err, quite a small but relevant point i think !

are bikers in the U.K. not requested to remove their crash-helmets and headgear when entering facilities such as banks, petrol stations, office buildings and other public places ?

You are correct; I do not understand how you can be anti a religion but not anti those who practice it; are you saying that were they to convert to a different religion they'd be acceptable to you?

Hmmm. I notice you are an honorary member and I try to avoid interacting with honorary members because it often results in warnings, suspensions or bans with scant regard of TVs T&Cs.

However, I'm not the kind of person who will back down so here you go...

The Thai government is doing its best to rape and pillage its citizens but I do not think or assert that that is indicative of Thai people.

Since there is a very good chance that I will receive a suspension or ban for the few words I have written above I may just as well carry on...

And don't come that old pony about Islam and the Koran being dedicated to killing unbelievers; I could quote at length from the Bible passages saying exactly the same.

How in any way is that to be considered a logical argument? It's school yard talk and nothing else. You are correct that the Bible endorses such actions while in addition endorsing slavery and genocide but how is that in any way relevant to the topic or even the subject at hand?

It was not directed at me but I feel the need to address something else you said.

What latitude?

The freedom to practice their religion?

Freedom of religion which is freedom of thought is not freedom to enforce the individual's (religion / thought) on others. I have used it before and will use it again.... I don't care if someone believes they are a chicken sandwich but don't expect to be taken seriously and don't expect rules or law to be changed to accommodate your belief.

In their desire to paint all Muslims as evil, what some posters seem to have forgotten, or more likely choose to ignore, is that the robbers involved in the event which started this topic are not female and from the names of those caught so far, Sam Curtin and Connor Groake, almost certainly not Muslim!

I have seen no evidence that those female Muslims who choose to wear burkas in the UK, and they are a small minority, have ever used their burka to prevent identification while they are committing a crime.

Not that a fact like that will stop the prejudiced from making their pathetic comments like that in the post above.

Robbers wear full face crash helmets, shall we ban those?

Robbers wear ski masks, shall we ban those?

Both left and right wing thugs who infiltrate otherwise peaceful demonstrations so they can cause violence cover their faces with scarves and masks; shall we ban those?

What about wrapping a scarf round you face on a cold winter's day, shall we ban that?

If you want to ban one item of clothing that covers the face in case the wearer is a criminal, then you must ban all; otherwise the criminal will simply wear something else.

Thank you for repeating all the points I had previously made.

A slight bit off topic but what does "Honorary Member" mean?

The robbers are not female and not Muslim, BUT they are taking advantage of the latitude allowed to Muslims.

We are talking about Britain. The wearing of a burqa conflicts with British custom AND makes the wearer unrecognisable. AND, though I quite agree that posters are overzealous in blaming all Muslims for a few terrorist acts, NEVERTHELESS most terrorists are Muslims (the Irish are largely pacified).

BUT I agree that, if you take this to the limit, you would have everybody with short back-and-sides, AND, if they had to wear some headgear, sporting a bowler.

Straw boaters would be permissible in summer (if it ever comes) and cricket caps, in all their amazing colour combinations, should be de rigeur at Lords. Ladies hats at Royal Ascot would come under examination, as some do tend to mask the face, but as I believe 'fascinators' are now banned, this would just be an extension of an existing rule.

A slight bit off topic but what does "Honorary Member" mean?

Someone who is beyond reproach.

A slight bit off topic but what does "Honorary Member" mean?

Google is your friend

I have seen no evidence that those female Muslims who choose to wear burkas in the UK, and they are a small minority, have ever used their burka to prevent identification while they are committing a crime.

<Snipped for relevance>

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2317166/Naomi-Oni-acid-attack-Mary-Konye-charged-injuring-Victorias-Secret-shop-worker.html

Whether the assailant was a Muslin, Wiccan or even a Hare Krishna is perfectly irrelevant to the point that concealment of identity was used in committing a crime. As if is with a name like Mary the accused doesn't sound Muslim and is I believe Nigerian, like the Woolwich murderer, though a name change is not out of the question.

P.S Out of curiosity I did some digging and according to a Nigerian source it would appear the victim and the accused are former schoolmates.

Honorary members are mosy certainly not beyond reproach and they are subject to the same rules as every other member and liable to the same penalties as any other member if they break those rules.

They are also as open to criticism of the content of their posts as any other member. Provided we all stay within the rules, of course.

If anyone feels that any of my posts contravene those rules, use the report button.

Back to the subject.

Tigerfish;

It is true that many establishments such as those you have named do have such notices; but they are often ignored.

Notmyself:

Many posters, maybe not you, I haven't checked, use obscure quotes from the Koran to justify their attitude that all Muslims are evil; I simply pointed out before someone did so again that the Bible can be used in exactly the same way to justify the belief that all Christains are evil.

In other words, both 'justifications' are rubbish.

As you seem to be saying that you believe in freedom of religion and of thought you must have no objections to women wearing whatever they choose; even if their choice means that their face is covered.

Please explain how a woman wearing a burka is forcing her religion on you, me or anyone else.

Steely Dan

Ok after, no doubt, intensive searching you found an instance of a woman wearing a veil committing a crime; but was she wearing it to deliberately hide her identity?

Whether she was or whether she always wears one in public, it doesn't excuse the appalling crime, of course.

Plus, it is not just Muslim women who commit such an act; ever heard of Katie Piper?

Yes, there are Muslim criminals, but there are plenty of criminals who are not Muslim.

Yes, some Muslims commit hate crimes, but many Muslims are the victims of hate crimes.

And most violent crimes in the UK don't involve a Muslim at all; either as perpetrator or victim!

But don't let that stop your hatefest.

I have seen no evidence that those female Muslims who choose to wear burkas in the UK, and they are a small minority, have ever used their burka to prevent identification while they are committing a crime.

<Snipped for relevance>

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2317166/Naomi-Oni-acid-attack-Mary-Konye-charged-injuring-Victorias-Secret-shop-worker.html

Whether the assailant was a Muslin, Wiccan or even a Hare Krishna is perfectly irrelevant to the point that concealment of identity was used in committing a crime. As if is with a name like Mary the accused doesn't sound Muslim and is I believe Nigerian, like the Woolwich murderer, though a name change is not out of the question.

P.S Out of curiosity I did some digging and according to a Nigerian source it would appear the victim and the accused are former schoolmates.

If so that is sick. Almost sounds like a targeted killing

A slight bit off topic but what does "Honorary Member" mean?

It means a former moderator.

I have seen no evidence that those female Muslims who choose to wear burkas in the UK, and they are a small minority, have ever used their burka to prevent identification while they are committing a crime.

<Snipped for relevance>

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2317166/Naomi-Oni-acid-attack-Mary-Konye-charged-injuring-Victorias-Secret-shop-worker.html

Whether the assailant was a Muslin, Wiccan or even a Hare Krishna is perfectly irrelevant to the point that concealment of identity was used in committing a crime. As if is with a name like Mary the accused doesn't sound Muslim and is I believe Nigerian, like the Woolwich murderer, though a name change is not out of the question.

P.S Out of curiosity I did some digging and according to a Nigerian source it would appear the victim and the accused are former schoolmates.

If so that is sick. Almost sounds like a targeted killing

So you think it wouldn't be sick if victim and perpetrator had been strangers?

Very odd point of view, if so.

BTW, you should read things before you comment on them; no one was killed.

I have seen no evidence that those female Muslims who choose to wear burkas in the UK, and they are a small minority, have ever used their burka to prevent identification while they are committing a crime.

<Snipped for relevance>

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2317166/Naomi-Oni-acid-attack-Mary-Konye-charged-injuring-Victorias-Secret-shop-worker.html

Whether the assailant was a Muslin, Wiccan or even a Hare Krishna is perfectly irrelevant to the point that concealment of identity was used in committing a crime. As if is with a name like Mary the accused doesn't sound Muslim and is I believe Nigerian, like the Woolwich murderer, though a name change is not out of the question.

P.S Out of curiosity I did some digging and according to a Nigerian source it would appear the victim and the accused are former schoolmates.

If so that is sick. Almost sounds like a targeted killing

So you think it wouldn't be sick if victim and perpetrator had been strangers?

Very odd point of view, if so.

BTW, you should read things before you comment on them; no one was killed.

Sorry I was thinking of the wrong topic

Honorary members are mosy certainly not beyond reproach and they are subject to the same rules as every other member and liable to the same penalties as any other member if they break those rules.

They are also as open to criticism of the content of their posts as any other member. Provided we all stay within the rules, of course.

If anyone feels that any of my posts contravene those rules, use the report button.

Steely Dan

Ok after, no doubt, intensive searching you found an instance of a woman wearing a veil committing a crime; but was she wearing it to deliberately hide her identity?

Whether she was or whether she always wears one in public, it doesn't excuse the appalling crime, of course.

Plus, it is not just Muslim women who commit such an act; ever heard of Katie Piper?

Yes, there are Muslim criminals, but there are plenty of criminals who are not Muslim.

Yes, some Muslims commit hate crimes, but many Muslims are the victims of hate crimes.

And most violent crimes in the UK don't involve a Muslim at all; either as perpetrator or victim!

But don't let that stop your hatefest.

First of all I would have reported your outburst of bile and slander which was your most recent post on the Woolwich murder thread, but it perfectly illustrated my new signature changed shortly prior, besides which a moderator intervened telling us where the bar was but leaving your post to stand.

Back on topic, A horrific acid attack on a London street is headline news so it hardly needed an exhaustive search to find it, but if you want a more detailed crimesheet for the garments of repression and subjugation here goes.

http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2006/11/niqabs-and-burqas-as-security-threats

A slight bit off topic but what does "Honorary Member" mean?

It means a former moderator.

Thanks, UG. I'll likely never qualify for that title.

Vehicle available in Saudi Arabia if they ever allow women to drive.

IMO ... if the face is covered and ID is restricted, then entering certain establishments, getting a drivers license is simply not allowed. I have a USA experience.... but the experience is applicable...

Many banks in Texas require the removal of a hat or other headgear when entering the bank lobby. I don't know what they do with burqas and full facial coverings -- but I have had to remove my ball cap many times...

But then there is a double standard even with partial head coverings. Last year I went to the DPS drivers license office to get my niece a photo ID in prelude to getting a drivers license. A young Iranian woman was in line in front of us...her face was partially covered with a scarf but she was allowed to have her ID photo taken (her hair and ears were completely covered and her cheeks were mostly covered)... My niece was made to remove a ball cap because it covered part of her hair and part of her forehead. This kind of double standard just doesn't cut it with me ... The other two Iranian sisters - at least they said they were her sisters - could use the ID the third sister had made and no one would know the difference -- with the veil like scarfs they looked like triplets. And - I really don't care if it is for religion or not...double standards are double standards..

There are some Protestant sects in Texas and the women often wear full scarfs ... if they are allowed to wear the scarf when taking a ID photo I will be amazed. Maybe it happens - maybe not. But somehow since they are not Muslim I bet they are asked to take it off.

Florida in recent years had a lawsuit about denying the use of a full facial covering when getting a drivers license - and won the case against the plaintiff. Can anyone imagine what a ridiculous proposition that is...

Honorary members are mosy certainly not beyond reproach and they are subject to the same rules as every other member and liable to the same penalties as any other member if they break those rules.

They are also as open to criticism of the content of their posts as any other member. Provided we all stay within the rules, of course.

If anyone feels that any of my posts contravene those rules, use the report button.

Back to the subject.

Shall we try? What you have said is complete BS so I will report it and I wonder what will happen. Chances are I will receive a ban for being off topic while you will be standing there in your shiny new shoes.... Ready... Yes ready in your shiny new shoes to spread lack of reason to the masses.

BTW I will not hit the report button as I consider freedom of speech a given.

Steely Dan, quoting Daniel Pipes only shows your desperation; the man has even accused Obama of being a closet Muslim!

Lenin was smuggled across Europe and into Russia by train; so should we ban trains!?

Pathetic.

As for posting bile and slander; you should know.

This topic and others are full of bile and slander directed at ordinary Muslims, who are as innocent of any crime as you and I, by you and those with the same views.

You seem to have the belief that because people have a different religion to you, dress differently to you, look different to you then they must be evil and are as guilty of crimes and atrocities committed by others claiming to share their religion as if they committed those crimes themselves and so should be controlled and supressed.

Now, where have we heard that before?

The more I read your posts and those of others who share your views, the more the phrases 'final solution' and 'ethnic cleansing' spring to mind!

As for your signature; look in the mirror.

Like the Woolwich topic, this one is now a hatefest for Islamaphobes; so I'm leaving you all to it.

Notmyself:

Many posters, maybe not you, I haven't checked, use obscure quotes from the Koran to justify their attitude that all Muslims are evil; I simply pointed out before someone did so again that the Bible can be used in exactly the same way to justify the belief that all Christains are evil.

In other words, both 'justifications' are rubbish.

As you seem to be saying that you believe in freedom of religion and of thought you must have no objections to women wearing whatever they choose; even if their choice means that their face is covered.

Please explain how a woman wearing a burka is forcing her religion on you, me or anyone else.

So let us get into the meat of it.

Many posters, maybe not you, I haven't checked, use obscure quotes from the Koran to justify their attitude that all Muslims are evil; I simply pointed out before someone did so again that the Bible can be used in exactly the same way to justify the belief that all Christains are evil.

Why should I or any others use 'obscure' quotes from the Koran or indeed the Bible?

Let us take this piece of logical drivel which you have been ever so kind as to present us with.

As you seem to be saying that you believe in freedom of religion and of thought you must have no objections to women wearing whatever they choose; even if their choice means that their face is covered.

Freedom of thought! I honestly don't know how I can explain this in a more simple term without breaking forum rules. You can be a racist, sexist, or love the idea of slavery which are endorsed in all three monotheistic beliefs yet they are banned in the real world. They remain as thoughts and people can and should be able to have these thoughts. Should I or any other person care, consider, or respect this thought (belief)? Should laws be passed or not passed because of this belief?

I would like to make it clear that I did not intend this as an anti-Muslim thread. I intended it as a security issue, and also to emphasise that when people are in Britain, they should do as the British do.

Off topic post removed.

Please keep your replies civil, respectful, and relevant to the topic.

Any further derogatory or off topic posts will be removed.

I would like to make it clear that I did not intend this as an anti-Muslim thread. I intended it as a security issue, and also to emphasise that when people are in Britain, they should do as the British do.

Please feel free to pull your own wire.

I would like to make it clear that I did not intend this as an anti-Muslim thread. I intended it as a security issue, and also to emphasise that when people are in Britain, they should do as the British do.

It's strict liability when discussing certain sacred cows I'm afraid. Here is another angle to consider.

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Health_Effects_of_Islamic_Dress

Lack of exposure to sunlight leads to vitamin D deficiency, compounded by dark skin requiring more UV to synthesize vitamin D in tandem with typical UK weather. I'm surprised social services haven't cottoned on to this one and arranged to provide sunbeds to take away at immigration.

Alright we are done. I am not even going to bother reading the last page.

Steely dan, count yourself extremely lucky you arent facing a very long suspension for your posts. Very lucky indeed. but do count yourself on MY radar.

//CLOSED//