The EDL, SWP and similar extremist groups would certainly be unhappy if face coverings were banned in public!

Their 'heroic' members often cover their faces when 'peacefully' demonstrating.

Their 'heroic' members cover their faces seeing as some have lost their jobs if discovered to be a member of the EDL, especially any working for the bastion of PC known as local government.

You do, of course, have evidence that someone has been fired for being a member of the EDL, or for taking part in an EDL demonstration. Can you present it?

Such a dismissal would be illegal, so they should have taken their employer to court for unfair dismissal.

Of course, losing your job because you've been convicted of a criminal offence is a different matter entirely.

On the other hand; Selfridges assistant suspended for refusing to serve EDL leader's friend.

A Selfridges shop assistant is facing possible dismissal after refusing to serve a man who was buying clothes with the leader of the English Defence League, Tommy Robinson.

One of the dinosaurs in the UK Parliament is running after public opinion

Veil is like living in bag, says Ken Clarke

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10423566/Veil-is-like-living-in-bag-says-Ken-Clarke.html

The former justice secretary, now a minster without portfolio, said body language plays a vital part in allowing jurors to assess if a witness is telling the truth and insisted he could not see how that was possible ''when they are facing somebody who is veiled''.

It comes after a row about the use of face coverings in public institutions and a ruling in September that a Muslim woman will be allowed to stand trial while wearing a full-face veil but must remove it while giving evidence.

An EDL or BNP witness would not be allowed to wear a ski-mask.

A street-corner drug dealer would not be allowed to wear a hoodie.

A motor-cyclist would not be allowed to wear a crash helmet.

There is no religious obligation with the niqab or burkha, just tradition in some (overseas) communities. The hijab is, strictly interpreted, a religious obligation. Anything more extreme is not.

The hijab is, strictly interpreted, a religious obligation. Anything more extreme is not.

Sir. Back up that claim or retract it.

The hijab is, strictly interpreted, a religious obligation. Anything more extreme is not.

Sir. Back up that claim or retract it.

Surat Al-'A`rāf

7:46

to top in surah

Transliteration

Wabaynahuma hijabun waAAala al-aAArafi rijalun yaAArifoona kullan biseemahum wanadaw as-haba aljannati an salamun AAalaykum lam yadkhulooha wahum yatmaAAoon

Found in: Transliteration(100.00% match)

Surat Al-'Isrā'

17:45

to top in surah

Transliteration

Wa-itha qara'ta alqur-ana jaAAalna baynaka wabayna allatheena la yu'minoona bil-akhirati hijaban mastoora

Found in: Transliteration(100.00% match)

Surat Maryam

19:17

to top in surah

Transliteration

Fattakhathat min doonihim hijaban faarsalna ilayha roohana fatamaththala laha basharan sawiyya

Found in: Transliteration(100.00% match)

Surat Al-'Aĥzāb

33:53

to top in surah

Transliteration

Ya ayyuha allatheena amanoo la tadkhuloo buyoota annabiyyi illa an yu'thana lakum ila taAAamin ghayra nathireena inahu walakin itha duAAeetum fadkhuloo fa-itha taAAimtum fantashiroo wala musta'niseena lihadeethin inna thalikum kana yu'thee annabiyya fayastahyee minkum wallahu la yastahyee mina alhaqqi wa-itha saaltumoohunna mataAAan fas-aloohunna min wara-i hijabin thalikum atharu liquloobikum waquloobihinna wama kana lakum an tu'thoo rasoola Allahi wala an tankihoo azwajahu min baAAdihi abadan inna thalikum kana AAinda Allahi AAatheema

Found in: Transliteration(100.00% match)

Surat Şād

38:32

to top in surah

Transliteration

Faqala innee ahbabtu hubba alkhayri AAan thikri rabbee hatta tawarat bilhijab

Found in: Transliteration(100.00% match)

Surat Fuşşilat

41:5

to top in surah

Transliteration

Waqaloo quloobuna fee akinnatin mimma tadAAoona ilayhi wafee athanina waqrun wamin baynina wabaynika hijabun faAAmal innana AAamiloon

Found in: Transliteration(100.00% match)

Surat Ash-Shūraá

42:51

to top in surah

Transliteration

Wama kana libasharin an yukallimahu Allahu illa wahyan aw min wara-i hijabin aw yursila rasoolan fayoohiya bi-ithnihi ma yashao innahu AAaliyyun hakeem

Found in: Transliteration(100.00% match)

Here is one good reason to ban Muslim face veils.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LONDON, ENGLAND (BNO NEWS) -- British police have launched a manhunt for a Somali-born terror suspect who escaped police surveillance by changing into a burka at a mosque in London, officials said on late Sunday evening, appealing for the public's help to find the man.

Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed, 27, was under close police surveillance after being placed under a Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIM) notice, which may be imposed on individuals when there is a 'reasonable belief' that he or she is or has been involved in terrorism-related activity.

Mohamed is known to have attended the An-Noor Masjid and Community Centre in west London in Western-style clothing at approximately 10 a.m. local time on Friday, and was last seen inside the mosque at 3:15 p.m. He is then believed to have changed into a burka with his face completely covered before leaving the mosque, as was seen on CCTV images.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/679249-british-police-launch-manhunt-for-missing-terror-suspect/#entry6997931

The hijab is, strictly interpreted, a religious obligation. Anything more extreme is not.

Sir. Back up that claim or retract it.

The response above was solely a search for 'hijab' and pulled up the results you see.

From my time in Iran, many odf the shops had quotes in their windows about women putting on their clothes 'over their heads' and similar exhortations, with the chapter and verse from the Q'ran similar to the above.

As this was during the Shah's time, I cannot remember the references, but they were certainly understood by my maid to be a commandment that must be followed.

This to her meant a chador, covering the head and falling to the ground, but in front held in the teeth and leaving much of the face exposed. I have no problem with such things - very similar to the nun's habit.

On the run after changing in a mosque.

http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/police-hunt-terror-suspect-1

I love your quotations, HB. They form the most unanswerable post I've yet seen on TV! Anyway, it's so decorative.

A few years ago, I went to the Brunei Museum, which has one of the best collections of Koran MSS, some dating back to, I think, the 8th centiury. I couldn't read a word, but they were just beautiful.

Here is one good reason to ban Muslim face veils.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LONDON, ENGLAND (BNO NEWS) -- British police have launched a manhunt for a Somali-born terror suspect who escaped police surveillance by changing into a burka at a mosque in London, officials said on late Sunday evening, appealing for the public's help to find the man.

Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed, 27, was under close police surveillance after being placed under a Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIM) notice, which may be imposed on individuals when there is a 'reasonable belief' that he or she is or has been involved in terrorism-related activity.

Mohamed is known to have attended the An-Noor Masjid and Community Centre in west London in Western-style clothing at approximately 10 a.m. local time on Friday, and was last seen inside the mosque at 3:15 p.m. He is then believed to have changed into a burka with his face completely covered before leaving the mosque, as was seen on CCTV images.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/679249-british-police-launch-manhunt-for-missing-terror-suspect/#entry6997931

On the run after changing in a mosque.

http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/police-hunt-terror-suspect-1

Criminals use hoodies, ski masks, even nylon stockings to hide their facial and other appearance.

Should we ban those, too?

What about false beards and wigs? Easy to go into a building, change clothes and put on a false beard and a wig. Certainly good enough to fool CCTV.

Here is one good reason to ban Muslim face veils.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LONDON, ENGLAND (BNO NEWS) -- British police have launched a manhunt for a Somali-born terror suspect who escaped police surveillance by changing into a burka at a mosque in London, officials said on late Sunday evening, appealing for the public's help to find the man.

Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed, 27, was under close police surveillance after being placed under a Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIM) notice, which may be imposed on individuals when there is a 'reasonable belief' that he or she is or has been involved in terrorism-related activity.

Mohamed is known to have attended the An-Noor Masjid and Community Centre in west London in Western-style clothing at approximately 10 a.m. local time on Friday, and was last seen inside the mosque at 3:15 p.m. He is then believed to have changed into a burka with his face completely covered before leaving the mosque, as was seen on CCTV images.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/679249-british-police-launch-manhunt-for-missing-terror-suspect/#entry6997931

On the run after changing in a mosque.

http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/police-hunt-terror-suspect-1

Criminals use hoodies, ski masks, even nylon stockings to hide their facial and other appearance.

Should we ban those, too?

What about false beards and wigs? Easy to go into a building, change clothes and put on a false beard and a wig. Certainly good enough to fool CCTV.

All I did was make a post showing that Mohammed had put on a burka and had eluded his surveillance, but you seem intent on getting as many people as possible into your arena.

So here goes.

Just for the record, I think that all face coverings should be banned.

The only beards allowed in my world would be those from the Swamp People and The Duck Dynasty. Everybody else is cleanly shaven and well coiffed.

Lest you accuse me of being anti-Islamic, let me remind you I spent 5 years in Iran and nearly 30 years in Saudi Arabia.

Been there, done that and got the T-shirt to prove it.

If all you did was "make a post showing that Mohammed had put on a burka and had eluded his surveillance" why did you preface it with "Here is one good reason to ban Muslim face veils."?

All I did was give reasons why, in my opinion, it was not a reason.

The EDL, SWP and similar extremist groups would certainly be unhappy if face coverings were banned in public!

Their 'heroic' members often cover their faces when 'peacefully' demonstrating.

Probably to avoid death threats and violence from the 'peaceful' opposition

You do, of course, have evidence that someone has been fired for being a member of the EDL, or for taking part in an EDL demonstration. Can you present it?

Such a dismissal would be illegal, so they should have taken their employer to court for unfair dismissal.

Of course, losing your job because you've been convicted of a criminal offence is a different matter entirely.

On the other hand; Selfridges assistant suspended for refusing to serve EDL leader's friend.

A Selfridges shop assistant is facing possible dismissal after refusing to serve a man who was buying clothes with the leader of the English Defence League, Tommy Robinson.

http://www.libertiesalliance.org/2012/08/06/icla-member-chris-knowles-dismissed-by-leeds-city-council-without-due-process/

6 August 2012, LEEDS, UK: On 2 August, Chris Knowles, a member of the International Civil Liberties Alliance (ICLA), was summarily dismissed from his job in the Council’s Children’s Services Department. This follows a seven month “investigation” and suspension of Mr. Knowles, initiated in December 2011 by a denunciation to the Leeds Council by the Sunday Times about Mr Knowles’ “political activities.”

Sacked by Leeds City Council without due process for expressing concerns about the most intolerant ideology on the planet. You can be sure no similar sanction would be applied to Union Jack or poppy burning by Choudary and his mob, though the point is moot as they are all sponging from the taxpayer.

I trust that even if you disagree with his politics you support equal application of laws and regulations for all and hence support any ensuing claim for unfair dismissal.

If all you did was "make a post showing that Mohammed had put on a burka and had eluded his surveillance" why did you preface it with "Here is one good reason to ban Muslim face veils."?

All I did was give reasons why, in my opinion, it was not a reason.

You gave no reason whatsoever for this man's actions. The reasons are very simple. He used the disguise to elude authorities.

That is the reason and his actions have nothing to do with false beards or wigs.

Now you mjay have the last word since I seldom post on UK related threads. They are none of my business and have absolutely no impact on my day to day life.

I merely thought this article was pertinent to the conversation. Simple, really.

I love your quotations, HB. They form the most unanswerable post I've yet seen on TV! Anyway, it's so decorative.

There are links included to get an English translation. Totally irrelevant passages from the Qur'an since injunctions on dress come from the Hadith but hey ho.

Chuckd

You said his action was a reason to ban the birka, I gave reasons why this man's actions were not a reason to ban the birka. I did not see the need to give reasons for this man acting as he did; I thought that was obvious, to escape detection. Obvious to most, but it seems not to all.

SteelyDan,

Despite the efforts of some to ban certain religions and articles of clothing, this remains a free country and long may that continue.

Therefore I would support a claim for unfair dismissal by anyone who had been fired for their political beliefs and for legally expressing those beliefs. Even though I disagreed with them.

Indeed, I said that anyone fired for being a member of the EDL should put in a claim for unfair dismissal in the post you have quoted!

As Voltaire said: "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

But I wont defend vicious thugs whose aim is to stir up hatred and violence toward others; whether those thugs belong to right wing, left wing, Muslim, Christian, whatever groups or organisations.

You claimed that people have been fired for being an EDL member, I asked you for evidence of that. Seems you couldn't find any.

As for Mr Knowles, I do not know enough about the full details of his case to comment on the rights and wrongs of his dismissal. He is taking his ex employers to court, so it will be up to the court to decide. However, in all that I have seen on TV and read about him I don't recall him ever being accused of covering his face to hide his identity!

Regarding Mr Knowles case:

A quote from the same article

On December 15, based on these allegations, the Council suspended Mr. Knowles in a private meeting, stating that:

“…the council has received allegations that you may have engaged in political activities, which could be viewed as improper activities for an employee of the council to be engaging in, and contrary to the councils values and equal opportunities policies.”

The Council assured Mr. Knowles that the meeting would be kept confidential, as required to protect employee rights. Three days later, on December 18, The Sunday Times published an article about Mr. Knowles quoting a “spokeswoman” from Leeds City Council who stated:

“We take the allegations made by The Sunday Times very seriously and a member of staff has been suspended while we undertake a thorough investigation. If there has been any breach of the council’s policies or code of conduct we will take appropriate action.”

It appears that this Leeds City Council employee was conducting anti-Islamic activities - which is contrary to the policies of the City Council.

They are right to sack him.

Chuckd

You said his action was a reason to ban the birka, I gave reasons why this man's actions were not a reason to ban the birka. I did not see the need to give reasons for this man acting as he did; I thought that was obvious, to escape detection. Obvious to most, but it seems not to all.

SteelyDan,

Despite the efforts of some to ban certain religions and articles of clothing, this remains a free country and long may that continue.

Therefore I would support a claim for unfair dismissal by anyone who had been fired for their political beliefs and for legally expressing those beliefs. Even though I disagreed with them.

Indeed, I said that anyone fired for being a member of the EDL should put in a claim for unfair dismissal in the post you have quoted!

As Voltaire said: "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

But I wont defend vicious thugs whose aim is to stir up hatred and violence toward others; whether those thugs belong to right wing, left wing, Muslim, Christian, whatever groups or organisations.

You claimed that people have been fired for being an EDL member, I asked you for evidence of that. Seems you couldn't find any.

As for Mr Knowles, I do not know enough about the full details of his case to comment on the rights and wrongs of his dismissal. He is taking his ex employers to court, so it will be up to the court to decide. However, in all that I have seen on TV and read about him I don't recall him ever being accused of covering his face to hide his identity!

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/06/13/soldiers-face-sack-for-edl-activities_n_3433435.html

Serving soldiers have been warned that taking part in any English Defence League activities could result in their dismissal.

Defence minister Mark Francois, in a written Parliamentary answer, said that the Army chain of command had been contacted with clear instructions to ensure all service personnel refrained from engaging in any political behaviour, after photos emerged showing what appeared to be serving soldiers brandishing firearms against a backdrop of EDL propaganda.

Glad to see you invoking Voltaire, shame his ideals don't seem to have been extended to protect Marine Le Pen from prosecution. It doesn't take a genius to work out where the sympathies of our armed forces are. The government are obviously having kittens should this become common knowledge, especially as they tie our underequipped forces up in restrictive rules of engagement, whilst letting poppy burning parasites disrespect them on their return home.

P.S EDL Armed forces division on facebook has currently more than 15,000 likes.

As Voltaire said: "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

common misconception he never said anything of the sort, and even if he did he would be horrified over casual deletions on here when some people cannot face the truth as others see it. Evelyn Beatrice Hall just made this quote up in a book about Voltaire.

Former justice secretary Ken Clarke has said women should not be allowed to give evidence in court while wearing veils because it undermines the trial when they are in a kind of bag.

The Conservative politician said body language was important because it allowed jurors to discern if someone was telling the truth and covering up could affect their ability to make a decision.

http://metro.co.uk/2013/11/03/ken-clarke-describes-muslim-veil-as-a-kind-of-bag-4171919/

Chuckd

You said his action was a reason to ban the birka, I gave reasons why this man's actions were not a reason to ban the birka. I did not see the need to give reasons for this man acting as he did; I thought that was obvious, to escape detection. Obvious to most, but it seems not to all.

SteelyDan,

Despite the efforts of some to ban certain religions and articles of clothing, this remains a free country and long may that continue.

Therefore I would support a claim for unfair dismissal by anyone who had been fired for their political beliefs and for legally expressing those beliefs. Even though I disagreed with them.

Indeed, I said that anyone fired for being a member of the EDL should put in a claim for unfair dismissal in the post you have quoted!

As Voltaire said: "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

But I wont defend vicious thugs whose aim is to stir up hatred and violence toward others; whether those thugs belong to right wing, left wing, Muslim, Christian, whatever groups or organisations.

You claimed that people have been fired for being an EDL member, I asked you for evidence of that. Seems you couldn't find any.

As for Mr Knowles, I do not know enough about the full details of his case to comment on the rights and wrongs of his dismissal. He is taking his ex employers to court, so it will be up to the court to decide. However, in all that I have seen on TV and read about him I don't recall him ever being accused of covering his face to hide his identity!

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/06/13/soldiers-face-sack-for-edl-activities_n_3433435.html

Serving soldiers have been warned that taking part in any English Defence League activities could result in their dismissal.

Defence minister Mark Francois, in a written Parliamentary answer, said that the Army chain of command had been contacted with clear instructions to ensure all service personnel refrained from engaging in any political behaviour, after photos emerged showing what appeared to be serving soldiers brandishing firearms against a backdrop of EDL propaganda.

Glad to see you invoking Voltaire, shame his ideals don't seem to have been extended to protect Marine Le Pen from prosecution. It doesn't take a genius to work out where the sympathies of our armed forces are. The government are obviously having kittens should this become common knowledge, especially as they tie our underequipped forces up in restrictive rules of engagement, whilst letting poppy burning parasites disrespect them on their return home.

P.S EDL Armed forces division on facebook has currently more than 15,000 likes.

Did enjoy the video on your HuffPost link. Muslamics indeed....

Dan, please remind us of your war-fighting experience in the British Army and if you cannot do this then give us a break re your utterly uninformed/ignorant comments.

Care to explain your "underequipped" comment? Care to explain your "restrictive rules of engagement" comment?

Scum such as Lennon/Yaxley/Robinson wearing military gear does not make him a soldier. Especially repellent given his family's Irish Republican background and growing up in one of the key IRA funding/logistics bases in the UK.

Counting likes on Facebook, gosh that really represents a broader base of support for extremist vermin.

The military has always had to put up with uninformed bigots of every social strata and political persuasion. But that's the joy of being a professional, as in any walk of life, you ignore the ignorant and get on with your job.

@Folium

Rules of engagement

http://www.dianawest.net/home/tabid/36/entryid/1758/isaf-policy-catch-and-release-ied-bombers.aspx

Underequipped see below, I suggest you take up with the all party defence committee as to their personal military experience in order to conclude the following;-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4777013.stm

British troops fighting in Iraq are under-equipped and overstretched, a group of MPs has warned.

The all-party defence committee said the soldiers needed more helicopters and better-protected patrol vehicles to shield them from roadside bombs.

Committee members visited Iraq in June and also say operations in Afghanistan are being done on a "shoe string".

Alternatively why not give me your credentials qualifying you to spout forth on sundry issues from plate tectonics to the Balfour declaration, but better still why not stop acting like a jumped up megalomaniac?

I won't repeat the offensive term you used to describe Tommy Robinson, but would observe I prefer to reserve such language for cold blooded murderers and traitors as oppose to those who are simply reactive to the common concern about runaway immigration from a third world culture. Furthermore if you have proof that Mr Robinson was involved in aiding or abetting a terrorist organization such as the IRA I suggest you inform the authorities otherwise cut out the slanderous off topic nonsense.

Steely Dan, from your quote from the Huffington post

the Army chain of command had been contacted with clear instructions to ensure all service personnel refrained from engaging in any political behaviour.........

Any political behaviour; not just EDL rallies.

You really should read things before you quote them to back up your arguments.

Maybe you should read Queens Regulations as well:

J5.581.
a. Regular Service personnel are not to take any active part in the affairs of any political organization, party or movement. They are not to participate in political marches or demonstrations.
b. No restriction is to be placed upon the attendance at political meetings of such personnel provided that uniform is not worn, Service are not impeded, and no action is taken which would bring the Service into disrepute.

Not just the EDL, then.

I fail to see how a French politician and an American soldier are relevant to this topic; which is about the UK.

sms747, if it makes you happier "As attributed to Voltaire........."

@Folium

Rules of engagement

http://www.dianawest.net/home/tabid/36/entryid/1758/isaf-policy-catch-and-release-ied-bombers.aspx

Underequipped see below, I suggest you take up with the all party defence committee as to their personal military experience in order to conclude the following;-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4777013.stm

British troops fighting in Iraq are under-equipped and overstretched, a group of MPs has warned.

The all-party defence committee said the soldiers needed more helicopters and better-protected patrol vehicles to shield them from roadside bombs.

Committee members visited Iraq in June and also say operations in Afghanistan are being done on a "shoe string".

Alternatively why not give me your credentials qualifying you to spout forth on sundry issues from plate tectonics to the Balfour declaration, but better still why not stop acting like a jumped up megalomaniac?

I won't repeat the offensive term you used to describe Tommy Robinson, but would observe I prefer to reserve such language for cold blooded murderers and traitors as oppose to those who are simply reactive to the common concern about runaway immigration from a third world culture. Furthermore if you have proof that Mr Robinson was involved in aiding or abetting a terrorist organization such as the IRA I suggest you inform the authorities otherwise cut out the slanderous off topic nonsense.

Meanwhile back on topic, here's a slightly more grown up response covering a wide range of opinions re face veils/covering:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24106142

PS your underequipped link is 7 years old. James Arbuthnot (Chairman of the Defence Select Committee) was trained as a lawyer, never served in the military, but is good at claiming expenses for having his swimming pool cleaned....!

Your "restrictive RoE" piece does not mention the British Army. Do you even understand why there are RoEs in the first place?

PPS You confuse slander with libel , much as you confuse treason and treachery.

PPPS where did I say the delightful street brawler was aiding and abetting the IRA?

PPPPS you want some qualifications? Well as far as the military, geopolitics and plate tectonics go I have plenty of first hand experience (past and present), and academic credentials covering all 3 to be able to pontificate like a "jumped up megalomaniac" (??!) and "leftish liberal". How about you?.....Just love those compliments.

sms747, if it makes you happier "As attributed to Voltaire........."

Perhaps as with many other things you come out with, it might be better to check the facts first. It's not attributed to Voltaire, it's wrongly attributed to him as he never said or wrote it. But it does not stop the ignorant continuing to say he did when they never actually read a single word the man did write.

There should be a total ban on the birka if only on security grounds, time to stand up to the Islamisation of the UK.

Well done for your pedantry; it obviously pleases you very much. I assume that you are also including Steely Dan among the ignorant as he agreed that it was a Voltaire quote!

Talking of Steely Dan, he, too, has said that if you ban the birka on security grounds then you must also ban all other types of face coverings; hoodies, masks, even false beards!

Banning it on religious grounds is not a road any one who believes in the basic democratic and freedom principles of the UK can in any conscience embark upon. We stopped persecuting people in this country for their religious beliefs a long time ago.

Would you ban other items of religious clothing or expression? How about Sikhs? What about Catholic nuns?

Maybe you should read a bit more Voltaire; you may learn something.

Well done for your pedantry; it obviously pleases you very much. I assume that you are also including Steely Dan among the ignorant as he agreed that it was a Voltaire quote!

Talking of Steely Dan, he, too, has said that if you ban the birka on security grounds then you must also ban all other types of face coverings; hoodies, masks, even false beards!

Banning it on religious grounds is not a road any one who believes in the basic democratic and freedom principles of the UK can in any conscience embark upon. We stopped persecuting people in this country for their religious beliefs a long time ago.

Would you ban other items of religious clothing or expression? How about Sikhs? What about Catholic nuns?

Maybe you should read a bit more Voltaire; you may learn something.

Before attempting the equivalent of divide and rule I advise focusing on exactly what I wrote. False beards as you put it don't cover the face, except for werewolves. If a beard is permissible on a passport photo it is not seen as an impediment to identification, though in order to effect proper identification this does rely on our dhimwhit passport control officers insisting on seeing the entire face, instead of waving through anyone dressed as walking letterboxes. Incidentally a decade after 19 Saudis flew planes into tall buildings in New York the U.S has upgraded Saudi citizens to trusted traveler status, so they too have no doubt replaced visual identification with a barcode machine in order not to upset the permanently upset.

Infact the rot has set in to the extent that a pensioner was detained, questioned for an hour and threatened he would not be allowed on a flight for commenting about a woman dressed in a burka being waved through airport security in front of him without her face being checked.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2142619/How-avoid-airport-security-Wear-burka.html

And just when you think it can't get any worse it promptly does.

http://www.netkafa.com/2013-11-07/theresa-may-admits-passport-error-over-fugitive-who-escaped-in-burqa/555328

Theresa May has asked for the parliamentary record to be corrected to say: ‘Mohamed was not in possession of his British passport when he returned to the UK so there was no passport for the police to seize.’ Photograph: Rex Concerns have been raised that fugitive terror suspect Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed may have a second passport after confusion emerged over his British one.

If you don't want things you have said quoted back; don't say them. Whenever I have raised the point that there are other forms of face covering used by criminals to hide their identity, you have said that you would want them banned as well.

Ah yes, Richard Littlejohn. Well known as the voice of reason! (Sarcasm for those who can't tell.)

As you should know, assuming you've ever left the UK, passport checks are not carried out on exiting the UK; I think they should be for a variety of reasons, but that's a different topic.

However, in situations where a person is required to have their ID confirmed, such as entering the UK, then if wearing a birka, or any other face covering, it has to be removed.

Another example: a driving test candidate wearing a birka must remove it so the examiner can confirm that the person taking the test is the same as the person on the photo card licence presented.

If, as you appear to do, you believe that because the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis that all Saudis are terrorist suspects, how do you feel about the Irish? Irish terrorists, from both sides, have been responsible for far more murders in the UK than Saudi ones.

May made an erroneous statement. I thought you would have been pleased that she has now corrected it!