Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The prospect of Johnson as leader should make Theresa’s positi

12346»

Comments

  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,683
    rcs1000 said:

    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.

    I also went to a school with a sizeable ethnic-minority cohort (in fact a kid in my tutor group went on to become a convicted Islamic terrorist!), but I don't recall anyone wearing any religious garb whatsoever. This was in the 1980s. So have Muslim women become more conservative, the men more oppressive, or is it a fashion thing?
  • rcs1000 said:

    AndyJS said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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:

    https://www.lewisham.gov.uk/myservices/socialcare/children/Documents/FGMGudianceFinal.pdf

    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.
    I think what rcs meant was that FGM would be subsequently spotted by midwives when the girls who had suffered it have children delivered in NHS hospitals.
  • rcs1000 said:

    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.

    I also went to a school with a sizeable ethnic-minority cohort (in fact a kid in my tutor group went on to become a convicted Islamic terrorist!), but I don't recall anyone wearing any religious garb whatsoever. This was in the 1980s. So have Muslim women become more conservative, the men more oppressive, or is it a fashion thing?
    It's the spread of Wahabi Islam due to the Saudis funding mosques worldwide.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,863
    edited August 2018
    SeanT said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Another thing:

    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?

    Don't be a fucking idiot. The burqa is seriously inhibiting of human movement, joy, health, pleasure, happiness.

    A fucking cartoon is a cartoon.

    My God, California is as rotting to the IQ as everyone says, Get thee back to Blighty, before you turn, intellectually, into a vegan lasagne.
    I think the burqa falls into the category of 'something I dislike a lot' rather than 'something I want to ban' but I'm not sure about the latter. There are three questions for me: is it involved in criminal activity, are those wearing ot doing so voluntarily, and do we make them more free by banning it? The answers, I think, are probably not, probably not, and probably not.

    Incidentally, how would wefeel if it was not the burka we were talking about but a bunch of kids going around in Guy Fawkes masks? I suspect we would feel equally uncomfortable.

    Either way, to liken it to wearing a crucifix is to deliberately miss the point by some way. Aside from the fact that both are expressing belief in a supernatural power, the two have nothing whatsoever in common.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Can't wait. It's been ages since we've had a poll.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,683
    edited August 2018
    zapped!!!!
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,683
    zapped!
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,683
    SeanT said:

    SeanT said:

    philiph said:

    AndyJS said:

    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.
    Ironbridge is near Telford (a friend of mine took a masters in heritage management there). Agreed it's an amazing place. Apparently it had all been rather left to rot until it was 'rediscovered' in the 1980s, so I suppose we're lucky they didn't bulldoze the lot in the 1960s and put a ring-road system on it.
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227
    AndyJS said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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:

    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%"
    A lot of people from the Horn of Africa live there.
  • AndyJS said:

    Can't wait. It's been ages since we've had a poll.
    Shoosh - HYFUD will be telling us all how wonderful Boris is !!!!
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,318
    edited August 2018
    rcs1000 said:

    Another thing:

    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?

    3 answers:-

    1. People can be offended, if they want. It does not follow that they therefore are entitled to ask for whatever offends them to be banned.

    2. The right to free speech and free thought are far more important than the right to dress in a particular way.

    3. The reasons for banning the burqa (a very fine judgment) are not to do with the offence it may cause nor its aesthetic qualities but that it is the uniform of an ideology which is very hostile to integration within a secular society, that that unwillingness to integrate is harmful to women in that community and harmful to the level of social cohesion and shared values necessary to make society work well. And this is particularly the case where the community in question is currently very prone to an extremism hostile to the values, norms and laws of this country and, partly as a result, some of its members are vulnerable to terrorism. A society is entitled to say not just “When in Rome, do as the Romans” but also “When in Rome this is what you cannot do”.

    But the burqa is only one of the issues to be tackled. What is taught in Islamic schools, in mosques, forced marriage and FGM are more important. But all these issues matter and need to be tackled.

    There are serious problems within Muslim communities: a credal culture does not sit well within a democracy. How can you seriously believe in man made laws if you think that laws should come from your version of God? How can a mysogynistic culture fit happily within a culture which believes in equal rights for men and women? How can a religion which thinks that death is the appropriate punishment for apostasy fit comfortably with a culture based on the freedom to think and say what you want. And so on.

    We should perhaps have asked these questions before continuing to permit large-scale Muslim immigration into the West. We should certainly have done so when we were warned of these issues with the Ray Honeyford affair and then the Rushdie fatwa. We put our heads in the sand. Now we focus on burqas or minarets. But it is to look at the symptoms rather than the bigger question. We need to have a serious debate about and effort at proper integration of minorities not toleration of or a cringe before cultural practices we consider criminal and/or abhorrent nor infantile abuse aimed at individuals.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    AndyJS said:

    Can't wait. It's been ages since we've had a poll.
    I think you need to get out more Andy!!
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,756
    edited August 2018
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    AndyJS said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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:

    https://www.lewisham.gov.uk/myservices/socialcare/children/Documents/FGMGudianceFinal.pdf

    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.
    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.
    There is a misconception here. There are thousands of notifications of FGM per year, but the vast majority are in adult women born abroad, with the FGM done decades before and in another country. Prosecution in such cases is problematic to say the least.

    In the most recent figures (2017-18), there is a downward trend of detections, with 6195 (4450 new) notifications. Only 70 were under the age of 18 at presentation, with a median age of 31, and a median age of FGM in early childhood, so a quarter century before, and mostly in the country of their birth:


    https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/female-genital-mutilation/female-genital-mutilation-fgm---annual-report-2017-18/content
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,249
    SeanT said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Another thing:

    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?

    Don't be a fucking idiot. The burqa is seriously inhibiting of human movement, joy, health, pleasure, happiness.

    A fucking cartoon is a cartoon.

    My God, California is as rotting to the IQ as everyone says, Get thee back to Blighty, before you turn, intellectually, into a vegan lasagne.
    So what? There are a number of posters on here who inhibit joy, pleasure and happiness, and we don't ban them.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,621
    edited August 2018
    The Times just now: "The Conservatives have extended a four point lead over Labour according to the latest YouGov poll for The Times, suggesting that the row over antisemitism has damaged Jeremy Corbyn.

    The poll found that 39 per cent of people said they would vote Tory, up one point compared with last week when both parties were level. Labour dropped three points to 35 per cent. The Liberal Democrats are unchanged on 10 per cent. Ukip rise by one point to 7 per cent."

    EDIT: "On the EU referendum result, 42 per cent think that Britain was right to vote leave and 45 per cent say that leaving is the wrong thing to do."
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,881
    Poll:Tory 4 point lead
    Guess labour's crisis is hitting corbyn
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,754
    edited August 2018
    May has 14 point lead over Corbyn, up 7.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,206
    Tories take 4 point lead over Labour in new YouGov poll

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/c1826d3a-9c15-11e8-be18-9b68e74f878e
  • Con 39 (+1)

    Lab 35 (-3)

    LD 10 (nc)

    UKIP 7 (+1)


    Theresa May has a 14 point lead over Mr Corbyn, up seven points on last week, on the question of who would make the best prime minister.

    Some 36 per cent say they would chose Mrs May as premier, up 4 points, while 22 per cent chose Mr Corbyn, down 3 points. Both trailed the 39 per cent who said they did not know.
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227
    HYUFD said:

    Tories take 4 point lead over Labour in new YouGov poll

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/c1826d3a-9c15-11e8-be18-9b68e74f878e

    No wonder Sam Tory Coates was trailing ir so much.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    rcs1000 said:

    AndyJS said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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:

    https://www.lewisham.gov.uk/myservices/socialcare/children/Documents/FGMGudianceFinal.pdf

    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.
    There's no relevant statute of limitations (though of course time lags cause evidential problems).
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,705
    So the Chequers deal is not so toxic after all?
  • This is Mr Corbyn’s lowest rating over as to who would make the best prime minister and Labour’s lowest overall score in voting intention since last year’s general election.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,249

    rcs1000 said:

    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.

    I also went to a school with a sizeable ethnic-minority cohort (in fact a kid in my tutor group went on to become a convicted Islamic terrorist!), but I don't recall anyone wearing any religious garb whatsoever. This was in the 1980s. So have Muslim women become more conservative, the men more oppressive, or is it a fashion thing?
    I was at school I guess 7-8 years later than you (this was the early 90s). And the school I went to was in a very poor part Bedford. The Middle Class Muslim kids mostly went to other schools or one of Bedford's numerous private schools, and I suspect that none of them wore religious garb of any kind to school.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,206
    edited August 2018
    Full figures

    Tories 39%
    Labour 35%
    LDs 10%
    UKIP 7%

    1% swing from Labour to Tory since GE17, LDs up 3% and UKIP up 5% from the last general election too.

    Theresa May has a 14 point lead over Mr Corbyn, up seven points on last week, on the question of who would make the best prime minister.

    Some 36 per cent say they would choose Mrs May as premier, up 4 points
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,208
    This seems a convincing summary of the situation. Tory Leavers are doubling down on the rhetoric, they hate Chequers, and Johnson is the only prominent Tory not to have "betrayed" Brexit. Yet. He will wait until he becomes Prime Minister before the biggest betrayal of them all.

    https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedUKPol/status/1026552090686943232
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,318

    rcs1000 said:

    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.

    I also went to a school with a sizeable ethnic-minority cohort (in fact a kid in my tutor group went on to become a convicted Islamic terrorist!), but I don't recall anyone wearing any religious garb whatsoever. This was in the 1980s. So have Muslim women become more conservative, the men more oppressive, or is it a fashion thing?
    It's the spread of Wahabi Islam due to the Saudis funding mosques worldwide.
    I would stop all Saudi funding of mosques, schools and universities in this country. Sup with a very long spoon indeed when it comes to this particular devil. On this Corbyn is right.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    So the Chequers deal is not so toxic after all?
    Or is trumped by dislike of anti semitism - heartening if true.
  • So the Chequers deal is not so toxic after all?
    TM just gets on with her job meeting Macron last weekend, then signing an Edinburgh city deal with Nicola Sturgeon and representing the Country at Amiens.

    The Country maybe needs to be pleased a grown up is in charge
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,206
    edited August 2018

    So the Chequers deal is not so toxic after all?
    UKIP up to 7% and Tories still down 3% on G17, just Labour down an even larger 5% on GE17.


    Looks like May has won over some Remainers who voted Labour in 2017 and maybe Tory in 2015 to counteract Leavers who voted Tory in 2017 but have now switched back to UKIP which they likely voted for in 2015.


    Some Labour Remainers have also clearly switched to the LDs given they are up to 10%
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,754
    HYUFD said:

    Full figures

    Tories 39%
    Labour 35%
    LDs 10%
    UKIP 7%

    Almost an absolute majority for May + Cable. ;)
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,756
    HYUFD said:

    So the Chequers deal is not so toxic after all?
    UKIP up to 7% and Tories still down 3% on G17, just Labour down an even larger 5% on GE17
    Call an election and build that majority :)
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,469
    All the middle class yuppy Labour supporters on holiday :wink:
  • surby said:

    HYUFD said:

    Tories take 4 point lead over Labour in new YouGov poll

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/c1826d3a-9c15-11e8-be18-9b68e74f878e

    No wonder Sam Tory Coates was trailing ir so much.
    Why the 'Tory ' when he is reporting a you gov poll.

    Labour and Corbyn in particular are getting their just desserts
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,842
    Cyclefree said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.

    I also went to a school with a sizeable ethnic-minority cohort (in fact a kid in my tutor group went on to become a convicted Islamic terrorist!), but I don't recall anyone wearing any religious garb whatsoever. This was in the 1980s. So have Muslim women become more conservative, the men more oppressive, or is it a fashion thing?
    It's the spread of Wahabi Islam due to the Saudis funding mosques worldwide.
    I would stop all Saudi funding of mosques, schools and universities in this country. Sup with a very long spoon indeed when it comes to this particular devil. On this Corbyn is right.
    Anything positive he has to say is undone by his continued willingness to sup with Iranian and Hamas spoons.
  • daodaodaodao Posts: 821
    Cyclefree said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.

    I also went to a school with a sizeable ethnic-minority cohort (in fact a kid in my tutor group went on to become a convicted Islamic terrorist!), but I don't recall anyone wearing any religious garb whatsoever. This was in the 1980s. So have Muslim women become more conservative, the men more oppressive, or is it a fashion thing?
    It's the spread of Wahabi Islam due to the Saudis funding mosques worldwide.
    I would stop all Saudi funding of mosques, schools and universities in this country. Sup with a very long spoon indeed when it comes to this particular devil. On this Corbyn is right.
    Saudi behaviour is atrocious in many ways; for example, they are responsible for this massacre: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-45128367
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,992
    Cyclefree said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Another thing:

    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?

    3 answers:-


    3. The reasons for banning the burqa (a very fine judgment) are not to do with the offence it may cause nor its aesthetic qualities but that it is the uniform of an ideology...snip...
    Sozza but that's bollocks. You are trying to ban thought?

    The punks stood for nihilism and anarchy. Quite an ideology; would you have banned safety pins through the nose also?
  • glwglw Posts: 9,916

    So the Chequers deal is not so toxic after all?
    TM just gets on with her job meeting Macron last weekend, then signing an Edinburgh city deal with Nicola Sturgeon and representing the Country at Amiens.

    The Country maybe needs to be pleased a grown up is in charge
    I think May is a rubbish PM, but it's not as though there is a queue of talented alternatives in the Tory Party. Boris in particular has demonstrated clearly that Mayor of London was his pinnacle. And the opposition parties are a joke barely worth a moment's thought.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,181

    So the Chequers deal is not so toxic after all?
    TM just gets on with her job meeting Macron last weekend, then signing an Edinburgh city deal with Nicola Sturgeon and representing the Country at Amiens.

    The Country maybe needs to be pleased a grown up is in charge
    She's bad at the job, but knowing her time as pm is very limited I do believe she is trying and, as you say, being grown up about it
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,206
    edited August 2018

    HYUFD said:

    Full figures

    Tories 39%
    Labour 35%
    LDs 10%
    UKIP 7%

    Almost an absolute majority for May + Cable. ;)
    A 1% swing to the Tories as in this poll would see May pick up 16 Labour seats, taking her to 334 seats and giving her an overall majority of 12
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,206
    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    So the Chequers deal is not so toxic after all?
    UKIP up to 7% and Tories still down 3% on G17, just Labour down an even larger 5% on GE17
    Call an election and build that majority :)
    I think Philip will talk her out of that one, she is not going to do that again
  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,078

    This is Mr Corbyn’s lowest rating over as to who would make the best prime minister and Labour’s lowest overall score in voting intention since last year’s general election.

    This may empower the Blairites to make their move against Corbyn and declare UDI in parliament.MPs like Chris Leslie and Ian Austin,whose antipathy to Corbyn will never be abated,may declare independence like the MP for Barrow.
    New centre,party,movement or grouping,looks to already have chosen Yvette Cooper as the new chosen one.
    If they do set up an alternative party these MPs must face the electorate in a by-election under their new party colours.
    Whatever happens,people don't vote for such an obviously divided party.It seems unity is too much to ask for some.
  • NEW THREAD

  • booksellerbookseller Posts: 507
    OT but thought PBers would find this interesting:

    https://www.marketingweek.com/2018/08/08/mark-ritson-vote-leave-brexit/

    This is an interesting reality check - particularly when you read the comments. Vote Leave were simply more skillful in their marketing, and we live in a world where marketing rules...
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,318
    TOPPING said:

    Cyclefree said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Another thing:

    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?

    3 answers:-


    3. The reasons for banning the burqa (a very fine judgment) are not to do with the offence it may cause nor its aesthetic qualities but that it is the uniform of an ideology...snip...
    Sozza but that's bollocks. You are trying to ban thought?

    The punks stood for nihilism and anarchy. Quite an ideology; would you have banned safety pins through the nose also?
    No. Reread my post. Not meaning to be rude but not sure you have understood it.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,318

    Cyclefree said:

    rcs1000 said:

    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.

    I also went to a school with a sizeable ethnic-minority cohort (in fact a kid in my tutor group went on to become a convicted Islamic terrorist!), but I don't recall anyone wearing any religious garb whatsoever. This was in the 1980s. So have Muslim women become more conservative, the men more oppressive, or is it a fashion thing?
    It's the spread of Wahabi Islam due to the Saudis funding mosques worldwide.
    I would stop all Saudi funding of mosques, schools and universities in this country. Sup with a very long spoon indeed when it comes to this particular devil. On this Corbyn is right.
    Anything positive he has to say is undone by his continued willingness to sup with Iranian and Hamas spoons.
    That may be so. But we are far too willing to turn a blind eye to the harm which Saudi Arabia causes.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,992
    Cyclefree said:

    TOPPING said:

    Cyclefree said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Another thing:

    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?

    3 answers:-


    3. The reasons for banning the burqa (a very fine judgment) are not to do with the offence it may cause nor its aesthetic qualities but that it is the uniform of an ideology...snip...
    Sozza but that's bollocks. You are trying to ban thought?

    The punks stood for nihilism and anarchy. Quite an ideology; would you have banned safety pins through the nose also?
    No. Reread my post. Not meaning to be rude but not sure you have understood it.
    You want to ban an item of clothing in the UK because it represents an ideology you don't like. Which bit did I misunderstand?
This discussion has been closed.