AndreaParma_82 said:

SoPN for Oldham West is out. No candidate lives in the constituency


OMRLP: Wythenshawe & Sale East
UKIP: Eddisbury
LD: Altrincham & Sale West
Con: Bury North
Greens: Liverpool Riverside
Labour: Ashton under Lyme

Speedy said:

AndreaParma_82 said:

SoPN for Oldham West is out. No candidate lives in the constituency


OMRLP: Wythenshawe & Sale East
UKIP: Eddisbury
LD: Altrincham & Sale West
Con: Bury North
Greens: Liverpool Riverside
Labour: Ashton under Lyme

What do you mean no candidate lives there?
Surely the head of the local council should live there?

flightpath01 said:

Slow news day?
Russia to be banned from world athletics?
Osborn 30% cuts
Cameron EU ultimatum
OECD concern about emerging markets
Steel chief defenestrates himself
Boris barks like a dog.

...exploding mice.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Llama, you're not still on the warfarin then?

Speedy said:

AndreaParma_82 said:

SoPN for Oldham West is out. No candidate lives in the constituency


OMRLP: Wythenshawe & Sale East
UKIP: Eddisbury
LD: Altrincham & Sale West
Con: Bury North
Greens: Liverpool Riverside
Labour: Ashton under Lyme

What do you mean no candidate lives there?
Surely the head of the local council should live there?
Wait a minute, Ashton-under-Lyme is just a few hundred yards from Oldham West.

AndyJS said:

NickPalmer said:

BTW, there seems to be a serious CDU/CSU challenge against Merkel building up, after the SPD vetoed a deal that they thought they had on pre-scrutiny of refugees.

Just noticed this report in The Local:

"Germany unable to house 300,000 refugees
Germany doesn't have the capacity to house hundreds of thousands of the refugees set to arrive in the country over the remainder of the year, a study released on Monday claims."

http://www.thelocal.de/20151109/germany-hitting-capacity-to-take-in-refugees

AndyJS said:

NickPalmer said:

BTW, there seems to be a serious CDU/CSU challenge against Merkel building up, after the SPD vetoed a deal that they thought they had on pre-scrutiny of refugees.

Just noticed this report in The Local:

"Germany unable to house 300,000 refugees
Germany doesn't have the capacity to house hundreds of thousands of the refugees set to arrive in the country over the remainder of the year, a study released on Monday claims."

http://www.thelocal.de/20151109/germany-hitting-capacity-to-take-in-refugees

NickPalmer said:

Correction - Big Yellow have accepted my external insurance, with personal assumption of the risk of an army of mice...

MaxPB said:

NickPalmer said:

BTW, there seems to be a serious CDU/CSU challenge against Merkel building up, after the SPD vetoed a deal that they thought they had on pre-scrutiny of refugees.

Not surprised given the polling:

http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/insa.htm

CDU/CSU 34
SPD 24
Green 10
Die Linke 11
FDP 6
AfD 10

Highest ever poll rating for AfD and the hard left (Green/Linke) seems to be well up on their 2013 result. These numbers wouldn't be enough for a CDU/CSU-FDP coalition and I highly doubt that the CDU would ever legitimise AfD by going into a coalition with them while another grand coalition will only serve to weaken them further and cause more of their support to leech away to the AfD and FDP.

Speedy said:

MaxPB said:

NickPalmer said:

BTW, there seems to be a serious CDU/CSU challenge against Merkel building up, after the SPD vetoed a deal that they thought they had on pre-scrutiny of refugees.

Not surprised given the polling:

http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/insa.htm

CDU/CSU 34
SPD 24
Green 10
Die Linke 11
FDP 6
AfD 10

Highest ever poll rating for AfD and the hard left (Green/Linke) seems to be well up on their 2013 result. These numbers wouldn't be enough for a CDU/CSU-FDP coalition and I highly doubt that the CDU would ever legitimise AfD by going into a coalition with them while another grand coalition will only serve to weaken them further and cause more of their support to leech away to the AfD and FDP.

The problem is that although european socialists and right wingers agree on economic policies they differ on social policies, so it's natural that mass immigration would place a strain on their common platform.

The next election in Germany is very far away, that has pluses and minuses for Merkel, the plus is there is no rush to address the problem, the minus is that it gives time to her enemies to organize.
Thatcher had the same predicament in 1989.

Charles said:

isam said:

rcs1000 said:

OldKingCole said:

MarqueeMark said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Corbyn, Irish history, the EU, war on the European continent, split infinitives, meteorology, and mouse exclusion clauses: truly he who is tired of PB is tired of life!

I think warfarin-overdosed rodents spontaneously combusting could run and run....

EDIT: Having lived in a thatched cottage for fifteen years, I was rather more concerned about fireworks and those bloody floating lanterns than I was about rodents, although I too had heard of the risk of fire from them burstin' into flame - I often wondered whether t'was true....

As one for whom drug interactions were, if not meat and drink, then a significant part of life, I HATE warfarin. It has it’s uses of course and many people are alive who without it would be dead (or the reverse in the case of rodents) but off-hand (and I’m out of date of course) I can’t think of many drugs, or foods which aren’t either affected by it, or affect it’s operation. Or both!
However I’ver never heard of it being associated with spontaneous combustion of rats or mice.

However, I agree whioleheartedly about the floating lanterns.

With Wafarin, the only question is whether the underlying condition kills you before an unfortunate bleed.

Fortunately - as Charles knows better than me - there are several new anticolagulents that are much less likely to kill you.

If you are on Wafarin, you should go to your doctor and discuss the new drugs with him/her.

My Dad is on it big time, is this bad??

It's not bad - it just has a very narrow therapeutic window and you need to be careful with food.

Bad in this context is Lumaxis (never approved). It caused internal bleeding, but the only symptom before collapse was bleeding from the gums... lots of bleeding...

As @rcs1000 says, there's been a huge amount of work in the synthetic pentasaccharide space recently, so I'd look at this class, especially the factor Xa inhibitors.

Speedy said:

HurstLlama said:

The Der Spiegel article on FrayU Merkel's political troubles because of the immigration decisions:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/merkel-under-fire-as-refugee-crisis-in-germany-worsens-a-1060720.html

It is rather long by UK standards, it would seem the Hun likes detail in his discussions, but well worth the time it takes to read.

The international, online edition of Der Spiegel is a jolly good magazine especially if one wants an in depth view of events free of the usual bias from UK news sources.

This is the reason why Merkel will be seen as the root of the problem rather than part of any solution:

"Merkel believes it is impossible for Germany to seal off its borders. For her, the erection of a fence would not just be ineffectual, but would also represent the end of the European ideal. Having grown up in communist East Germany, she is from a country that cut itself off with walls and barbed wire -- and she doesn't want to relive the experience. She views all other proposals that have been made as mere political posturing."

Thatcher and the poll tax circa 1989 again, her personality excludes a compromise or any acceptable solution. She won't change the policy, so the party will have to change leader.

TCPoliticalBetting said:

http://order-order.com/2015/11/09/lucky-brake-aides-failed-to-declare-conflict-of-interest/
"Last week Guido reported on some very fishy goings on down in Sutton, where the Lib Dem council gave a £1 million discount to a company of which neighbouring MP Tom Brake is a trustee. Guido can now reveal that two of Brake’s aides are Sutton LibDem councillors, and both failed to make any declarations of interest at the council meeting last Monday where the dodgy deal was finalised."

Speedy said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

http://order-order.com/2015/11/09/lucky-brake-aides-failed-to-declare-conflict-of-interest/
"Last week Guido reported on some very fishy goings on down in Sutton, where the Lib Dem council gave a £1 million discount to a company of which neighbouring MP Tom Brake is a trustee. Guido can now reveal that two of Brake’s aides are Sutton LibDem councillors, and both failed to make any declarations of interest at the council meeting last Monday where the dodgy deal was finalised."

I smell a by-election coming in Carshalton.

flightpath01 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Off topic, I've just walked through Waterloo to catch my usual train home. I spotted two women wearing full-length black niqabs - in fact, they may have been burqas.

I only caught one of the ladies out of the corner of my eye as I was coming off the escalator. I confess, I jumped. Another (different family) young child was cowering behind his mother at the sight.

I don't have a problem with women choosing to wear a hijab. But there seems to me to be something fundamentally inhuman about obscuring your face (yes, I include balaclavas) in public, and most of your body, so you appear like a levitating black tent drifting around the concourse.

These really do seem to scare children, not to mention me.

Edit: I am aware in certain circles that this post probably requires me to attend some diversity training, but still - what sort of religious interpretation is it that requires women to go way behind modesty and obscure all traces of their humanity and identity in public? And should we accept this?

It dehumanises women and has at best a tenuous connection with religion.

HurstLlama said:

Speedy said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

http://order-order.com/2015/11/09/lucky-brake-aides-failed-to-declare-conflict-of-interest/
"Last week Guido reported on some very fishy goings on down in Sutton, where the Lib Dem council gave a £1 million discount to a company of which neighbouring MP Tom Brake is a trustee. Guido can now reveal that two of Brake’s aides are Sutton LibDem councillors, and both failed to make any declarations of interest at the council meeting last Monday where the dodgy deal was finalised."

I smell a by-election coming in Carshalton.

Nah, there cannot be anything wrong, the people are Lib Dems. Of course, a company that got a kick back, sorry discount, from a Council on which two members employed by a director of that company sat would have the Audit Office down around its ears before you could say corrupt practice. In this case it will all be written off as a silly story that missed the key facts.

Casino_Royale said:

Off topic, I've just walked through Waterloo to catch my usual train home. I spotted two women wearing full-length black niqabs - in fact, they may have been burqas.

I only caught one of the ladies out of the corner of my eye as I was coming off the escalator. I confess, I jumped. Another (different family) young child was cowering behind his mother at the sight.

I don't have a problem with women choosing to wear a hijab. But there seems to me to be something fundamentally inhuman about obscuring your face (yes, I include balaclavas) in public, and most of your body, so you appear like a levitating black tent drifting around the concourse.

These really do seem to scare children, not to mention me.

Edit: I am aware in certain circles that this post probably requires me to attend some diversity training, but still - what sort of religious interpretation is it that requires women to go way behind modesty and obscure all traces of their humanity and identity in public? And should we accept this?

watford30 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

I wonder how many of these were clean?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/2012/medals/athletes?country=RUS&gender=&filter=Filter

Putin worshipping LovelyBoy123 will be along to tell us shortly.

HurstLlama said:

Sorry, I have just actually looked at the picture at the top of this thread. Was that taken at yesterday's Cenotaph ceremony? If so what in God's name was Blair doing there?

HurstLlama said:

Sorry, I have just actually looked at the picture at the top of this thread. Was that taken at yesterday's Cenotaph ceremony? If so what in God's name was Blair doing there?

Cyclefree said:

Casino_Royale said:

Off topic, I've just walked through Waterloo to catch my usual train home. I spotted two women wearing full-length black niqabs - in fact, they may have been burqas.

I only caught one of the ladies out of the corner of my eye as I was coming off the escalator. I confess, I jumped. Another (different family) young child was cowering behind his mother at the sight.

I don't have a problem with women choosing to wear a hijab. But there seems to me to be something fundamentally inhuman about obscuring your face (yes, I include balaclavas) in public, and most of your body, so you appear like a levitating black tent drifting around the concourse.

These really do seem to scare children, not to mention me.

Edit: I am aware in certain circles that this post probably requires me to attend some diversity training, but still - what sort of religious interpretation is it that requires women to go way behind modesty and obscure all traces of their humanity and identity in public? And should we accept this?

My short answer would be no. For all the reasons I gave back in January.

I can give you a lengthier answer later. And diversity has nothing to do with it. Diversity - properly understood - does not require tolerating the intolerable.

TCPoliticalBetting said:

re: Warfarin for parent
GP says must go on it for AF.
Professor (Heart specialist) later said, no there are better alternatives which dont require the diet restrictions and monitoring etc
GP - Ah but if you have a major accident they dont have a means of stopping a major bleed.....

Hmmm who to believe? Why would the GP not have mentioned the options and preferred more visits to the GP surgery?

isam said:

Charles said:

isam said:

rcs1000 said:

OldKingCole said:

MarqueeMark said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Corbyn, Irish history, the EU, war on the European continent, split infinitives, meteorology, and mouse exclusion clauses: truly he who is tired of PB is tired of life!

I think warfarin-overdosed rodents spontaneously combusting could run and run....

EDIT: Having lived in a thatched cottage for fifteen years, I was rather more concerned about fireworks and those bloody floating lanterns than I was about rodents, although I too had heard of the risk of fire from them burstin' into flame - I often wondered whether t'was true....

As one for whom drug interactions were, if not meat and drink, then a significant part of life, I HATE warfarin. It has it’s uses of course and many people are alive who without it would be dead (or the reverse in the case of rodents) but off-hand (and I’m out of date of course) I can’t think of many drugs, or foods which aren’t either affected by it, or affect it’s operation. Or both!
However I’ver never heard of it being associated with spontaneous combustion of rats or mice.

However, I agree whioleheartedly about the floating lanterns.

With Wafarin, the only question is whether the underlying condition kills you before an unfortunate bleed.

Fortunately - as Charles knows better than me - there are several new anticolagulents that are much less likely to kill you.

If you are on Wafarin, you should go to your doctor and discuss the new drugs with him/her.

My Dad is on it big time, is this bad??

It's not bad - it just has a very narrow therapeutic window and you need to be careful with food.

Bad in this context is Lumaxis (never approved). It caused internal bleeding, but the only symptom before collapse was bleeding from the gums... lots of bleeding...

As @rcs1000 says, there's been a huge amount of work in the synthetic pentasaccharide space recently, so I'd look at this class, especially the factor Xa inhibitors.

Thanks... I will broach the subject w Mater on the morrow!

RobD said:

Dair said:

Well it seems that Alistair Carmichael is now entering his final few days as an MP. Have to love his description of lying a being "south of the standard required."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-34760810

Has the SNP already bunged the judge, or are you just hoping here?

Dair said:

RobD said:

Dair said:

Well it seems that Alistair Carmichael is now entering his final few days as an MP. Have to love his description of lying a being "south of the standard required."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-34760810

Has the SNP already bunged the judge, or are you just hoping here?

After the initial ruling, for Carmichael to survive, the judging panel would have to find that his lying (which is admitted) did not provide him electoral advantage or was not demonstrative of his character.

His chance to win was the first round which he lost, he's now on a very sticky wicket.

I can't believe the Liberals have not conducted private polling to see if he could win a byelection is he resigned. If he loses the case, he is barred from standing. If he resigns he could stand with his apology in public light. His refusal to take the decent option indicates that the Liberals private polling suggests he has no chance.

kle4 said:

Dair said:

RobD said:

Dair said:

Well it seems that Alistair Carmichael is now entering his final few days as an MP. Have to love his description of lying a being "south of the standard required."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-34760810

Has the SNP already bunged the judge, or are you just hoping here?

After the initial ruling, for Carmichael to survive, the judging panel would have to find that his lying (which is admitted) did not provide him electoral advantage or was not demonstrative of his character.

His chance to win was the first round which he lost, he's now on a very sticky wicket.

I can't believe the Liberals have not conducted private polling to see if he could win a byelection is he resigned. If he loses the case, he is barred from standing. If he resigns he could stand with his apology in public light. His refusal to take the decent option indicates that the Liberals private polling suggests he has no chance.

I would assume, given the positions of the parties and those who would be most motivated to turn out in any by-election, they know they would lose a by-election whenever it happened and whoever stood, and so gambled on standing his ground until 2020 and hoping a new candidate can recover the LDs traditionally strong position there. No encouraging options for them to pick, I think, from a partisan perspective.

rcs1000 said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

http://order-order.com/2015/11/09/lucky-brake-aides-failed-to-declare-conflict-of-interest/
"Last week Guido reported on some very fishy goings on down in Sutton, where the Lib Dem council gave a £1 million discount to a company of which neighbouring MP Tom Brake is a trustee. Guido can now reveal that two of Brake’s aides are Sutton LibDem councillors, and both failed to make any declarations of interest at the council meeting last Monday where the dodgy deal was finalised."

What's a trustee of a company?

MP_SE said:

Speedy said:

A flush of 2016 polls today.
1. Hillary loses Minnesota to every GOP candidate except Cruz, Carson does best against her by 9%:

http://kstp.com/article/stories/s3956994.shtml

2. Carson leads Trump in S.Carolina:

http://www.monmouth.edu/assets/0/32212254770/32212254991/32212254992/32212254994/32212254995/30064771087/4a550497-98dc-48f6-9e62-fd4549f38b12.pdf

3. Carson leads nationwide:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article43727049.ece/BINARY/How the survey was conducted


So as I said, the Politico story on Carson had zero effect.

Excellent news. My position is something like:

Carson +1,400
Anyone else +0

Looking to lay him off at anything under 10 so some way to go.

taffys said:

''We have to accept that the country is getting more and more Islamic, and that the Islam that is growing fastest seems to be the more hardcore version''


For every woman in a full niqab I see two or three muslim girls in full make up and trendy clothes, trying to shuffle off these traditions.

I wonder whether their children will be 'muslim' at all.

isam said:

Casino_Royale said:

Off topic, I've just walked through Waterloo to catch my usual train home. I spotted two women wearing full-length black niqabs - in fact, they may have been burqas.

I only caught one of the ladies out of the corner of my eye as I was coming off the escalator. I confess, I jumped. Another (different family) young child was cowering behind his mother at the sight.

I don't have a problem with women choosing to wear a hijab. But there seems to me to be something fundamentally inhuman about obscuring your face (yes, I include balaclavas) in public, and most of your body, so you appear like a levitating black tent drifting around the concourse.

These really do seem to scare children, not to mention me.

Edit: I am aware in certain circles that this post probably requires me to attend some diversity training, but still - what sort of religious interpretation is it that requires women to go way behind modesty and obscure all traces of their humanity and identity in public? And should we accept this?

I find them sinister at worst and unfriendly at best, but...

We have to accept that the country is getting more and more Islamic, and that the Islam that is growing fastest seems to be the more hardcore version

Somehow I think its a similar insecurity to that of St George flag bearing houses that drives this need to show their religion overtly

We are a free country and people can wear what they want, I don't think it should be banned, I just wish there wasn't so many people who wanted to wear it

But if you were able to view a time lapse of the way our society has changed over the last 40 years in terms of number of mosques, change of dress, Trojan horse schools, segregated towns, Halal KFC's etc, it is obvious which direction we are going. I think it's unstoppable. We have to learn to accept that's the way it is now in England

My main fear for the future is that in 50 years time or so, a part of England will want to declare itself an Islamic state, and a foreign country will take their side

taffys said:

If these girls are all "glammed up" how do you know what religion they hold to, if any? What makes you sure they are, "Muslim girls"?

They wear head scarves.

Casino_Royale said:

isam said:

Casino_Royale said:

Off topic, I've just walked through Waterloo to catch my usual train home. I spotted two women wearing full-length black niqabs - in fact, they may have been burqas.

I only caught one of the ladies out of the corner of my eye as I was coming off the escalator. I confess, I jumped. Another (different family) young child was cowering behind his mother at the sight.

I don't have a problem with women choosing to wear a hijab. But there seems to me to be something fundamentally inhuman about obscuring your face (yes, I include balaclavas) in public, and most of your body, so you appear like a levitating black tent drifting around the concourse.

These really do seem to scare children, not to mention me.

Edit: I am aware in certain circles that this post probably requires me to attend some diversity training, but still - what sort of religious interpretation is it that requires women to go way behind modesty and obscure all traces of their humanity and identity in public? And should we accept this?

I find them sinister at worst and unfriendly at best, but...

We have to accept that the country is getting more and more Islamic, and that the Islam that is growing fastest seems to be the more hardcore version

Somehow I think its a similar insecurity to that of St George flag bearing houses that drives this need to show their religion overtly

We are a free country and people can wear what they want, I don't think it should be banned, I just wish there wasn't so many people who wanted to wear it

But if you were able to view a time lapse of the way our society has changed over the last 40 years in terms of number of mosques, change of dress, Trojan horse schools, segregated towns, Halal KFC's etc, it is obvious which direction we are going. I think it's unstoppable. We have to learn to accept that's the way it is now in England

My main fear for the future is that in 50 years time or so, a part of England will want to declare itself an Islamic state, and a foreign country will take their side

There are things I agree with and disagree with in that post.

We don't allow people to walk around naked in public, except on designated beaches, because it offends public modesty. I think there's an argument that the face and body should not be totally obscures either.

There should be limits to our tolerance particularly when it is of something so oppressive and intolerant.

Dair said:

Speedy said:

Dair said:

kle4 said:

Dair said:

RobD said:

Dair said:

Well it seems that Alistair Carmichael is now entering his final few days as an MP. Have to love his description of lying a being "south of the standard required."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-34760810

Has the SNP already bunged the judge, or are you just hoping here?

After the initial ruling, for Carmichael to survive, the judging panel would have to find that his lying (which is admitted) did not provide him electoral advantage or was not demonstrative of his character.

His chance to win was the first round which he lost, he's now on a very sticky wicket.

I can't believe the Liberals have not conducted private polling to see if he could win a byelection is he resigned. If he loses the case, he is barred from standing. If he resigns he could stand with his apology in public light. His refusal to take the decent option indicates that the Liberals private polling suggests he has no chance.

I would assume, given the positions of the parties and those who would be most motivated to turn out in any by-election, they know they would lose a by-election whenever it happened and whoever stood, and so gambled on standing his ground until 2020 and hoping a new candidate can recover the LDs traditionally strong position there. No encouraging options for them to pick, I think, from a partisan perspective.

You're certainly right that there is no good choice for the Liberals as a party. However, there does seem to be an element of "a terrible choice or the worst choice" and the reputational damage to the Fib Dems has to be a worry for Tavish Scott (who looks very, very likely to lose Shetland now.

It could even put Liam McArthur's return in doubt.

Sacrificing Carmichael might hurt them in Westminster but they are already irrelevant there. At least it would allow them to try and recover some ground before Holyrood. Instead they are now facing a humiliating by-election loss.

Well today is the day that 2 out 8 LD MP's (25% of all LD MP's) are in serious legal troubles that might end up in by-elections.

They're working so hard at cleaning up their reputation after their days in coalition.

Pulpstar said:

Dair said:

Speedy said:

Dair said:

kle4 said:

Dair said:

RobD said:

Dair said:

Well it seems that Alistair Carmichael is now entering his final few days as an MP. Have to love his description of lying a being "south of the standard required."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-34760810

Has the SNP already bunged the judge, or are you just hoping here?

After the initial ruling, for Carmichael to survive, the judging panel would have to find that his lying (which is admitted) did not provide him electoral advantage or was not demonstrative of his character.

His chance to win was the first round which he lost, he's now on a very sticky wicket.

I can't believe the Liberals have not conducted private polling to see if he could win a byelection is he resigned. If he loses the case, he is barred from standing. If he resigns he could stand with his apology in public light. His refusal to take the decent option indicates that the Liberals private polling suggests he has no chance.

I would assume, given the positions of the parties and those who would be most motivated to turn out in any by-election, they know they would lose a by-election whenever it happened and whoever stood, and so gambled on standing his ground until 2020 and hoping a new candidate can recover the LDs traditionally strong position there. No encouraging options for them to pick, I think, from a partisan perspective.

You're certainly right that there is no good choice for the Liberals as a party. However, there does seem to be an element of "a terrible choice or the worst choice" and the reputational damage to the Fib Dems has to be a worry for Tavish Scott (who looks very, very likely to lose Shetland now.

It could even put Liam McArthur's return in doubt.

Sacrificing Carmichael might hurt them in Westminster but they are already irrelevant there. At least it would allow them to try and recover some ground before Holyrood. Instead they are now facing a humiliating by-election loss.

Well today is the day that 2 out 8 LD MP's (25% of all LD MP's) are in serious legal troubles that might end up in by-elections.

They're working so hard at cleaning up their reputation after their days in coalition.

Who is the other MP in legal trouble ?

isam said:

Casino_Royale said:

isam said:

Casino_Royale said:

Off topic, I've just walked through Waterloo to catch my usual train home. I spotted two women wearing full-length black niqabs - in fact, they may have been burqas.

I only caught one of the ladies out of the corner of my eye as I was coming off the escalator. I confess, I jumped. Another (different family) young child was cowering behind his mother at the sight.

I don't have a problem with women choosing to wear a hijab. But there seems to me to be something fundamentally inhuman about obscuring your face (yes, I include balaclavas) in public, and most of your body, so you appear like a levitating black tent drifting around the concourse.

These really do seem to scare children, not to mention me.

Edit: I am aware in certain circles that this post probably requires me to attend some diversity training, but still - what sort of religious interpretation is it that requires women to go way behind modesty and obscure all traces of their humanity and identity in public? And should we accept this?

I find them sinister at worst and unfriendly at best, but...

We have to accept that the country is getting more and more Islamic, and that the Islam that is growing fastest seems to be the more hardcore version

Somehow I think its a similar insecurity to that of St George flag bearing houses that drives this need to show their religion overtly

We are a free country and people can wear what they want, I don't think it should be banned, I just wish there wasn't so many people who wanted to wear it

But if you were able to view a time lapse of the way our society has changed over the last 40 years in terms of number of mosques, change of dress, Trojan horse schools, segregated towns, Halal KFC's etc, it is obvious which direction we

There are things I agree with and disagree with in that post.

We don't allow people to walk around naked in public, except on designated beaches, because it offends public modesty. I think there's an argument that the face and body should not be totally obscures either.

There should be limits to our tolerance particularly when it is of something so oppressive and intolerant.

I can't really see any way of saying to a Muslim lady that she isn't allowed to wear what she wants, without sounding as overbearing as we think their husbands are by insisting she wears a niqab or whatever they're called

We had a free market economy approach to immigration, and these are the results

HurstLlama said:

Casino_Royale said:

JosiasJessop said:

Cyclefree said:

Casino_Royale said:

Off topic, I've just walked through Waterloo to catch my usual train home. I spotted two women wearing full-length black niqabs - in fact, they may have been burqas.

I only caught one of the ladies out of the corner of my eye as I was coming off the escalator. I confess, I jumped. Another (different family) young child was cowering behind his mother at the sight.

I don't have a problem with women choosing to wear a hijab. But there seems to me to be something fundamentally inhuman about obscuring your face (yes, I include balaclavas) in public, and most of your body, so you appear like a levitating black tent drifting around the concourse.

These really do seem to scare children, not to mention me.

Edit: I am aware in certain circles that this post probably requires me to attend some diversity training, but still - what sort of religious interpretation is it that requires women to go way behind modesty and obscure all traces of their humanity and identity in public? And should we accept this?

My short answer would be no. For all the reasons I gave back in January.

I can give you a lengthier answer later. And diversity has nothing to do with it. Diversity - properly understood - does not require tolerating the intolerable.

Why is it intolerable, and who decides what it tolerable and intolerable?

Should a woman who wishes to wear such garb in public be allowed to, if it is her unforced wishes? Should women who want to wear this sort of gear (which I personally find distasteful) become second-class citizens?

Because, if you, I, or anyone else cares not to admit it, for many women it is *their* choice.

Going to the other extreme, what about the naked rambler, or women in pop videos who strut provocatively in very revealing gear?

In my experience, women have much stronger views on the wearing of niqabs and burqas than men do.

When I was out for my walk this morning a young lady, whose parents I know, got off a bus in the village. She had bright green dreadlocks and clothes so ripped and torn that they looked as if they had come out of Oxfam's reject bin. She was, of course, making a statement about how she sees herself and the world she lives in. That's fine, I would not dream of suggesting her choice of clothing should be banned or in anyway subject to any legal sanction that does not apply to others. However, only good manners prevented me from, as they say, pointing and laughing.

Dair said:

Pulpstar said:

Dair said:

Speedy said:

Dair said:

kle4 said:

Dair said:

RobD said:

Dair said:

Well it seems that Alistair Carmichael is now entering his final few days as an MP. Have to love his description of lying a being "south of the standard required."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-34760810

Has the SNP already bunged the judge, or are you just hoping here?

After the initial ruling, for Carmichael to survive, the judging panel would have to find that his lying (which is admitted) did not provide him electoral advantage or was not demonstrative of his character.

His chance to win was the first round which he lost, he's now on a very sticky wicket.

I can't believe the Liberals have not conducted private polling to see if he could win a byelection is he resigned. If he loses the case, he is barred from standing. If he resigns he could stand with his apology in public light. His refusal to take the decent option indicates that the Liberals private polling suggests he has no chance.

I would assume, given the positions of the parties and those who would be most motivated to turn out in any by-election, they know they would lose a by-election whenever it happened and whoever stood, and so gambled on standing his ground until 2020 and hoping a new candidate can recover the LDs traditionally strong position there. No encouraging options for them to pick, I think, from a partisan perspective.

You're certainly right that there is no good choice for the Liberals as a party. However, there does seem to be an element of "a terrible choice or the worst choice" and the reputational damage to the Fib Dems has to be a worry for Tavish Scott (who looks very, very likely to lose Shetland now.

It could even put Liam McArthur's return in doubt.

Sacrificing Carmichael might hurt them in Westminster but they are already irrelevant there. At least it would allow them to try and recover some ground before Holyrood. Instead they are now facing a humiliating by-election loss.

Well today is the day that 2 out 8 LD MP's (25% of all LD MP's) are in serious legal troubles that might end up in by-elections.

They're working so hard at cleaning up their reputation after their days in coalition.

Who is the other MP in legal trouble ?

An Independent.

New Thread New Thread

HurstLlama said:

JosiasJessop said:

Casino_Royale said:

We are not saying that. We are saying the face and eyes should not be obscure in public.

This is how all humans interact at the most basic level, and where the line should be drawn.

How do you define 'face covering' ? How do you define 'in public' ?

Are motorcycle helmets covered?

Why do you set the line there?

Tell you what, Mr. J, you put on a full face crash helmet and try and go into your local bank/building society or buy petrol or give evidence in court, or have any meaningful social interaction with people who you don't know. Let us know how you get on.