|
Post by aquacultured on Aug 14, 2018 0:36:46 GMT 1
As far as I can see, BoJo is and always has been a berk and a narcissist and many other things ending in -ist, and now thinks he can rekindle the spirit of Enoch Powell thru classical allusion. For what purpose?
His own.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Aug 14, 2018 1:14:21 GMT 1
You should never accuse a politician of any motive other than self-interest, but that is irrelevant.
Fact is that humans recognise one another and communicate by facial appearance and expression, which is why criminals, perverts and special forces wear masks. So anyone who wears a mask in the street is prima facie a thief, pervert, or soldier with a lethal brief.
Banning particular modes of dress is equally obnoxious whether the ban is on burquas or ladies immodestly showing their wrists (a punishable offence under the coming islamic caliphate), but it is entirely reasonable for any trader to refuse to deal with someone he cannot recognise, or for the police to assume that anyone who covers his/her face has a nefarious reason for wishing to be unrecognisable. You can't enter a bank or a petrol station wearing a crash helmet, so why permit a burqua?
"No face, no service" should be protected by law.
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on Aug 14, 2018 1:29:39 GMT 1
You're entirely right.
But "Boris face, no service", sounds better.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Aug 14, 2018 11:43:11 GMT 1
As far as I can see, BoJo is and always has been a berk and a narcissist and many other things ending in -ist, and now thinks he can rekindle the spirit of Enoch Powell thru classical allusion. For what purpose? His own. It is not about Johnson, it is about what Johnson said; it is outrageous that anyone should be pilloried for saying something so reasonable. The Moslem extremists are loving it! Anyone that values free speech should be appalled at the fuss being made by extremists and the PC
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on Aug 14, 2018 11:59:06 GMT 1
I think you're wrong. By deliberately using tasteless similes BoJo has grabbed the headlines, which was his intention. What he has not done is facilitated a reasoned discussion - indeed he's probably made it impossible, a bit like Powell 50 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Aug 14, 2018 16:35:06 GMT 1
"You can't enter a bank or a petrol station wearing a crash helmet" Is that actually true? Nobody is allowed to enter a petrol station wearing a crash helment?
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Aug 14, 2018 16:40:05 GMT 1
I think he has initiated if not facilitated a reasoned discussion right here, with an entirely reasonable conclusion: make "no face, no service" an acceptable defence for anyone who wishes to use it. Not a problem for bikers, welders or firefighters, apparently, and a matter of choice for anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Aug 14, 2018 16:42:36 GMT 1
Is that actually true? Nobody is allowed to enter a petrol station wearing a crash helment? Obviously you have to wear one to ride in and out of the forecourt, but you can be refused entry to the shop with your lid on.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Aug 14, 2018 17:31:55 GMT 1
I think you're wrong. By deliberately using tasteless similes BoJo has grabbed the headlines, which was his intention. What he has not done is facilitated a reasoned discussion - indeed he's probably made it impossible, a bit like Powell 50 years ago. Did you read what he wrote - it was a model of reasonableness, that included 3 words that are causing the furore - letter -box and bank robbers. Would that the Islamic extremist (which include burqa wearers) employ such mild reasonableness
|
|
|
Post by jean on Aug 14, 2018 18:53:23 GMT 1
I think he has initiated if not mean facilitated a reasoned discussion right here... You mean on this board?This is no place for reasoned discussion, as the most cursory glance will reveal. But the discussion has been bubbling away for years, rising to the surface fronm time to time with incidents like these: ...Mrs Azmi was sent home within a month of starting work last September at Headfield, a school with a large majority of British Asian pupils, where she was a classroom assistant in maths and literacy lessons for children aged between 10 and 12.
The school initially agreed she could wear the veil when a man was present, but the agreement broke down after three weeks when one of the male staff objected to her face being covered while teaching. Mrs Azmi was initially given sick leave but was suspended in February on her full pay of some £11,000 when she returned to work but still insisted on covering up.
Her solicitor, Nick Whittingham, practice manager of Kirklees Law Centre, said the dismissal of the discrimination complaints was disappointing but it was significant that she had won on the handling of her case.
Kirklees welcomed the main verdicts last night as the right decision on a difficult balance between the "rights of local children to the best quality education possible and Mrs Azmi's desire to express her cultural beliefs by wearing a veil in class". In a statement, the council revealed that monitors had watched Mrs Azmi's teaching and children's responses for an agreed period before the decision to ask her to remove the covering was taken.Did you read what he wrote - it was a model of reasonableness, that included 3 words that are causing the furore - letter -box and bank robbers. Three words are enough to wreck tho possibility of reasoned discussion. aqua is right.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Aug 14, 2018 22:47:23 GMT 1
Letterbox is surely jocular, and no more offensive than jokes about nuns and penguins. Bank robbers is the problem, and the reason why you can't wear a skid lid in a bank. If a male BBC correspondent can walk into a war zone by wearing a burqa, who knows what potential terror is roaming the streets of London in mufti?
For as long as religion remains a compulsory subject in the national curriculum, it will be difficult to prevent any teacher bringing his/her bizarre fantasies and behaviors into the classroom. When it is properly taught as an example of human gullibility and the root of societal evil, things may change, but right now our kids are supposed to learn to respect other people's stupidity and even expected to catch this mental disease themselves.
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on Aug 15, 2018 1:16:18 GMT 1
I take it you quite like BoJo, then. Oh dear.
Religion isn't really a compulsory subject in the NC. Parents can opt their children out.
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on Aug 15, 2018 1:28:23 GMT 1
"You can't enter a bank or a petrol station wearing a crash helmet" Is that actually true? Nobody is allowed to enter a petrol station wearing a crash helment? For petrol stations, think CCTV. And think of their remoteness, at night, from the main store, if it's a supermarket.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Aug 15, 2018 10:13:57 GMT 1
But I ask again, is it really true that nobody is allowed to enter a petrol station wearing a crash helment?
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on Aug 15, 2018 11:20:42 GMT 1
It's up to the petrol station.
|
|