If the security system was like any other security system in the developed world, they would have been able to alarm the police with a foot alarm. It sounds like the place was in the middle of nowhere.

 

 

 

Its happened twice, so ban? Do you realise the amount of banning we would have to carry out going on that basis?

 

It's such a simple mindset- if it happens at all, ban it, that'll stop the problem.

 

If burka's were banned, do you honestly think these guys wouldn't have robbed the shop? "Oh no, now they've banned burka's, we're going to have to get jobs." People like this will always find ways around it.

 

But it would make it more difficult for them, so hopefully a ban will come into force before something even worse happens.;)

Mark, when was the other incident you mentioned? There were two in France, where was the other one? Because the article included this:

 

 

 

Not that it really makes a difference between one or two, but just wondering.

 

There were two incidents in the UK, mentioned at the end of the article, so actually there have been more than two.

But it would make it more difficult for them, so hopefully a ban will come into force before something even worse happens.;)

 

That's not being reasonable, banning a religious symbol nationwide because of one incident in 7 month.

 

There were two incidents in the UK, mentioned at the end of the article, so actually there have been more than two.

 

We've been discussing whether or not burka's should be banned in France, this had nothing to do with the UK.

That's not being reasonable, banning a religious symbol nationwide because of one incident in 7 month.

 

 

 

We've been discussing whether or not burka's should be banned in France, this had nothing to do with the UK.

 

I believe it's an issue throughout the European Union, therefore a EU-wide ban would make more sense, but clearly in France and the UK anyway.;)

I believe it's an issue throughout the European Union, therefore a EU-wide ban would make more sense, but clearly in France and the UK anyway.;)

 

But what about basic civil liberties? Freedom to religion? Isn't this whole thing just an excuse for racists to spread their views?

 

You keep acknowledging the incredibly small amount of cases that there have been (I'd argue the only truely shocking thing about this news item is how it's gotten this far and we've only had less then a handful of cases when there are thousands or armed robberies every year) but no sympathy or even mention of the Islamic community?

 

Like everything in politics, and life, there needs to be some sort of balance, there is none with your argument. If there were hundreds of cases of armed robbers in France using burka's, then I'd at least see where you're coming from (Although I'd still have to disagree with actually banning them) but one case in 7 months?

 

The more I think of it, the more ridiculous it is, that this is a news item.

^I disagree. I strongly believe that forbidding people to conceal their faces in public buildings and shops (at least) makes a lot of sense in terms of security.

This would, of course, include balaclavas, hoods and face-masks, so nobody could say they're being singled out.

^I disagree. I strongly believe that forbidding people to conceal their faces in public buildings and shops (at least) makes a lot of sense in terms of security.

This would, of course, include balaclavas, hoods and face-masks, so nobody could say they're being singled out.

 

Yes it makes perfect sense, like the UKs fear mongering and pointless investment in CCTV, were the most watched nation on the planet and do they actually catch anyone more because of it?, no it's a pointless waste of taxpayers money.

Most criminals will wear hats etc or go to an area not on camera.

Maybe you would be better off wrapping yourself in bubble wrap for the rest of your life.

Do you really think anyone with sinister intent is going to care if it's illegal to cover their face before they do a bank robbery for example?.

Yes it makes perfect sense, like the UKs fear mongering and pointless investment in CCTV, were the most watched nation on the planet and do they actually catch anyone more because of it?, no it's a pointless waste of taxpayers money.

Most criminals will wear hats etc or go to an area not on camera.

Maybe you would be better off wrapping yourself in bubble wrap for the rest of your life.

Do you really think anyone with sinister intent is going to care if it's illegal to cover their face before they do a bank robbery for example?.

 

Of course, as they're far less likely to be caught. Cameras do work in those situations in the sense that robbers can be easily identified (e.g. via Crimewatch) if they haven't taken the trouble to disguise themselves.

While it may not actually prevent the robberies themselves, I think you'll find programmes like Crimewatch have been very successful when it comes to robbers being apprehended.

Are you joking? You think Crimewatch is a prime example of using CCTV to advantage? I work in security and you have no idea how useful CCTV is.

 

You're an absolute moron for your views expressed here though, but we already knew that.

Roughly how many armed robberies would have taken place in France in the past 7 months? Tens of thousands?

 

The very 1st one with a burka, and not only is it a news item, but to Mark it's proof that it's a real problem in France to the point where we need to ban it.

 

I thought THAT was bad and then he starts talking about Crimewatch as if it's a major force in catching criminals because the examples are there to be seen.

Roughly how many armed robberies would have taken place in France in the past 7 months? Tens of thousands?

 

The very 1st one with a burka, and not only is it a news item, but to Mark it's proof that it's a real problem in France to the point where we need to ban it.

 

There have already been a handful of such incidents in France and the UK, and there are clearly many people in positions of power who justifiably see it as a problem, and want to do something about it before the trickle turns into a flood.

 

I thought THAT was bad and then he starts talking about Crimewatch as if it's a major force in catching criminals because the examples are there to be seen.

 

I think you'll find that quite a few criminals have been identified and captured as a result of video footage being shown on Crimewatch over the years, so it's a perfectly valid point.

Yeah you'll not be able to walk down the street without seeing Burka-related crime going on. Get a grip.

Well hopefully not, as they'll be banned before that can happen.:rolleyes:

Why would they be banned?

Somebody's obviously not been paying attention.:rolleyes:

Somebody's obviously not been paying attention.:rolleyes:

 

Nor have you, it impedes on human rights and sets a precedent for what can be done in the future, which would be a very scary thing. Plus I can't think of a single valid reason for why someone wearing a head scarf to suit their religious beliefs puts anybody else in any danger.

Well there are clearly a lot of people out there (including many in authority) who disagree, hence the proposals.:rolleyes:

Oh yeah right "the invisible majority", the ones who always agree with the points you make, almost forget they existed.

 

That's like when the BNP claim they are "just saying what everyone is thinking" don't be silly Mark, just because your utterly terrible, casually racist newspaper runs a story about Burka's being evil it doesn't mean everyone hates them. It's not like people can post "news" stories saying "Burkas affect nothing" since it's not fucking news, so of course you have an incredibly biased view on attitudes towards Burkas. You're absolutely wrong if you think an extreme and vocal minority represents the majority.

"Quite a few criminals are caught from crimewatch" and "A handful of burka related incidents" are incredibly weak arguments, can you not see that?

Well there are clearly a lot of people out there (including many in authority) who disagree, hence the proposals.:rolleyes:

 

You're debating is ludicrous, when faced with a direct point, you hide behind other peoples opinions? Can you not think for yourself?

 

Not even to mention the people who agree with it are clearly racist.

"Now those fighting for the ban claim the robbery – which is the first of its kind in France – shows how useful the burkha is as a disguise."

 

This, along with a picture of Sarkozy with a smug "I told ya so" expression;

 

 

It's my favourite parts of the article. Blatant influence.

Oh yeah right "the invisible majority", the ones who always agree with the points you make, almost forget they existed.

 

That's like when the BNP claim they are "just saying what everyone is thinking" don't be silly Mark, just because your utterly terrible, casually racist newspaper runs a story about Burka's being evil it doesn't mean everyone hates them. It's not like people can post "news" stories saying "Burkas affect nothing" since it's not fucking news, so of course you have an incredibly biased view on attitudes towards Burkas. You're absolutely wrong if you think an extreme and vocal minority represents the majority.

 

Pretty much everything you said there is biased in the extreme, so go figure................ :rolleyes:

You're debating is ludicrous, when faced with a direct point, you hide behind other peoples opinions? Can you not think for yourself?

 

Not even to mention the people who agree with it are clearly racist.

 

Clearly not. That's merely your far-fetched opinion.:rolleyes:

http://www.coldplaying.com/forum/showthread.php?t=67702

Of course, as they're far less likely to be caught. Cameras do work in those situations in the sense that robbers can be easily identified (e.g. via Crimewatch) if they haven't taken the trouble to disguise themselves.

While it may not actually prevent the robberies themselves, I think you'll find programmes like Crimewatch have been very successful when it comes to robbers being apprehended.

 

Anyone who's not a complete moron is going to disguise themselves.