No S*it!

Get back to your Guardian and going antiquing with Martin2005 you big girl

 

I suppose the Saudis would be as tolerant to a foreign national trying to gain Saudi citizenship?



The girl in question was using the services of a QC to further her cause, Blair in this case. If it wasn't Blair it would have been another QC. Either way it's the same plaintiff, and if I could be bothered I'm sure I could list loads of examples.

1 person escaped that we know of. How many other crimes are committed by people wandering around covered head to foot? Using your logic you'd be happy if we all wandered around completely shrouded, including those walking into banks etc.

 

Provided a recession doesn't delay my plans, I'm selling up and moving to France next year. Not on the basis of this post I should add, I've had a small small-holding there for 3 years now and look forward to 'hiding' there in a manner of speaking to escape this place before my head explodes.
Although no doubt over time France may follow the UK round the porcelain U-bend, right now France is still France, and has a strong cultural identity that the population fight to retain.
If I want to be accepted, then I know I must speak French and not behave in a manner that conflicts culturally or socially with my surroundings. I can't see the problem, after all I will be a guest in another country and should respect their way of life, not expect them to respect mine. If I don't like it then I shouldn't go there should I? There are some aspects of life in France that can be a bit of a struggle (I certainly can't expect any handouts from the state, and any so-called reciprocal agreement regarding healthcare most definitely isn't as rosy as it is for those entering the UK) but adapting to that is a concession I accept and so shouldn't moan about later. I get on well with my French neighbours, and I have found that if you make an effort to integrate then the locals will welcome you onboard without prejudice.
The same might happen here if 'guests' in our country actually made more of an effort to integrate, respecting our laws and culture (what's left of it anyway), rather than us having to make concessions to accomodate them which seems to be more and more the case. I'm not suggesting this is the case with all immigrants, but the greatest friction undoubtedly occurs where there are religious barriers that just cannot ever be compatible with our own.
I would say to those immigrants, shape up or ship out, but that's not my decision so it'll be me that ships out.
Kevin

 

This argument makes no sense to me, and it is one often used.

We are a Western democracy - Why should one make a comparison as to what another country would do as an argument against what we are doing. THe point is often made "Well try adopting Christian way of life in an orthodox Muslim country"

That the whole point, we are a tolerant society, I for one am quite pleased we are.

The fact that the Saudis may be more strict in who they allow to become a saudi citizen is utterly irrelevant.



But society en masse is not covered head to foot, and never likely to be. And if it ever became a problem, then action would be taken, see "no hoods" in shopping centres for an example.

 

You "suppose" which is based on no factual information, just an assumption from your view of the likely events that would follow. As such that opinion is unfounded.

So she followed due process, in an English court of law, represented by a high profile Catholic... what's the problem with somebody doing that?

Motorcyclists do that everyday..... I don't hear anyone complaining, and you again are stating an assumption that possibly "many crimes" are committed by people dressed "head to foot"..... presumably in Muslim clothing? Unfortunatly I'm unable to accept assumptions as logic for a counter argument.... it's all about the facts, as without them your just fear mongering!

 

Interesting to see you are accepting a far more socialist society, with a much higher level of tax, and a bigger beleif in the common good as being the way to go

 

Socialism may be taking a bit of a kicking from Sarkozy, but you are fundamentally correct. My posts could generally be described as leaning (toppling) to the right but that in many ways is a reaction to the way this country is managed. I can appreciate the merits that some degree of socialism can provide when the application is dosed with some common sense, something severely lacking in this country. The positive results of higher at source taxation are much easier to see in France and that makes the tax much easier to swallow.
Kevin

 

Of course it is unfounded, who said otherwise? It's a hypothetical hypothesis to lead to futher the discussion. One that you have ignored, save from a pedantic reposte on the meaning of one word.


I have simply given an example of a Muslim seeking to change our law to allow them to further seclude themselves from the rest of the population. As a reply to your statement that the Saudis don't think we're trying to change their laws.

Motorcyclists do what everyday? If you're refering to my bank example, I'd be surprised if banks didn't have a requirement for motorcyclists to remove their 'lid' when entering the bank.
I have never said "many crimes" (why exactly are you using quotes, you're not quoting me ). Perhaps you might defer from fighting your arguments on false accusations. It's quite a logical stance. A very high profile case has been mentioned, how many more are there? It is you that is making assumptions.

On a secular level, humans rely on facial expressions for a great part of their communication. Covering the face to deny this is obvious separatism from society. My argument is nothing to do with race or religion.

And Pete, our society as yet is not covered head to foot, but you'd have no compaint if everyone decided to do this?

 

That's a good and valid point.

THe reason? Because successive governments have maintained a level of public expenditure in France, whereas in the UK we go from the sublime to the ridiculous on a regular basis - Years of underinvestment, followed by years of overspend and poorly allocated resources. If there was a more balanced view (Which I *think* we are going to get, I think the Tories are farily committed to curren tlvels of public spending) for a period of time, then we may catch up with the likes of France.

 

Course I would, but its not going to happen it is. I see, possibly two people a month in a full bhurka , if that, and thats when I am up in London seeing the kids. Its not exactly an epidemic.

I would have a problem if everyone decided to wear sandals and socks at work, but thankfully only one person does it, and that's not likely to change. But the company is not going to introduce a bar on emplying people that choose to wear sandals and scoks because its a non-issue.

There are more fundamental qualities to a person than what they decide to wear. If someone decides to wear a full burka, then that does not make them a bad person.


If there are events that mean you are more likely to "do" something if you wear a burka, then by all means looks at restricting them , like we have seen with "hoodies". But the fact, is, given the public perception of burkas, and the scrutiny those people will be under, I would say they are probably the least likely people in the UK to do any wrong whatsoever

 

It’s a lot more complicated than her just her wearing a head scarf. This women has very extremist views and that's why she hasn’t been aloud in the country. Has **** all to do with her wearing a head scarf. I live France and the papers have been full of it. My mate is a copper who works in immigration in Tours and he told me that France will not let in people with extremist views like her (unlike the UK).

I say good for France.

She would only come in to the country slag off the French way of life spout her vile rhetoric then accept every hand out that the horrible French state would give her at the expense of hard working people like me.

 

 

Isn't it? I suppose women in certain countries in the middle east thought that too a few decades ago.

 

Keep yer nickers on Shirely ........ If you want to base your opinion on the mother of all assumptions, well carry on.... but it hardly allows any serious form of discussion to take place, as your entire position over this debate will clearly keep changing like the wind!


The lady (Muslim) in question is quite rightly entitled to use due process in order to change what she may believe to be a daft law! All she's doing is challenging something... it's still our choice (not theirs) as to whether we change it!

No they don't.... I'm guessing you're suprised then!

Yet you very clearly insinuate it may be more!....."1 person escaped that we know of. How many other crimes are committed by people wandering around covered head to foot?".... but I forgot you use this "hypothetical hypothesis" to encourage debate ....... you need not use 'hypothectical' as just the word 'hypothesis' also means an assumption as a basis of reasoning

I'm neither fighting nor arguing..... I'm clearly discussing a topic on a BBS.

Well I guess we'll just have to evolve a little bit more then!.... separatism, that's a joke.... because they don't want people staring at them you have an issue with them.... exactly how many Muslims have you spoken with while wearing the veil.... go on, I'm interested to know..... because the answer is NONE! .... so pray tell me why you're getting so upset at the thought of Muslims wandering around in veils?

Over to PB

 

[QUOTE=DCI Gene Hunt;8004490]Keep yer nickers on Shirely ........ If you want to base your opinion on the mother of all assumptions, well carry on.... but it hardly allows any serious form of discussion to take place, as your entire position over this debate will clearly keep changing like the wind!

Hardly the mother of all assumptions if my view is "an assumption from your view of the likely events that would follow."

She was a girl at a local school of ours. Many decisions these days are the result of intense lobbying pr by fundamentalist backed groups.

I'll have to take your word for it, yes I am surprised!



Thanks for your apology of sorts for missquoting me.


To call one of my replies a counter arguement, there must have been an arguement to counter


Oh dear, your argument, sorry position, is really quite poor when you have to make assumptions like that. For future reference I have spoken to many people wearing a burqa. In fact the guy I bought my old 22b off of, his wife wore one and we got on fine.

I'm not upset at Muslims wandering around in veils. I'm upset with anyone wandering around covered up head to toe from everyone and secluding themselves from mainstream society, be it a hoodie or anyone in a burqa. The very fact you've singled out Muslims is quite sad really, when in one of my last posts I specifically said "My argument is nothing to do with race or religion."


Anyway, I'm off to communicate with people who can offer better opinions on life. I'm taking my 5 month and 15 month old kids to feed the ducks at the local park.

 

........... Nice try

This thread is clear in its topic, so you're just muttering about an entirely different subject to that of everyone else then....

Enjoy your visit to the park!.....

 

To follow on from J4CKO's superb post, Robert Heinlein had some thoughts on religion:

“History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help. But like dandruff, most people do have a religion and spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it.”

“God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent—it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks, please. Cash and in small bills.”

“The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history.”

 

That's his opinion and he's entitled to it, just as people who are religeous are entitled to theirs

There's something odd (yet familiar) about people who insist there is/isn't a God, they go out of their way to prove the point, yet no matter how hard they try.... the can't.

DCI

 

Is that not thier perogative?

Is someone decides to be religious, then that is up to them, I certainly don't presume that I am in any position to tell them that they shouldn't waste thier time with it.

For me, those that are vehemently anti religion, in that they ridicule or snort at anyone that does beleive in a religion, are no better than Jehovas witnesses going door to door and trying to convince people to beleive.

Both are trying to impose thie beliefs, or lack of, onto someone else.

If someone wants to folow a religion, then fine, let's not forget, at the heart of almost all religions is the same core message; "let's all be nice to each other for a change".

I'm not religious at all personally, and it does annoy me when the church gets involved in state issues. But then I stil back and think "Just because someone is looking at something froma religious stand point, does that make thier opinion any less valid"? and the answer is invariably "no".

 

If you are going to be a bastion for Morals, then you are going to have to make an effort to waffle on for at least 3 paragraphs and not make a succinct post that sums up exactly what you are trying to say in a few lines.

C'mon, man.

 

I must admit that the thought had crossed my mind, the problem with delivering such a precise post is primarily one of allowing the other poster too much time to consider his or her rebuttal, that's assuming that they actually have one or are even capable of holding such a detailed discussion in the first place.

...... I'm starting to like this

 

Yes, yes! that's it - feel the force flow through you.

 

[quote=PeteBrant;8004829]

Yoda is not a troll ]

 

Depends on your definition of Troll. If you are thinking the widely known definition, no he isn't.

If you are thinking of the SN definition, i.e. anyone that might have an opinion slightly left of Enoch Powell, then yes he is - Yoda was a huge lefty

 

[quote=spireite;8004855]...and he's probably capable of using quotation markers... unlike some

 

Eh? I go away for a couple of hours and find that this debate has turned into an argument as to whether Yoda is a troll or not

 

Well? Get off the fence and tell us whether he is or not woman! See what happens when you leave us kids unsupervised?

 

Not a nice try at all, if you scroll up you'll see what I posted earlier. Given the limited reply (unusual for you) I'll let you retreat in peace. The kids enjoyed feeding the ducks too

Nothing like a cool beer next to the river on a hot afternoon in Fordingbridge Better than a gonad dripping afternoon of pedantry in front of a pc

 

"retreat in peace" ....... nice comeback

Glad you enjoyed your beer

 

You don't have to prove the existance of God. There is no proof the a God exists so therefore there isn't a God. Just because millions of people believe it doesn't make it true. The burden of proof is on the believer to prove what they are saying is true i.e.

A. I believe in God, he is the ruler of all the universe, he watchers over us, loves us and answers all our prayers.

B. Go on then prove it!

A. errr I have my faith so I don't have to prove it.

Anyway this post is getting away from the main point. As I posted earlier and what you seem to have ignored is that she wasn't denied access on religious grounds. She was found to harbour very extermist views, hence why the French immigration refused her based on the fact that she may cause problems if she was allowed to enter the country.

Had nothing to do with a head scarf!