
Well the ing pools.
What have we lost because that well-known Carlton cleaner impersonator David Cameron couldn't run a negotiation or a referendum?
Agree entirely. I would have reluctantly but loyally voted Remain if he'd come back with SOMETHING. But the comparison between his ambitious Bloomberg speech - what he wanted - and the Deal - what he got - was so lamentable I switched to Leave in about five minutes.
He will be a strange character for historians to judge. In some ways a very smooth operator and a capable politician (compare him to TMay and Corbyn!!), and yet his arrogance, complacency and his lazy belief in his own ability to wing it led him into the most catastrophic series of errors.
I wonder how he will be seen. The essay crisis prime minister who, in the end, utterly fucked up the most important essay in modern British political history.
The Baldwin to May's Chamberlain and Boris' Churchill?
A completely different view on burqa to May and Davidson:
"The burqa (niqab in Arabic) is a symbol. When you see it in a community, it indicates that an ideology and a radical form of Islam are spreading. In my field research on women and sharia law in Britain, South Africa and Middle Eastern countries, I heard this sentence a lot: "Ten years ago, we only had few women with the burqa. Today there are plenty."
"So when you see women in burqa, think of the ideology that is mainstreaming it. We should confront it – Muslims and non-Muslims alike."
Dr Elham Manea is an Islamic scholar in the department of political science at the University of Zurich, Switzerland. (my bold)
And mocking those who choose to wear it is, of course, a sensible contribution to the debate, rather than a cynical political ploy.
WTF has that got to do with Boris? I'm talking about the evermore conservative direction of modern Islam. Which is a sad, indeed tragic fact.
You could equally talk about the ever more Islamic direction of modern Conservatism.
Ruth Davidson's equation between "wearing the niqab" and "wearing the crucifix" nearly made me lose my smoked-salmon-and-sourdough breakfast. I used to like her, as well. Shame.
As whoever I asked earlier did a runner, can I ask you the same question. What is the difference between wearing the niqab for Muslims and wearing a yarmulke or wig for orthodox Jews?
Edit: and I haven't been put off my grilled tuna and glass of rose.
Does the wig cover their whole face or are you not all there ?
The full details of Russia’s gold deal offer to Arron Banks ahead of the EU referendum are revealed in a leaked document which mentions exclusive “opportunities not available to others” and support from a Kremlin bank.
Nobody has yet given me a decent answer as to why we should be discriminating against my friends down under. Have you got one?
That's a great question.
The British haven't offered a reciprocal free movement deal with Australia because there isn't a bigger, more global version of the EU, although the EU was slowly growing to take in more countries.
So British voters aren't allowed to vote for things they want or don't want?
It's a paradox. How do you compel people to accept "freedoms" that they don't want, and/or don't consider to be freedoms?
You can't ultimately, in a democracy. That's the point. One person's freedom to have a house in Tuscany and drink
It's much more fundamental than that. What attracts a citizen to the EU is the feeling that being part of the EU gives them equal status with other Europeans, whether you're from the most powerful country or the least powerful. If you break that dynamic, then the EU itself loses legitimacy.
Well the EU is a lot less powerful now it has lost a fifth of its GDP, its one world class alpha city, its best universities, its single most prosperous region, the home of the global language, a UNSC and nuclear power, its first or second most important defence spender, and 65m wealthy citizens. And all because that fucking stupid cow Merkel wouldn't budge on Free Movement, though she was happy to allow free movement of 1m refugees to come in to Germany in one year and, you know, sometimes rape German boys and girls when these poor refugees get a bit excited at swimming pools.
While Germany imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 for 7 years and because Blair idiotically refused to do the same apparently even the tiniest token free movement concession from Merkel would be 'betraying the 4 freedoms of the single market'
I understand the politics. But your "idiotically" needs to be evaluated against the clear evidence that we actually needed the workers in order to keep our economy going.
No we did not, certainly not the low skilled ones when the number of low skilled jobs was in decline and with the downward pressure on wages for the working class and the pressures on public services and housing it brought too
A completely different view on burqa to May and Davidson:
"The burqa (niqab in Arabic) is a symbol. When you see it in a community, it indicates that an ideology and a radical form of Islam are spreading. In my field research on women and sharia law in Britain, South Africa and Middle Eastern countries, I heard this sentence a lot: "Ten years ago, we only had few women with the burqa. Today there are plenty."
"So when you see women in burqa, think of the ideology that is mainstreaming it. We should confront it – Muslims and non-Muslims alike."
Dr Elham Manea is an Islamic scholar in the department of political science at the University of Zurich, Switzerland. (my bold)
And mocking those who choose to wear it is, of course, a sensible contribution to the debate, rather than a cynical political ploy.
WTF has that got to do with Boris? I'm talking about the evermore conservative direction of modern Islam. Which is a sad, indeed tragic fact.
You could equally talk about the ever more Islamic direction of modern Conservatism.
Ruth Davidson's equation between "wearing the niqab" and "wearing the crucifix" nearly made me lose my smoked-salmon-and-sourdough breakfast. I used to like her, as well. Shame.
As whoever I asked earlier did a runner, can I ask you the same question. What is the difference between wearing the niqab for Muslims and wearing a yarmulke or wig for orthodox Jews?
Edit: and I haven't been put off my grilled tuna and glass of rose.
Does the wig cover their whole face or are you not all there ?
So it's a quantity of material issue? How many square inches do you deem to be acceptable?
A completely different view on burqa to May and Davidson:
"The burqa (niqab in Arabic) is a symbol. When you see it in a community, it indicates that an ideology and a radical form of Islam are spreading. In my field research on women and sharia law in Britain, South Africa and Middle Eastern countries, I heard this sentence a lot: "Ten years ago, we only had few women with the burqa. Today there are plenty."
"So when you see women in burqa, think of the ideology that is mainstreaming it. We should confront it – Muslims and non-Muslims alike."
Dr Elham Manea is an Islamic scholar in the department of political science at the University of Zurich, Switzerland. (my bold)
And mocking those who choose to wear it is, of course, a sensible contribution to the debate, rather than a cynical political ploy.
WTF has that got to do with Boris? I'm talking about the evermore conservative direction of modern Islam. Which is a sad, indeed tragic fact.
You could equally talk about the ever more Islamic direction of modern Conservatism.
Ruth Davidson's equation between "wearing the niqab" and "wearing the crucifix" nearly made me lose my smoked-salmon-and-sourdough breakfast. I used to like her, as well. Shame.
As whoever I asked earlier did a runner, can I ask you the same question. What is the difference between wearing the niqab for Muslims and wearing a yarmulke or wig for orthodox Jews?
Edit: and I haven't been put off my grilled tuna and glass of rose.
Because we are intelligent humans who have evolved to express emotion, and communicate, via very complex facial expressions, from scowls to frowns to grins, smirks, smiles and laughter. We have thousands of delicate muscles in our faces designed to do just this: help us communicate, help us get along.
All of these are negated and made impossible by fullface veils like the niqab or burqa. They are thus essentially divisive and dehumanising, they guaranteee a LACK and DEARTH of communication. They sow the seeds of misunderstanding. You can't even swap a cheerful smile. Ugh.
They also frighten the fuck out of kids, are an easy way to disguise criminal identity, look deeply sinister en masse, are provably unhealthy in terms of Vitamin D, and symbolise and epitomise a very vile, perverse misogyny which lies at the core of modern conservative Islam.
A completely different view on burqa to May and Davidson:
"The burqa (niqab in Arabic) is a symbol. When you see it in a community, it indicates that an ideology and a radical form of Islam are spreading. In my field research on women and sharia law in Britain, South Africa and Middle Eastern countries, I heard this sentence a lot: "Ten years ago, we only had few women with the burqa. Today there are plenty."
"So when you see women in burqa, think of the ideology that is mainstreaming it. We should confront it – Muslims and non-Muslims alike."
Dr Elham Manea is an Islamic scholar in the department of political science at the University of Zurich, Switzerland. (my bold)
And mocking those who choose to wear it is, of course, a sensible contribution to the debate, rather than a cynical political ploy.
WTF has that got to do with Boris? I'm talking about the evermore conservative direction of modern Islam. Which is a sad, indeed tragic fact.
You could equally talk about the ever more Islamic direction of modern Conservatism.
Ruth Davidson's equation between "wearing the niqab" and "wearing the crucifix" nearly made me lose my smoked-salmon-and-sourdough breakfast. I used to like her, as well. Shame.
As whoever I asked earlier did a runner, can I ask you the same question. What is the difference between wearing the niqab for Muslims and wearing a yarmulke or wig for orthodox Jews?
Edit: and I haven't been put off my grilled tuna and glass of rose.
Does the wig cover their whole face or are you not all there ?
So it's a quantity of material issue? How many square inches do you deem to be acceptable?
No it is a principle of covering your face , next you will be saying girls should all have short hair as it is the same as wearing a full face mask.
Nobody has yet given me a decent answer as to why we should be discriminating against my friends down under. Have you got one?
That's a great question.
The British have So British voters aren't allowed to vote for things they want or don't want?
It's a paradox. How do you compel people to accept "freedoms" that they don't want, and/or don't consider to be freedoms?
You can't ultimately, in a democracy. That's the point. One person's freedom to have a house in Tuscany and drink
It's much more fundamental than that. What attracts a citizen to the EU is the feeling that being part of the EU gives them equal status with other Europeans, whether you're from the most powerful country or the least powerful. If you break that dynamic, then the EU itself loses legitimacy.
Well the EU is a lot less powerful now it has lost a fifth of its GDP, its one world class alpha city, its best universities, its single most prosperous region, the home of the global language, a UNSC and nuclear power, its first or second most important defence spender, and 65m wealthy citizens. And all because that fucking stupid cow Merkel wouldn't budge on Free Movement, though she was happy to allow free movement of 1m refugees to come in to Germany in one year and, you know, sometimes rape German boys and girls when these poor refugees get a bit excited at swimming pools.
While Germany imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 for 7 years and because Blair idiotically refused to do the same apparently even the tiniest token free movement concession from Merkel would be 'betraying the 4 freedoms of the single market'
I know. Just pukeworthy hypocrisy. But (as others have said) Cameron must share the blame
Cameron should have listened to Crosby and walked away from the negotiation table for a year until he got a better deal with which he could risk a referendum
Nobody has yet given me a decent answer as to why we should be discriminating against my friends down under. Have you got one?
That's a great question.
The British haven't offered a reciprocal free movement deal with Australia
So British voters aren't allowed to vote for things they want or don't want?
It's a paradox. How do you compel people to accept "freedoms" that they don't want, and/or don't consider to be freedoms?
You can't ultimately, in a democracy. That's the point. One person's freedom to have a house in Tuscany and drink
It's much more fundamental than that. What attracts a citizen to the EU is the feeling that being part of the EU gives them equal status with other Europeans, whether you're from the most powerful country or the least powerful. If you break that dynamic, then the EU itself loses legitimacy.
Well the EU is a lot less powerful now it has lost a fifth of its GDP, its one world class alpha city, its best universities, its single most prosperous region, the home of the global language, a UNSC and nuclear power, its first or second most important defence spender, and 65m wealthy citizens. And all because that fucking stupid cow Merkel wouldn't budge on Free Movement, though she was happy to allow free movement of 1m refugees to come in to Germany in one year and, you know, sometimes rape German boys and girls when these poor refugees get a bit excited at swimming pools.
While Germany imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 for 7 years and because Blair idiotically refused to do the same apparently even the tiniest token free movement concession from Merkel would be 'betraying the 4 freedoms of the single market'
I understand the politics. But your "idiotically" needs to be evaluated against the clear evidence that we actually needed the workers in order to keep our economy going.
No we did not, certainly not the low skilled ones when the number of low skilled jobs was in decline and with the downward pressure on wages for the working class and the pressures on public services and housing it brought too
Utter tosh, even for you, shockingly ill informed. Low skilled jobs in social care, agriculture, hospitality, catering and the NHS are increasingly reliant upon workers from the EU, particularly Eastern Europe.
"Cameron should have listened to Crosby and walked away from the negotiation table for a year until he got a better deal with which he could risk a referendum"
****
Absolutely right. But he was convinced he would win 70/30, as I recall, no matter what Deal he brought back: he was puffed up from his indyref win and thought this would be much easier, and he could sell the stupid voters anything.
So in the end it was his snobbery, complacency and arrogance which was his downfall. A lesson for the ages, and for any parents intending to send their sons to Eton.
PROBABLY NOT WORTH THE MONEY.
Given his virtually unvarnished reputation and the flak aimed at poor old Mrs lower middle class May I think that should read THE BEST INVESTMENT YOU WILL EVER MAKE.
"Cameron should have listened to Crosby and walked away from the negotiation table for a year until he got a better deal with which he could risk a referendum"
****
Absolutely right. But he was convinced he would win 70/30, as I recall, no matter what Deal he brought back: he was puffed up from his indyref win and thought this would be much easier, and he could sell the stupid voters anything.
So in the end it was his snobbery, complacency and arrogance which was his downfall. A lesson for the ages, and for any parents intending to send their sons to Eton.
"Cameron should have listened to Crosby and walked away from the negotiation table for a year until he got a better deal with which he could risk a referendum"
****
Absolutely right. But he was convinced he would win 70/30, as I recall, no matter what Deal he brought back: he was puffed up from his indyref win and thought this would be much easier, and he could sell the stupid voters anything.
So in the end it was his snobbery, complacency and arrogance which was his downfall. A lesson for the ages, and for any parents intending to send their sons to Eton.
PROBABLY NOT WORTH THE MONEY.
The British involvement with the EU was lost on the playing fields of Eton.
And mocking those who choose to wear it is, of course, a sensible contribution to the debate, rather than a cynical political ploy.
WTF has that got to do with Boris? I'm talking about the evermore conservative direction of modern Islam. Which is a sad, indeed tragic fact.
You could equally talk about the ever more Islamic direction of modern Conservatism.
Ruth Davidson's equation between "wearing the niqab" and "wearing the crucifix" nearly made me lose my smoked-salmon-and-sourdough breakfast. I used to like her, as well. Shame.
As whoever I asked earlier did a runner, can I ask you the same question. What is the difference between wearing the niqab for Muslims and wearing a yarmulke or wig for orthodox Jews?
Edit: and I haven't been put off my grilled tuna and glass of rose.
Because we are intelligent humans who have evolved to express emotion, and communicate, via very complex facial expressions, from scowls to frowns to grins, smirks, smiles and laughter. We have thousands of delicate muscles in our faces designed to do just this: help us communicate, help us get along.
All of these are negated and made impossible by fullface veils like the niqab or burqa. They are thus essentially divisive and dehumanising, they guaranteee a LACK and DEARTH of communication. They sow the seeds of misunderstanding. You can't even swap a cheerful smile. Ugh.
They also frighten the fuck out of kids, are an easy way to disguise criminal identity, look deeply sinister en masse, are provably unhealthy in terms of Vitamin D, and symbolise and epitomise a very vile, perverse misogyny which lies at the core of modern conservative Islam.
That enough?
So you are a slave to western norms. And scared of anything new. That's cool. Some of us just live and let people live from in front of, rather than behind the sofa.
A completely different view on burqa to May and Davidson:
"The burqa (niqab in Arabic) is a symbol. When you see it in a community, it indicates that an ideology and a radical form of Islam are spreading. In my field research on women and sharia law in Britain, South Africa and Middle Eastern countries, I heard this sentence a lot: "Ten years ago, we only had few women with the burqa. Today there are plenty."
"So when you see women in burqa, think of the ideology that is mainstreaming it. We should confront it – Muslims and non-Muslims alike."
Dr Elham Manea is an Islamic scholar in the department of political science at the University of Zurich, Switzerland. (my bold)
And mocking those who choose to wear it is, of course, a sensible contribution to the debate, rather than a cynical political ploy.
WTF has that got to do with Boris? I'm talking about the evermore conservative direction of modern Islam. Which is a sad, indeed tragic fact.
You could equally talk about the ever more Islamic direction of modern Conservatism.
Ruth Davidson's equation between "wearing the niqab" and "wearing the crucifix" nearly made me lose my smoked-salmon-and-sourdough breakfast. I used to like her, as well. Shame.
As whoever I asked earlier did a runner, can I ask you the same question. What is the difference between wearing the niqab for Muslims and wearing a yarmulke or wig for orthodox Jews?
Edit: and I haven't been put off my grilled tuna and glass of rose.
Does the wig cover their whole face or are you not all there ?
So it's a quantity of material issue? How many square inches do you deem to be acceptable?
No it is a principle of covering your face , next you will be saying girls should all have short hair as it is the same as wearing a full face mask.
Malcolm how on earth are you and I communicating given that we can't see each other's faces?
Boris depended on the support of London liberals who didn't like things like the congestion charge, or thought Boris would be better for their own pocket, who were willing to ignore or excuse his racism. Just because London voted Remain doesn't exculpate it from political racism.
One of the many curiosities of Boris is that he is basically the only British politician to hold high office who has ever done anything for cycling; yet his audience now are largely the sort of car-mad goons who want all them bloody cyclists off the road. He is indeed Marmite, but a Marmite where the taste changes every few years.
What Boris did for cycling was not cancel the Boris Bikes idea Ken Livingstone had nicked from Paris.
That actually wasn't what I was referring to - Velib/Boris bikes may end up being a flash in the pan anyway now that dockless bikes are on the march.
No, Boris's big innovation was the segregated cycle superhighways, which are absolutely standard practice in the Netherlands but only existed in a couple of locations in the UK. They genuinely are transforming cycling in London. It wasn't his idea (that was the cycling lobby) nor his implementation (that was Andrew Gilligan), but he put his political capital behind it, and that made it happen. To their shame, neither the supposedly environment-friendly Blair government nor the Lib Dems in coalition have ever done anything as pro-cycling as this Boris policy.
A completely different view on burqa to May and Davidson:
"The burqa (niqab in Arabic) is a symbol. When you see it in a community, it indicates that an ideology and a radical form of Islam are spreading. In my field research on women and sharia law in Britain, South Africa and Middle Eastern countries, I heard this sentence a lot: "Ten years ago, we only had few women with the burqa. Today there are plenty."
"So when you see women in burqa, think of the ideology that is mainstreaming it. We should confront it – Muslims and non-Muslims alike."
Dr Elham Manea is an Islamic scholar in the department of political science at the University of Zurich, Switzerland. (my bold)
And mocking those who choose to wear it is, of course, a sensible contribution to the debate, rather than a cynical political ploy.
WTF has that got to do with Boris? I'm talking about the evermore conservative direction of modern Islam. Which is a sad, indeed tragic fact.
You could equally talk about the ever more Islamic direction of modern Conservatism.
Ruth Davidson's equation between "wearing the niqab" and "wearing the crucifix" nearly made me lose my smoked-salmon-and-sourdough breakfast. I used to like her, as well. Shame.
As whoever I asked earlier did a runner, can I ask you the same question. What is the difference between wearing the niqab for Muslims and wearing a yarmulke or wig for orthodox Jews?
Edit: and I haven't been put off my grilled tuna and glass of rose.
Bsnip
They also frighten the fuck out of kids, are an easy way to disguise criminal identity, look deeply sinister en masse, are provably unhealthy in terms of Vitamin D, and symbolise and epitomise a very vile, perverse misogyny which lies at the core of modern conservative Islam.
That enough?
The fundamental question one has to ask of this religious viewpoint (i.e. covering the face, arms, neck etc etc) is this:
My leftwing/anarchist young wife has a Green voting, leftwing mother (troubled by my rightwing views, as well as my advanced years).
However the mum and I have become friendlier over time, and we get on pretty fine now.
The mother in law, it turns out, is also a highly prized supply teacher, with great experience, and much in demand. She has taught at some of the toughest comps in south London, where she lives, and prides herself on being able to handle the hardest, unruliest kids in the stabbiest parts of town.
Nonetheless she simply refuses to teach at one kind of school: Islamic faith schools. She says they are appalling. They consist of men shouting at children saying When was Mohammad born, over and over, and the boys just snigger and fight. Meanwhile the girls are cowed and completely covered. And the boys utterly disrespect and simply ignore any female teachers: and the male teachers accept this as correct.
Meanwhile, even in non-faith British schools, this happens:
This is like 19th century cruelty. And we tolerate it in the name of... what? Allah? What?
The uniform of religion is to show an identity, to differentiate from non believers and create safe haven amongst your own kind It is designed to prevent integration with others.
A school uniform is designed to make appearance equal. It is intended to hide difference and individuality and remove barriers to integration of class, wealth, ethnicity or religion.
Nobody has yet given me a decent answer as to why we should be discriminating against my friends down under. Have you got one?
That's a great question.
The British haven't offered a reciprocal free movement deal with Australia
So British voters aren't allowed to vote for things they want or don't want?
It's a paradox. How do you compel people to accept "freedoms" that they don't want, and/or don't consider to be freedoms?
You can't ultimately, in a democracy. That's the point. One person's freedom to have a house in Tuscany and drink
It's much morey.
Well the EU is a lot lesited at swimming pools.
While Germany imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 for 7 years and because Blair idiotically refused to do the same apparently even the tiniest token free movement concession from Merkel would be 'betraying the 4 freedoms of the single market'
I understand the politics. But your "idiotically" needs to be evaluated against the clear evidence that we actually needed the workers in order to keep our economy going.
No we did not, certainly not the low skilled ones when the number of low skilled jobs was in decline and with the downward pressure on wages for the working class and the pressures on public services and housing it brought too
Utter tosh, even for you, shockingly ill informed. Low skilled jobs in social care, agriculture, hospitality, catering and the NHS are increasingly reliant upon workers from the EU, particularly Eastern Europe.
No, actually complete utter tosh from you and typical of the complete arrogance of some middle class Remainers before the EU referendum and their complete divorce from and lack of interest in working class concerns over immigration that led to the Leave vote.
Over the last decade there has been a net decline overall in the numbers of low skilled jobs created (with a few exceptions like social care admittedly) with job creation coming in higher skilled areas. Open the floodgates to low skilled immigration and inevitably the wages and demand for the skills of the low skilled native working class will fall as well as competition for rents and affordable housing and pressure on public services
And mocking those who choose to wear it is, of course, a sensible contribution to the debate, rather than a cynical political ploy.
WTF hastragic fact.
You could equally talk about the ever more Islamic direction of modern Conservatism.
Ruth Davidson's equation between "wearing the niqab" and "wearing the crucifix" nearly made me lose my smoked-salmon-and-sourdough breakfast. I used to like her, as well. Shame.
As whoever I asked earlier did a runner, can I ase.
Because we are intelligent humans who have evolved to express emotion, and communicatedelicate muscles in our faces designed to do just this: help us communicate, help us get along.
All of these are negated and made impossible by fullface veils like the niqab or burqa. They are thus essentially divisive and dehumanising, they guaranteee a LACK and DEARTH of communication. They sow the seeds of misunderstanding. You can't even swap a cheerful smile. Ugh.
They also frighten the fuck out of kids, are an easy way to disguise criminal identity, look deeply sinister en masse, are provably unhealthy in terms of Vitamin D, and symbolise and epitomise a very vile, perverse misogyny which lies at the core of modern conservative Islam.
That enough?
So you are a slave to western norms. And scared of anything new. That's cool. Some of us just live and let people live from in front of, rather than behind the sofa.
Jeez. That's it?
lol.
I owned you there, didn't I? Twit.
No. You didn't.
You have regurgitated some sub Daily Mail type lowest common denominator populism (all very entertaining, mind) which in any case is in conflict with your own western Primrose Hill liberal values. But on PB we really do need more substance.
And the fact that you have expressed yourself so well, if misguidedly, on an internet chat room proves my point further.
A completely different view on burqa to May and Davidson:
"The burqa (niqab in Arabic) is a symbol. When you see it in a community, it indicates that an ideology and a radical form of Islam are spreading. In my field research on women and sharia law in Britain, South Africa and Middle Eastern countries, I heard this sentence a lot: "Ten years ago, we only had few women with the burqa. Today there are plenty."
"So when you see women in burqa, think of the ideology that is mainstreaming it. We should confront it – Muslims and non-Muslims alike."
Dr Elham Manea is an Islamic scholar in the department of political science at the University of Zurich, Switzerland. (my bold)
And mocking those who choose to wear it is, of course, a sensible contribution to the debate, rather than a cynical political ploy.
WTF has that got to do with Boris? I'm talking about the evermore conservative direction of modern Islam. Which is a sad, indeed tragic fact.
You could equally talk about the ever more Islamic direction of modern Conservatism.
Ruth Davidson's equation between "wearing the niqab" and "wearing the crucifix" nearly made me lose my smoked-salmon-and-sourdough breakfast. I used to like her, as well. Shame.
As whoever I asked earlier did a runner, can I ask you the same question. What is the difference between wearing the niqab for Muslims and wearing a yarmulke or wig for orthodox Jews?
Edit: and I haven't been put off my grilled tuna and glass of rose.
Does the wig cover their whole face or are you not all there ?
So it's a quantity of material issue? How many square inches do you deem to be acceptable?
No it is a principle of covering your face , next you will be saying girls should all have short hair as it is the same as wearing a full face mask.
Malcolm how on earth are you and I communicating given that we can't see each other's faces?
I'm not sure that the anonymous nature of the internet is always a good thing.
A completely different view on burqa to May and Davidson:
"The burqa (niqab in Arabic) is a symbol. When you see it in a community, it indicates that an ideology and a radical form of Islam are spreading. In my field research on women and sharia law in Britain, South Africa and Middle Eastern countries, I heard this sentence a lot: "Ten years ago, we only had few women with the burqa. Today there are plenty."
"So when you see women in burqa, think of the ideology that is mainstreaming it. We should confront it – Muslims and non-Muslims alike."
Dr Elham Manea is an Islamic scholar in the department of political science at the University of Zurich, Switzerland. (my bold)
And mocking those who choose to wear it is, of course, a sensible contribution to the debate, rather than a cynical political ploy.
WTF has that got to do with Boris? I'm talking about the evermore conservative direction of modern Islam. Which is a sad, indeed tragic fact.
You could equally talk about the ever more Islamic direction of modern Conservatism.
Ruth Davidson's equation between "wearing the niqab" and "wearing the crucifix" nearly made me lose my smoked-salmon-and-sourdough breakfast. I used to like her, as well. Shame.
As whoever I asked earlier did a runner, can I ask you the same question. What is the difference between wearing the niqab for Muslims and wearing a yarmulke or wig for orthodox Jews?
Edit: and I haven't been put off my grilled tuna and glass of rose.
Bsnip
They also frighten the fuck out of kids, are an easy way to disguise criminal identity, look deeply sinister en masse, are provably unhealthy in terms of Vitamin D, and symbolise and epitomise a very vile, perverse misogyny which lies at the core of modern conservative Islam.
That enough?
The fundamental question one has to ask of this religious viewpoint (i.e. covering the face, arms, neck etc etc) is this:
A completely different view on burqa to May and Davidson:
"The burqa (niqab in Arabic) is a symbol. When you see it in a community, it indicates that an ideology and a radical form of Islam are spreading. In my field research on women and sharia law in Britain, South Africa and Middle Eastern countries, I heard this sentence a lot: "Ten years ago, we only had few women with the burqa. Today there are plenty."
"So when you see women in burqa, think of the ideology that is mainstreaming it. We should confront it – Muslims and non-Muslims alike."
Dr Elham Manea is an Islamic scholar in the department of political science at the University of Zurich, Switzerland. (my bold)
And mocking those who choose to wear it is, of course, a sensible contribution to the debate, rather than a cynical political ploy.
WTF has that got to do with Boris? I'm talking about the evermore conservative direction of modern Islam. Which is a sad, indeed tragic fact.
You could equally talk about the ever more Islamic direction of modern Conservatism.
Ruth Davidson's equation between "wearing the niqab" and "wearing the crucifix" nearly made me lose my smoked-salmon-and-sourdough breakfast. I used to like her, as well. Shame.
As whoever I asked earlier did a runner, can I ask you the same question. What is the difference between wearing the niqab for Muslims and wearing a yarmulke or wig for orthodox Jews?
Edit: and I haven't been put off my grilled tuna and glass of rose.
Does the wig cover their whole face or are you not all there ?
So it's a quantity of material issue? How many square inches do you deem to be acceptable?
No it is a principle of covering your face , next you will be saying girls should all have short hair as it is the same as wearing a full face mask.
Malcolm how on earth are you and I communicating given that we can't see each other's faces?
I'm not sure that the anonymous nature of the internet is always a good thing.
I'm not sure it is either but the point being made by Malcolm was that to communicate we need to see each other's faces.
And mocking those who choose to wear it is, of course, a sensible contribution to the debate, rather than a cynical political ploy.
WTF hastragic fact.
You could equally talk about the ever more Islamic direction of modern Conservatism.
Ruth Davidson's equation between "wearing the niqab" and "wearing the crucifix" nearly made me lose my smoked-salmon-and-sourdough breakfast. I used to like her, as well. Shame.
As whoever I asked earlier did a runner, can I ase.
Because we are intelligent humans who have evolved to express emotion, and communicatedelicate muscles in our faces designed to do just this: help us communicate, help us get along.
All of these are negated and made impossible by fullface veils like the niqab or burqa. They are thus essentially divisive and dehumanising, they guaranteee a LACK and DEARTH of communication. They sow the seeds of misunderstanding. You can't even swap a cheerful smile. Ugh.
They also frighten the fuck out of kids, are an easy way to disguise criminal identity, look deeply sinister en masse, are provably unhealthy in terms of Vitamin D, and symbolise and epitomise a very vile, perverse misogyny which lies at the core of modern conservative Islam.
That enough?
So you are a slave to western norms. And scared of anything new. That's cool. Some of us just live and let people live from in front of, rather than behind the sofa.
Jeez. That's it?
lol.
I owned you there, didn't I? Twit.
No. You didn't.
You have regurgitated some sub Daily Mail type lowest common denominator populism (all very entertaining, mind) which in any case is in conflict with your own western Primrose Hill liberal values. But on PB we really do need more substance.
And the fact that you have expressed yourself so well, if misguidedly, on an internet chat room proves my point further.
It's rather sobering to observe Northamptonshire Council finding out what it's like when you run out of other people's money.
It is difficult to supply the needs of the Population for 80 years when they only work for 45, and they demand the expensive early and late years are covered.
Northamptonshire can be a surprisingly gorgeous county, outside Northampton, that is.
It's one of those weird bits of Britain which is neither quite north nor south, nor is it Black Country (tho it has industry). Some exquisite villages.
Hopefully the population reduction from all its old people dying will make it cheaper to buy nice big country houses there.
You don’t really know where the Black Country is, do you?
A completely different view on burqa to May and Davidson:
"The burqa (niqab in Arabic) is a symbol. When you see it in a community, it indicates that an ideology and a radical form of Islam are spreading. In my field research on women and sharia law in Britain, South Africa and Middle Eastern countries, I heard this sentence a lot: "Ten years ago, we only had few women with the burqa. Today there are plenty."
"So when you see women in burqa, think of the ideology that is mainstreaming it. We should confront it – Muslims and non-Muslims alike."
Dr Elham Manea is an Islamic scholar in the department of political science at the University of Zurich, Switzerland. (my bold)
And mocking those who choose to wear it is, of course, a sensible contribution to the debate, rather than a cynical political ploy.
WTF has that got to do with Boris? I'm talking about the evermore conservative direction of modern Islam. Which is a sad, indeed tragic fact.
You could equally talk about the ever more Islamic direction of modern Conservatism.
Ruth Davidson's equation between "wearing the niqab" and "wearing the crucifix" nearly made me lose my smoked-salmon-and-sourdough breakfast. I used to like her, as well. Shame.
As whoever I asked earlier did a runner, can I ask you the same question. What is the difference between wearing the niqab for Muslims and wearing a yarmulke or wig for orthodox Jews?
Edit: and I haven't been put off my grilled tuna and glass of rose.
Bsnip
They also frighten the fuck out of kids, are an easy way to disguise criminal identity, look deeply sinister en masse, are provably unhealthy in terms of Vitamin D, and symbolise and epitomise a very vile, perverse misogyny which lies at the core of modern conservative Islam.
That enough?
The fundamental question one has to ask of this religious viewpoint (i.e. covering the face, arms, neck etc etc) is this:
My leftwing/anarchist young wife has a Green voting, leftwing mother (troubled by my rightwing views, as well as my advanced years).
However the mum and I have become friendlier over time, and we get on pretty fine now.
The mother in law, it turns out, is also a highly prized supply teacher, with great experience, and much in demand. She has taught at some of the toughest comps in south London, where she lives, and prides herself on being able to handle the hardest, unruliest kids in the stabbiest parts of town.
Nonetheless she simply refuses to teach at one kind of school: Islamic faith schools. She says they are appalling. They consist of men shouting at children saying When was Mohammad born, over and over, and the boys just snigger and fight. Meanwhile the girls are cowed and completely covered. And the boys utterly disrespect and simply ignore any female teachers: and the male teachers accept this as correct.
Meanwhile, even in non-faith British schools, this happens:
My leftwing/anarchist young wife has a Green voting, leftwing mother (troubled by my rightwing views, as well as my advanced years).
However the mum and I have become friendlier over time, and we get on pretty fine now.
The mother in law, it turns out, is also a highly prized supply teacher, with great experience, and much in demand. She has taught at some of the toughest comps in south London, where she lives, and prides herself on being able to handle the hardest, unruliest kids in the stabbiest parts of town.
Nonetheless she simply refuses to teach at one kind of school: Islamic faith schools. She says they are appalling. They consist of men shouting at children saying When was Mohammad born, over and over, and the boys just snigger and fight. Meanwhile the girls are cowed and completely covered. And the boys utterly disrespect and simply ignore any female teachers: and the male teachers accept this as correct.
Meanwhile, even in non-faith British schools, this happens:
And mocking those who choose to wear it is, of course, a sensible contribution to the debate, rather than a cynical political ploy.
WTF hastragic fact.
You could equally talk about the ever more Islamic direction of modern Conservatism.
Ruth Davidson's equation between "wearing the niqab" and "wearing the crucifix" nearly made me lose my smoked-salmon-and-sourdough breakfast. I used to like her, as well. Shame.
As whoever I asked earlier did a runner, can I ase.
Because we are intelligent humans who have evolved to express emotion, and communicatedelicate muscles in our faces designed to do just this: help us communicate, help us get along.
All of these are negated and made impossible by fullface veils like the ni
They also frighten the fuck out of kids, are an easy way to disguise criminal identity, look deeply sinister en masse, are provably unhealthy in terms of Vitamin D, and symbolise and epitomise a very vile, perverse misogyny which lies at the core of modern conservative Islam.
That enough?
So you are a slave to western norms. And scared of anything new. That's cool. Some of us just live and let people live from in front of, rather than behind the sofa.
Jeez. That's it?
lol.
I owned you there, didn't I? Twit.
No. You didn't.
You have regurgitated some sub Daily Mail type lowest common denominator populism (all very entertaining, mind) which in any case is in conflict with your own western Primrose Hill liberal values. But on PB we really do need more substance.
And the fact that you have expressed yourself so well, if misguidedly, on an internet chat room proves my point further.
Nah, he owned you.
Phew you're here. Just in time, he needs your support.
This. This is what five years of Labour government under Jezza is going to be like.
Every single day.
"Momentum founder Jon Lansman has come out in condemnation of an article by Open Labour’s Owen Smith-supporting Jade Azim, after a fraught twenty-four hours or so in which too many well-known young left-wingers who should have known better had defended Azim and her article, which sought to pit ‘Lansmanites’ against the abusively-termed ‘cranks’, as well as promoting Ann Black for Labour’s NEC (National Executive Committee)."
And mocking those who choose to wear it is, of course, a sensible contribution to the debate, rather than a cynical political ploy.
WTF has that got to do with Boris? I'm talking about the evermore conservative direction of modern Islam. Which is a sad, indeed tragic fact.
You could equally talk about the ever more Islamic direction of modern Conservatism.
Ruth Davidson's equation between "wearing the niqab" and "wearing the crucifix" nearly made me lose my smoked-salmon-and-sourdough breakfast. I used to like her, as well. Shame.
As whoever I asked earlier did a runner, can I ask you the same question. What is the difference between wearing the niqab for Muslims and wearing a yarmulke or wig for orthodox Jews?
Edit: and I haven't been put off my grilled tuna and glass of rose.
They also frighten the fuck out of kids, are an easy way to disguise criminal identity, look deeply sinister en masse, are provably unhealthy in terms of Vitamin D, and symbolise and epitomise a very vile, perverse misogyny which lies at the core of modern conservative Islam.
That enough?
So you are a slave to western norms. And scared of anything new. That's cool. Some of us just live and let people live from in front of, rather than behind the sofa.
I don’t thing there’s anything particular new about misogyny. As for western norms, pork is no longer served in Islington schools, and immodestly dressed women can no longer appear in advertisements on the tube.
Then again, only bigots think that changing demographics might lead to political change.
And mocking those who choose to wear it is, of course, a sensible contribution to the debate, rather than a cynical political ploy.
WTF hastragic fact.
You could equally talk about the ever more Islamic direction of modern Conservatism.
Ruth Davidson's equation between "wearing the niqab" and "wearing the crucifix" nearly made me lose my smoked-salmon-and-sourdough breakfast. I used to like her, as well. Shame.
As whoever I asked earlier did a runner, can I ase.
Because modern conservative Islam.
That enough?
So you are a slave to western norms. And scared of anything new. That's cool. Some of us just live and let people live from in front of, rather than behind the sofa.
Jeez. That's it?
lol.
I owned you there, didn't I? Twit.
No. You didn't.
You have regurgitated some sub Daily Mail type lowest common denominator populism (all very entertaining, mind) which in any case is in conflict with your own western Primrose Hill liberal values. But on PB we really do need more substance.
And the fact that you have expressed yourself so well, if misguidedly, on an internet chat room proves my point further.
This doesn't even make sense by your own standards.
Step away from the shovel. Stop digging. And go to bed, you old fool.
You know I'm right. It sounds better to rail against these things and call yourself right wing but if ever there was an archetypal paid up member of the metropolitan liberal elite, it is you.
And as such we know you really don't believe the stuff you write. And you also get a kick from fanboys like Casino adoring you, which is fair enough; you've got to take the plaudits when you can.
Covrring faces. I’m not going to c&p all of it but there was a good letter in today’s Times on the effect on babies which noted the following:
“Research shows that such interaction stimulates brain development and helps with stress management. We wonder how frightening and disturbing it is for a baby when he or she is unable to make this connection. Dr Angela Underdown Former associate professor, University of Warwick; Professor Jane Barlow University of Oxford”
And mocking those who choose to wear it is, of course, a sensible contribution to the debate, rather than a cynical political ploy.
WTF hastragic fact.
You could equally talk about the ever more Islamic direction of modern Conservatism.
Ruth Davidson's equation between "wearing the niqab" and "wearing the crucifix" nearly made me lose my smoked-salmon-and-sourdough breakfast. I used to like her, as well. Shame.
As whoever I asked earlier did a runner, can I ase.
Because we are intelligent humans who have evolved to express emotion, and communicatedelicate muscles in our faces designed to do just this: help us communicate, help us get along.
All of these are negated and made impossible by fullface veils like the ni
They also frighten the fuck out of kids, are an easy way to disguise criminal identity, look deeply sinister en masse, are provably unhealthy in terms of Vitamin D, and symbolise and epitomise a very vile, perverse misogyny which lies at the core of modern conservative Islam.
That enough?
So you are a slave to western norms. And scared of anything new. That's cool. Some of us just live and let people live from in front of, rather than behind the sofa.
Jeez. That's it?
lol.
I owned you there, didn't I? Twit.
No. You didn't.
You have regurgitated some sub Daily Mail type lowest common denominator populism (all very entertaining, mind) which in any case is in conflict with your own western Primrose Hill liberal values. But on PB we really do need more substance.
And the fact that you have expressed yourself so well, if misguidedly, on an internet chat room proves my point further.
Nah, he owned you.
Phew you're here. Just in time, he needs your support.
And mocking those who choose to wear it is, of course, a sensible contribution to the debate, rather than a cynical political ploy.
WTF hastragic fact.
You could equally talk about the ever more Islamic direction of modern Conservatism.
Ruth Davidson's equation between "wearing the niqab" and "wearing the crucifix" nearly made me lose my smoked-salmon-and-sourdough breakfast. I used to like her, as well. Shame.
As whoever I asked earlier did a runner, can I ase.
Because modern conservative Islam.
That enough?
So you are a slave to western norms. And scared of anything new. That's cool. Some of us just live and let people live from in front of, rather than behind the sofa.
Jeez. That's it?
lol.
I owned you there, didn't I? Twit.
No. You didn't.
You have regurgitated some sub Daily Mail type lowest common denominator populism (all very entertaining, mind) which in any case is in conflict with your own western Primrose Hill liberal values. But on PB we really do need more substance.
And the fact that you have expressed yourself so well, if misguidedly, on an internet chat room proves my point further.
This doesn't even make sense by your own standards.
Step away from the shovel. Stop digging. And go to bed, you old fool.
You know I'm right. It sounds better to rail against these things and call yourself right wing but if ever there was an archetypal paid up member of the metropolitan liberal elite, it is you.
And as such we know you really don't believe the stuff you write. And you also get a kick from fanboys like Casino adoring you, which is fair enough; you've got to take the plaudits when you can.
Covrring faces. I’m not going to c&p all of it but there was a good letter in today’s Times on the effect on babies which noted the following:
“Research shows that such interaction stimulates brain development and helps with stress management. We wonder how frightening and disturbing it is for a baby when he or she is unable to make this connection. Dr Angela Underdown Former associate professor, University of Warwick; Professor Jane Barlow University of Oxford”
It had to come: will no one think of the children.
And mocking those who choose to wear it is, of course, a sensible contribution to the debate, rather than a cynical political ploy.
WTF hastragic fact.
You could equally talk about the ever more Islamic direction of modern Conservatism.
Ruth Davidson's equation between "wearinourdough breakfast. I used to like her, as well. Shame.
As whoever I asked earlier did a runner, can I ase.
Because we are intelligent humans who have evolved to express emotion, and communicatedelicate muscles in our faces designed to do just this: help us communicate, help us get along.
All of these are negated and made impossible by fullface veils like the ni
They also frighten the fuck out of kids, are an easy way to disguise criminal identity, look deeply sinister en masse, are provably unhealthy in terms of Vitamin D, and symbolise and epitomise a very vile, perverse misogyny which lies at the core of modern conservative Islam.
That enough?
So you are a slave to western norms. And scared of anything new. That's cool. Some of us just live and let people live from in front of, rather than behind the sofa.
Jeez. That's it?
lol.
I owned you there, didn't I? Twit.
No. You didn't.
You have regurgitated some sub Daily Mail type lowest common denominator populism (all very entertaining, mind) which in any case is in conflict with your own western Primrose Hill liberal values. But on PB we really do need more substance.
And the fact that you have expressed yourself so well, if misguidedly, on an internet chat room proves my point further.
Nah, he owned you.
Phew you're here. Just in time, he needs your support.
Desperate desperate stuff.
Pushing from the back is never an attractive look, @Casino.
Covrring faces. I’m not going to c&p all of it but there was a good letter in today’s Times on the effect on babies which noted the following:
“Research shows that such interaction stimulates brain development and helps with stress management. We wonder how frightening and disturbing it is for a baby when he or she is unable to make this connection. Dr Angela Underdown Former associate professor, University of Warwick; Professor Jane Barlow University of Oxford”
It had to come: will no one think of the children.
Phew you're here. Just in time, he needs your support.
He really did, though. Sorry Topping, defending oppression of women under a "live and let live" line is pretty poor. Islam has an altogether awful attitude towards women's rights it is a culture that we shouldn't accept.
"Cameron should have listened to Crosby and walked away from the negotiation table for a year until he got a better deal with which he could risk a referendum"
****
Absolutely right. But he was convinced he would win 70/30, as I recall, no matter what Deal he brought back: he was puffed up from his indyref win and thought this would be much easier, and he could sell the stupid voters anything.
So in the end it was his snobbery, complacency and arrogance which was his downfall. A lesson for the ages, and for any parents intending to send their sons to Eton.
PROBABLY NOT WORTH THE MONEY.
Given his virtually unvarnished reputation and the flak aimed at poor old Mrs lower middle class May I think that should read THE BEST INVESTMENT YOU WILL EVER MAKE.
Virtually unvarnished. Oddly piquant typo?
Incidentally the flak aimed at TMay has fuck all to do with her class. She's just awkward and cringeworthy and often deeply, deeply inept and stupid.
Lol yes it's the forehead which is varnished. Untarnished.
Covrring faces. I’m not going to c&p all of it but there was a good letter in today’s Times on the effect on babies which noted the following:
“Research shows that such interaction stimulates brain development and helps with stress management. We wonder how frightening and disturbing it is for a baby when he or she is unable to make this connection. Dr Angela Underdown Former associate professor, University of Warwick; Professor Jane Barlow University of Oxford”
I suspect our 2-year old (more toddler than baby, obviously) would just point and shout "ROBOT LADY!".
Off topic but when did the football transfer window start shutting at 5pm. Thought it was normally ~11pm?
It's the cuts and austerity.
LOL!
I also don't remember it closing normally before the season begins.
But that's fine because outside of Merseyside none of the top clubs seem to have really even noticed it opening either.
Normally World Cup years are quite busy on the transfer market after players make a name for themselves on the biggest stage. Not really that much noticeable activity this year.
I suspect these days that thanks to Opta and other data-gathering firms, as well as Sky and the other broadcasters, there is not much that is unknown about any footballer, so the World Cup offers little new information. Perhaps we will look back on a couple of anomalous decades when there were countries, especially in Africa and the Far East, whose footballers would be seen just once every four years, and there were the money and mechanisms to transfer them to European clubs. Didn't Harry Redknapp have a story about a fan sending him a postcard urging him to buy a fantastic young Czech player he'd seen while on holiday, Karel Poborsky?
Now all clubs have the same data and probably analyse it in similar ways.
There's a story that AC Milan mistook Luther Blisset for John Barnes and wound up signing the wrong player from Watford.
Couldn't happen these days, could it?
The Blissett / Barnes story really is an urban myth which arose after the success which Barnes had at Liverpool in the late 1980s.
In 1983 Luther Blissett was far more prominent - top scorer with in the First Division that season with 27 goals, helping Watford to come second behind Liverpool, and also scoring a hat-trick on his debut for England.
Covrring faces. I’m not going to c&p all of it but there was a good letter in today’s Times on the effect on babies which noted the following:
“Research shows that such interaction stimulates brain development and helps with stress management. We wonder how frightening and disturbing it is for a baby when he or she is unable to make this connection. Dr Angela Underdown Former associate professor, University of Warwick; Professor Jane Barlow University of Oxford”
I suspect our 2-year old (more toddler than baby, obviously) would just point and shout "ROBOT LADY!".
One son while young really asked why the women were wearing funny sacks and hats. I gave a neutral answer thinking a lecture about why religious enthusasists are halfwits would be too much.
As someone who went to a 60% Muslim school, where more than half the children did not speak English as a first language, and where I was the first pupil to go to Cambridge (buffs fingernails), let me briefly share my burqua/niqab thoughts.
Firstly, there were a number of siblings where one girl would come to school conservatively dressed (i.e. head covered), while another would be a miniskirt. While I'm sure the parents reacted in shock and horror to the one who was definitely not dressed "conservatively", it does suggest that a fair number of people wearing these garments are choosing to do so, rather than forced.
Secondly, I remember being at a party where one of the girls confessed that the joy of wearing the full face covering to the mosque was that no one could tell she'd got shitfaced the night before.
My personal view on all of this is that it is not the job of the government to tell people what to wear. If I want to wear a KKK outfit on the street, that's my concern. You have no right not to be offended. At the same time, it's perfectly reasonable to require that people at school, or in banks or in court, etc., show their faces.
Where I would concentrate my attentions would be on FGM and forced marriages.
"Cameron should have listened to Crosby and walked away from the negotiation table for a year until he got a better deal with which he could risk a referendum"
****
Absolutely right. But he was convinced he would win 70/30, as I recall, no matter what Deal he brought back: he was puffed up from his indyref win and thought this would be much easier, and he could sell the stupid voters anything.
So in the end it was his snobbery, complacency and arrogance which was his downfall. A lesson for the ages, and for any parents intending to send their sons to Eton.
PROBABLY NOT WORTH THE MONEY.
Given his virtually unvarnished reputation and the flak aimed at poor old Mrs lower middle class May I think that should read THE BEST INVESTMENT YOU WILL EVER MAKE.
Virtually unvarnished. Oddly piquant typo?
Incidentally the flak aimed at TMay has fuck all to do with her class. She's just awkward and cringeworthy and often deeply, deeply inept and stupid.
Lol yes it's the forehead which is varnished. Untarnished.
Cameron's reputation is 'virtually untarnished'?!? After he led us to this clusterfuck?
Next up: Anthony Eden, the greatest 20th century PM?
Phew you're here. Just in time, he needs your support.
He really did, though. Sorry Topping, defending oppression of women under a "live and let live" line is pretty poor. Islam has an altogether awful attitude towards women's rights it is a culture that we shouldn't accept.
I don't necessarily disagree. But then so do many cultures have an awful attitude to women's rights.
But we are talking about the UK and what women in the UK are wearing. Are they forced to wear the niqab? Perhaps. Are orthodox Jewish women forced to wear wigs? Perhaps.
But we are talking about banning something that people wear. In the UK. Not Sean of course because, goldfish-like, he'll say anything that comes into his mind when it comes into his mind. But there are also some grown ups who want to ban it also.
As someone who went to a 60% Muslim school, where more than half the children did not speak English as a first language, and where I was the first pupil to go to Cambridge (buffs fingernails), let me briefly share my burqua/niqab thoughts.
Firstly, there were a number of siblings where one girl would come to school conservatively dressed (i.e. head covered), while another would be a miniskirt. While I'm sure the parents reacted in shock and horror to the one who was definitely not dressed "conservatively", it does suggest that a fair number of people wearing these garments are choosing to do so, rather than forced.
Secondly, I remember being at a party where one of the girls confessed that the joy of wearing the full face covering to the mosque was that no one could tell she'd got shitfaced the night before.
My personal view on all of this is that it is not the job of the government to tell people what to wear. If I want to wear a KKK outfit on the street, that's my concern. You have no right not to be offended. At the same time, it's perfectly reasonable to require that people at school, or in banks or in court, etc., show their faces.
Where I would concentrate my attentions would be on FGM and forced marriages.
As someone who went to a 60% Muslim school, where more than half the children did not speak English as a first language, and where I was the first pupil to go to Cambridge (buffs fingernails), let me briefly share my burqua/niqab thoughts.
Firstly, there were a number of siblings where one girl would come to school conservatively dressed (i.e. head covered), while another would be a miniskirt. While I'm sure the parents reacted in shock and horror to the one who was definitely not dressed "conservatively", it does suggest that a fair number of people wearing these garments are choosing to do so, rather than forced.
Secondly, I remember being at a party where one of the girls confessed that the joy of wearing the full face covering to the mosque was that no one could tell she'd got shitfaced the night before.
My personal view on all of this is that it is not the job of the government to tell people what to wear. If I want to wear a KKK outfit on the street, that's my concern. You have no right not to be offended. At the same time, it's perfectly reasonable to require that people at school, or in banks or in court, etc., show their faces.
Where I would concentrate my attentions would be on FGM and forced marriages.
A completely different view on burqa to May and Davidson:
"The burqa (niqab in Arabic) is a symbol. When you see it in a community, it indicates that an ideology and a radical form of Islam
Dr
He is, of cours barbaric base) Saudi Arabia.
And mocking those who choose to wear it is, of course, a sensible contribution to the debate, rather than a cynical political ploy.
WTF hastragic fact.
You could equally talk about the ever more Islamic direction of modern Conservatism.
Ruth Davidson's equation between "wearinourdough breakfast. I used to like her, as well. Shame.
As whoever I asked earlier did a runner, can I ase.
Because we are intelligent humans who have evolved to express emotion, and communicatedelicate muscles in our faces designed to do just this: help us communicate, help us get along.
All of these are negated and made impossible by fullface veils like the ni
They also frighten the fuck out of kids, are an easy way to disguise criminal identity, look deeply sinister en masse, are provably unhealthy in terms of Vitamin D, and symbolise and epitomise a very vile, perverse misogyny which lies at the core of modern conservative Islam.
That enough?
So you are a slave to western norms. And scared of anything new. That's cool. Some of us just live and let people live from in front of, rather than behind the sofa.
Jeez. That's it?
lol.
I owned you there, didn't I? Twit.
No. You didn't.
You have regurgitated some sub Daily Mail type lowest common denominator populism (all very entertaining, mind) which in any case is in conflict with your own western Primrose Hill liberal values. But on PB we really do need more substance.
And the fact that you have expressed yourself so well, if misguidedly, on an internet chat room proves my point further.
Nah, he owned you.
Phew you're here. Just in time, he needs your support.
Desperate desperate stuff.
Pushing from the back is never an attractive look, @Casino.
A completely different view on burqa to May and Davidson:
"The burqa (niqab in Arabic) is a symbol. When you see it in a community, it indicates that an ideology and a radical form of Islam
Dr
He is, of cours barbaric base) Saudi Arabia.
And mocking those who choose to wear it is, of course, a sensible contribution to the debate, rather than a cynical political ploy.
WTF hastragic fact.
You could equally talk about the ever more Islamic direction of modern Conservatism.
Ruth Davidson's equation between "wearinourdough breakfast. I used to like her, as well. Shame.
As whoever I asked earlier did a runner, can I ase.
Because we are intelligent humans who have evolved to express emotion, and communicatedelicate muscles in our faces designed to do just this: help us communicate, help us get along.
All of these are negated and made impossible by fullface veils like the ni
They also frighten the fuck out of kids, are an easy way to disguise criminal identity, look deeply sinister en masse, are provably unhealthy in terms of Vitamin D, and symbolise and epitomise a very vile, perverse misogyny which lies at the core of modern conservative Islam.
That enough?
So you are a slave to western norms. And scared of anything new. That's cool. Some of us just live and let people live from in front of, rather than behind the sofa.
Jeez. That's it?
lol.
I owned you there, didn't I? Twit.
No. You didn't.
You have regurgitated some sub Daily Mail type lowest common denominator populism (all very entertaining, mind) which in any case is in conflict with your own western Primrose Hill liberal values. But on PB we really do need more substance.
And the fact that you have expressed yourself so well, if misguidedly, on an internet chat room proves my point further.
Nah, he owned you.
Phew you're here. Just in time, he needs your support.
Desperate desperate stuff.
Pushing from the back is never an attractive look, @Casino.
Phew you're here. Just in time, he needs your support.
He really did, though. Sorry Topping, defending oppression of women under a "live and let live" line is pretty poor. Islam has an altogether awful attitude towards women's rights it is a culture that we shouldn't accept.
I don't necessarily disagree. But then so do many cultures have an awful attitude to women's rights.
But we are talking about the UK and what women in the UK are wearing. Are they forced to wear the niqab? Perhaps. Are orthodox Jewish women forced to wear wigs? Perhaps.
But we are talking about banning something that people wear. In the UK. Not Sean of course because, goldfish-like, he'll say anything that comes into his mind when it comes into his mind. But there are also some grown ups who want to ban it also.
The issue, to me, is that we have been forced to accept all of these awful Islamic cultural ideas in this country under the guise of racism or Islamophobia. The burka is just one of those, and a relatively minor one at that. As I said earlier this afternoon, while people are getting at Boris for a few milquetoast comments about the burka, actual women across this country are being oppressed by male relatives, they are being abused, subjected to FGM and forced into marriages to other male relatives from Pakistan or Bangladesh. It irks me that the Boris has managed to trivialise what should be a serious conversation.
As someone who went to a 60% Muslim school, where more than half the children did not speak English as a first language, and where I was the first pupil to go to Cambridge (buffs fingernails), let me briefly share my burqua/niqab thoughts.
Firstly, there were a number of siblings where one girl would come to school conservatively dressed (i.e. head covered), while another would be a miniskirt. While I'm sure the parents reacted in shock and horror to the one who was definitely not dressed "conservatively", it does suggest that a fair number of people wearing these garments are choosing to do so, rather than forced.
Secondly, I remember being at a party where one of the girls confessed that the joy of wearing the full face covering to the mosque was that no one could tell she'd got shitfaced the night before.
My personal view on all of this is that it is not the job of the government to tell people what to wear. If I want to wear a KKK outfit on the street, that's my concern. You have no right not to be offended. At the same time, it's perfectly reasonable to require that people at school, or in banks or in court, etc., show their faces.
Where I would concentrate my attentions would be on FGM and forced marriages.
Yes, illegal since 1985 and no successful prosecutions despite these figures:
Why is it that it's the same people who say Muslims have no right not be offended by - for example - the Danish Allah cartoons who call for something they find offensive - the burqua - to be banned?
As someone who went to a 60% Muslim school, where more than half the children did not speak English as a first language, and where I was the first pupil to go to Cambridge (buffs fingernails), let me briefly share my burqua/niqab thoughts.
Firstly, there were a number of siblings where one girl would come to school conservatively dressed (i.e. head covered), while another would be a miniskirt. While I'm sure the parents reacted in shock and horror to the one who was definitely not dressed "conservatively", it does suggest that a fair number of people wearing these garments are choosing to do so, rather than forced.
Secondly, I remember being at a party where one of the girls confessed that the joy of wearing the full face covering to the mosque was that no one could tell she'd got shitfaced the night before.
My personal view on all of this is that it is not the job of the government to tell people what to wear. If I want to wear a KKK outfit on the street, that's my concern. You have no right not to be offended. At the same time, it's perfectly reasonable to require that people at school, or in banks or in court, etc., show their faces.
Where I would concentrate my attentions would be on FGM and forced marriages.
Yes, illegal since 1985 and no successful prosecutions despite these figures:
Phew you're here. Just in time, he needs your support.
He really did, though. Sorry Topping, defending oppression of women under a "live and let live" line is pretty poor. Islam has an altogether awful attitude towards women's rights it is a culture that we shouldn't accept.
I don't necessarily disagree. But then so do many cultures have an awful attitude to women's rights.
But we are talking about the UK and what women in the UK are wearing. Are they forced to wear the niqab? Perhaps. Are orthodox Jewish women forced to wear wigs? Perhaps.
But we are talking about banning something that people wear. In the UK. Not Sean of course because, goldfish-like, he'll say anything that comes into his mind when it comes into his mind. But there are also some grown ups who want to ban it also.
The issue, to me, is that we have been forced to accept all of these awful Islamic cultural ideas in this country under the guise of racism or Islamophobia. The burka is just one of those, and a relatively minor one at that. As I said earlier this afternoon, while people are getting at Boris for a few milquetoast comments about the burka, actual women across this country are being oppressed by male relatives, they are being abused, subjected to FGM and forced into marriages to other male relatives from Pakistan or Bangladesh. It irks me that the Boris has managed to trivialise what should be a serious conversation.
I think the question is whether we set reasonable boundaries on what is acceptable dress for integrated social functionality.
Actually, we already do so in a number of areas, and the burka crosses into that category too in my view. The hijab absolutely does not. And in neither case is Islamphobia acceptable.
Now, there are some who think we should do away with such boundaries altogether (like Robert Smithson) - and that’s a perfectly acceptable position.
What I can’t stand is the double standards of those who look to use it as a crook to lever themselves into a position oneupmanship on the culture wars.
It’s both narcissistic and cowardly, and ignores a serious schism that is developing in parts of our society.
Covrring faces. I’m not going to c&p all of it but there was a good letter in today’s Times on the effect on babies which noted the following:
“Research shows that such interaction stimulates brain development and helps with stress management. We wonder how frightening and disturbing it is for a baby when he or she is unable to make this connection. Dr Angela Underdown Former associate professor, University of Warwick; Professor Jane Barlow University of Oxford”
I suspect our 2-year old (more toddler than baby, obviously) would just point and shout "ROBOT LADY!".
One son while young really asked why the women were wearing funny sacks and hats. I gave a neutral answer thinking a lecture about why religious enthusasists are halfwits would be too much.
In Britain we are largely inoculated to Religion. Christianity has broadly become more liberal and tolerant as time has progressed. We seem to assume that this is the natural pattern of development of religion.
There is a chance that it is not. We see the minority strands of Wahabism growing as Saudi money funds mosques around the World, dragging Moslem majority countries back from their social development of the 50's and 60's towards the 6th Century, and growing in influence in Britain too.
I do not care what creed, colour or sexuality you have or how you live your life, so long as you do no harm to others. My concern is that one day we may have to choose whether fundamental observance of Islam is a harm to wider society, and then what we do as a society about that. I would feel the same way if it were a Christian sect or other religious group going down that path, so it is not an Islamophobic position.
And Ruth Davidson was wrong yesterday. The Burka is not a symbol of faith like the Cross. That is patently foolish and invites derision.
It's rather sobering to observe Northamptonshire Council finding out what it's like when you run out of other people's money.
It is difficult to supply the needs of the Population for 80 years when they only work for 45, and they demand the expensive early and late years are covered.
Northamptonshire can be a surprisingly gorgeous county, outside Northampton, that is.
It's one of those weird bits of Britain which is neither quite north nor south, nor is it Black Country (tho it has industry). Some exquisite villages.
Hopefully the population reduction from all its old people dying will make it cheaper to buy nice big country houses there.
You don’t really know where the Black Country is, do you?
Eeeeek. It's a fair cop.
I did once have a very sexy girlfriend from Stoke, it's around there, isn't it?
*hopeful face*
Though, to be honest, I've never been to Stoke and would have a hard time placing it on a map. All I know is that my girlfriend from Stoke said it was Shit and she never wanted to go back. She adored London.
What I DO know is that Ironbridge and the valley beneath it (where I HAVE been (is it near Stoke?)) is one of the most resonantly poetic places on earth. It's one of the very few places you can say HERE is where human life changed.
It's equal to Gobekli Tepe, Jerusalem, and Florence in that respect. Maybe one day we will add Silicon Valley to that list.
Wolverhampton, Dudley, Walsall,West Brom, Tipton,Wednesbury, Stourbridge,Halesowen, sort of way. Roughly metropolitan boroughs of Wolverhampton, Sandwell, and Dudley. Not Birmingham.
It's rather sobering to observe Northamptonshire Council finding out what it's like when you run out of other people's money.
It is difficult to supply the needs of the Population for 80 years when they only work for 45, and they demand the expensive early and late years are covered.
Northamptonshire can be a surprisingly gorgeous county, outside Northampton, that is.
It's one of those weird bits of Britain which is neither quite north nor south, nor is it Black Country (tho it has industry). Some exquisite villages.
Hopefully the population reduction from all its old people dying will make it cheaper to buy nice big country houses there.
You don’t really know where the Black Country is, do you?
Eeeeek. It's a fair cop.
I did once have a very sexy girlfriend from Stoke, it's around there, isn't it?
*hopeful face*
Though, to be honest, I've never been to Stoke and would have a hard time placing it on a map. All I know is that my girlfriend from Stoke said it was Shit and she never wanted to go back. She adored London.
What I DO know is that Ironbridge and the valley beneath it (where I HAVE been (is it near Stoke?)) is one of the most resonantly poetic places on earth. It's one of the very few places you can say HERE is where human life changed.
It's equal to Gobekli Tepe, Jerusalem, and Florence in that respect. Maybe one day we will add Silicon Valley to that list.
I don't know who would be more offended - those from Dudley, Wolverhampton, etc. or the Stokies.
EDIT: actually it's fairly obvious, the former would be more upset.
Phew you're here. Just in time, he needs your support.
He really did, though. Sorry Topping, defending oppression of women under a "live and let live" line is pretty poor. Islam has an altogether awful attitude towards women's rights it is a culture that we shouldn't accept.
I don't necessarily disagree. But then so do many cultures have an awful attitude to women's rights.
But we are talking about the UK and what women in the UK are wearing. Are they forced to wear the niqab? Perhaps. Are orthodox Jewish women forced to wear wigs? Perhaps.
But we are talking about banning something that people wear. In the UK. Not Sean of course because, goldfish-like, he'll say anything that comes into his mind when it comes into his mind. But there are also some grown ups who want to ban it also.
The issue, to me, is that we have been forced to accept all of these awful Islamic cultural ideas in this country under the guise of racism or Islamophobia. The burka is just one of those, and a relatively minor one at that. As I said earlier this afternoon, while people are getting at Boris for a few milquetoast comments about the burka, actual women across this country are being oppressed by male relatives, they are being abused, subjected to FGM and forced into marriages to other male relatives from Pakistan or Bangladesh. It irks me that the Boris has managed to trivialise what should be a serious conversation.
Yes whichever way you look at it he's a Grade A plonker.
I don't disagree either about the FGM, etc, as @rcs1000 mentioned. It's easy in that context to forget that we are talking about an item of clothing.
As someone who went to a 60% Muslim school, where more than half the children did not speak English as a first language, and where I was the first pupil to go to Cambridge (buffs fingernails), let me briefly share my burqua/niqab thoughts.
Firstly, there were a number of siblings where one girl would come to school conservatively dressed (i.e. head covered), while another would be a miniskirt. While I'm sure the parents reacted in shock and horror to the one who was definitely not dressed "conservatively", it does suggest that a fair number of people wearing these garments are choosing to do so, rather than forced.
Secondly, I remember being at a party where one of the girls confessed that the joy of wearing the full face covering to the mosque was that no one could tell she'd got shitfaced the night before.
My personal view on all of this is that it is not the job of the government to tell people what to wear. If I want to wear a KKK outfit on the street, that's my concern. You have no right not to be offended. At the same time, it's perfectly reasonable to require that people at school, or in banks or in court, etc., show their faces.
Where I would concentrate my attentions would be on FGM and forced marriages.
Yes, illegal since 1985 and no successful prosecutions despite these figures:
Remove the statute of limitations on FGM. When people give birth and are seen to have had FGM by midwives, charge their parents.
A few people in jail, and the practice would die out over night.
I can not believe FGM happens by midwives in this country, if it does then we really are in trouble. I always thought the children were taken to another country, somewhere in North Africa and then brought back. Hence the term cutting season.
As someone who went to a 60% Muslim school, where more than half the children did not speak English as a first language, and where I was the first pupil to go to Cambridge (buffs fingernails), let me briefly share my burqua/niqab thoughts.
Firstly, there were a number of siblings where one girl would come to school conservatively dressed (i.e. head covered), while another would be a miniskirt. While I'm sure the parents reacted in shock and horror to the one who was definitely not dressed "conservatively", it does suggest that a fair number of people wearing these garments are choosing to do so, rather than forced.
Secondly, I remember being at a party where one of the girls confessed that the joy of wearing the full face covering to the mosque was that no one could tell she'd got shitfaced the night before.
My personal view on all of this is that it is not the job of the government to tell people what to wear. If I want to wear a KKK outfit on the street, that's my concern. You have no right not to be offended. At the same time, it's perfectly reasonable to require that people at school, or in banks or in court, etc., show their faces.
Where I would concentrate my attentions would be on FGM and forced marriages.
Yes, illegal since 1985 and no successful prosecutions despite these figures:
Remove the statute of limitations on FGM. When people give birth and are seen to have had FGM by midwives, charge their parents.
A few people in jail, and the practice would die out over night.
I can not believe FGM happens by midwives in this country, if it does then we really are in trouble. I always thought the children were taken to another country, somewhere in North Africa and then brought back. Hence the term cutting season.
That's not what I'm saying. The midwives can report people who have had FGM. The parents of said woman are then criminally liable for allowing ABH.
As someone who went to a 60% Muslim school, where more than half the children did not speak English as a first language, and where I was the first pupil to go to Cambridge (buffs fingernails), let me briefly share my burqua/niqab thoughts.
Firstly, there were a number of siblings where one girl would come to school conservatively dressed (i.e. head covered), while another would be a miniskirt. While I'm sure the parents reacted in shock and horror to the one who was definitely not dressed "conservatively", it does suggest that a fair number of people wearing these garments are choosing to do so, rather than forced.
Secondly, I remember being at a party where one of the girls confessed that the joy of wearing the full face covering to the mosque was that no one could tell she'd got shitfaced the night before.
My personal view on all of this is that it is not the job of the government to tell people what to wear. If I want to wear a KKK outfit on the street, that's my concern. You have no right not to be offended. At the same time, it's perfectly reasonable to require that people at school, or in banks or in court, etc., show their faces.
Where I would concentrate my attentions would be on FGM and forced marriages.
Yes, illegal since 1985 and no successful prosecutions despite these figures:
Remove the statute of limitations on FGM. When people give birth and are seen to have had FGM by midwives, charge their parents.
A few people in jail, and the practice would die out over night.
I can not believe FGM happens by midwives in this country, if it does then we really are in trouble. I always thought the children were taken to another country, somewhere in North Africa and then brought back. Hence the term cutting season.
That's not what I'm saying. The midwives can report people who have had FGM. The parents of said woman are then criminally liable for allowing ABH.
Comments
Who do you think should be doing the holding to account?
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/08/two-words-from-canada-just-made-saudi-arabia-furious/566870/
If the west were to take a united approach, it might be possible to change the Saudis’ behaviour. As it is - and with Trump in the White House - that seems extremely unlikely.
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/unionists-didn-t-know-how-good-they-had-it-before-brexit-1.3587116
The DUP is simultaneously resisting social reform while battling over every symbolic inch of Ulster-Britishness. The Irish language was ridiculed so crudely that people previously indifferent or sceptical about legislating its status (the main stumbling block to restarting the Assembly) now support an Act. Such is the DUP’s capacity to provoke support for the causes they oppose.
It demands that Northern Ireland remain distinct from the rest of the UK in major social and cultural ways while insisting any divergence in goods regulation would fatally undermine British citizenship. Something has to give....
https://twitter.com/BBCDouglasF/status/1027618451668574209
Even more sobering for the Conservatives when Brexit really kicks in.
ETA probably more honoured in the breach
http://www.northamptonshiresurprise.com/organisation/thenford-house/
Edit: and I haven't been put off my grilled tuna and glass of rose.
GMAFB.
No, Boris's big innovation was the segregated cycle superhighways, which are absolutely standard practice in the Netherlands but only existed in a couple of locations in the UK. They genuinely are transforming cycling in London. It wasn't his idea (that was the cycling lobby) nor his implementation (that was Andrew Gilligan), but he put his political capital behind it, and that made it happen. To their shame, neither the supposedly environment-friendly Blair government nor the Lib Dems in coalition have ever done anything as pro-cycling as this Boris policy.
Why does this only apply to women?
A school uniform is designed to make appearance equal. It is intended to hide difference and individuality and remove barriers to integration of class, wealth, ethnicity or religion.
Over the last decade there has been a net decline overall in the numbers of low skilled jobs created (with a few exceptions like social care admittedly) with job creation coming in higher skilled areas. Open the floodgates to low skilled immigration and inevitably the wages and demand for the skills of the low skilled native working class will fall as well as competition for rents and affordable housing and pressure on public services
You have regurgitated some sub Daily Mail type lowest common denominator populism (all very entertaining, mind) which in any case is in conflict with your own western Primrose Hill liberal values. But on PB we really do need more substance.
And the fact that you have expressed yourself so well, if misguidedly, on an internet chat room proves my point further.
It's just that the men ignore it.
That’s it.
Every single day.
"Momentum founder Jon Lansman has come out in condemnation of an article by Open Labour’s Owen Smith-supporting Jade Azim, after a fraught twenty-four hours or so in which too many well-known young left-wingers who should have known better had defended Azim and her article, which sought to pit ‘Lansmanites’ against the abusively-termed ‘cranks’, as well as promoting Ann Black for Labour’s NEC (National Executive Committee)."
https://skwawkbox.org/2018/08/09/lansman-condemns-uncomradely-and-divisive-azim-article/
Then again, only bigots think that changing demographics might lead to political change.
And as such we know you really don't believe the stuff you write. And you also get a kick from fanboys like Casino adoring you, which is fair enough; you've got to take the plaudits when you can.
“Research shows that such interaction stimulates brain development and helps with stress management. We wonder how frightening and disturbing it is for a baby when he or she is unable to make this connection.
Dr Angela Underdown Former associate professor, University of Warwick; Professor Jane Barlow University of Oxford”
More, please.
In 1983 Luther Blissett was far more prominent - top scorer with in the First Division that season with 27 goals, helping Watford to come second behind Liverpool, and also scoring a hat-trick on his debut for England.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Blissett#Watford
Firstly, there were a number of siblings where one girl would come to school conservatively dressed (i.e. head covered), while another would be a miniskirt. While I'm sure the parents reacted in shock and horror to the one who was definitely not dressed "conservatively", it does suggest that a fair number of people wearing these garments are choosing to do so, rather than forced.
Secondly, I remember being at a party where one of the girls confessed that the joy of wearing the full face covering to the mosque was that no one could tell she'd got shitfaced the night before.
My personal view on all of this is that it is not the job of the government to tell people what to wear. If I want to wear a KKK outfit on the street, that's my concern. You have no right not to be offended. At the same time, it's perfectly reasonable to require that people at school, or in banks or in court, etc., show their faces.
Where I would concentrate my attentions would be on FGM and forced marriages.
Next up: Anthony Eden, the greatest 20th century PM?
But we are talking about the UK and what women in the UK are wearing. Are they forced to wear the niqab? Perhaps. Are orthodox Jewish women forced to wear wigs? Perhaps.
But we are talking about banning something that people wear. In the UK. Not Sean of course because, goldfish-like, he'll say anything that comes into his mind when it comes into his mind. But there are also some grown ups who want to ban it also.
https://www.lewisham.gov.uk/myservices/socialcare/children/Documents/FGMGudianceFinal.pdf
"The highest prevalence rates of FGM of any local authority in the country are from Southwark (4.7%) and Brent (3.9%)
Lewisham’s estimated prevalence of women affected by FGM is 2.5%"
Why is it that it's the same people who say Muslims have no right not be offended by - for example - the Danish Allah cartoons who call for something they find offensive - the burqua - to be banned?
A few people in jail, and the practice would die out over night.
The sceptics can't even get people into orbit right now without the Russian's help.
Actually, we already do so in a number of areas, and the burka crosses into that category too in my view. The hijab absolutely does not. And in neither case is Islamphobia acceptable.
Now, there are some who think we should do away with such boundaries altogether (like Robert Smithson) - and that’s a perfectly acceptable position.
What I can’t stand is the double standards of those who look to use it as a crook to lever themselves into a position oneupmanship on the culture wars.
It’s both narcissistic and cowardly, and ignores a serious schism that is developing in parts of our society.
There is a chance that it is not. We see the minority strands of Wahabism growing as Saudi money funds mosques around the World, dragging Moslem majority countries back from their social development of the 50's and 60's towards the 6th Century, and growing in influence in Britain too.
I do not care what creed, colour or sexuality you have or how you live your life, so long as you do no harm to others. My concern is that one day we may have to choose whether fundamental observance of Islam is a harm to wider society, and then what we do as a society about that. I would feel the same way if it were a Christian sect or other religious group going down that path, so it is not an Islamophobic position.
And Ruth Davidson was wrong yesterday. The Burka is not a symbol of faith like the Cross. That is patently foolish and invites derision.
EDIT: actually it's fairly obvious, the former would be more upset.
I don't disagree either about the FGM, etc, as @rcs1000 mentioned. It's easy in that context to forget that we are talking about an item of clothing.