How about instead of banning burkas we ban the idiotic reactionaries who piss themselves with fear and call for everything that scares them to be banned. As well as that we can ban any of the stupid populist politicians who actually listen to them.

Personally, to lose individual liberties for a few bad actors is totally ridiculous. Attire is a matter of a person's right to choose - it in and of itself does no harm. If you want to reduce crime, the real answer is to get to the root of the social & economic problems that lead people down a criminal path, not banning things because someone could be concealing their identity.

We don't ban violin cases, nor walking canes - but they could be used to conceal weapons. We don't ban shoes although they have been used to conceal illegal things as well. Better to use common sense, and living with some extremely remote risks is one of the costs of living in a free society.

That's true, the difference being that if someone walked into a bank wearing a balaclava, helmet with visor down, a stocking or some kind of mask, the staff reaction would be instant, which might make some kind of difference.

The reason why burkhas are a far greater problem is because they are meant to be regarded as "normal" attire, even though they clearly aren't, at least not in secular society.

 

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

We don't ban violin cases, nor walking canes - but they could be used to conceal weapons.

 

They could, but hardly anyone walks around carrying a violin case, walking canes aren't likely to contain very sophisticated weapons unless they've been designed by "Q", and neither of them conceal the carrier's identity anyway.

Better to use common sense, and living with some extremely remote risks is one of the costs of living in a free society.

 

Great post by chuck, concise, this summing up how I feel

 

That's true, the difference being that if someone walked into a bank wearing a balaclava, helmet with visor down, a stocking or some kind of mask, the reaction would be instant, which might make some kind of difference.

 

So that's all this is about? The few seconds it takes to walk up to the cash desk 'might' make some kind of difference? Like chuck wrote, we have to live with some 'extremely remote risks' but there's no need to ban anything that co-incides with your racist views.

They could, but hardly anyone walks around carrying a violin case, walking canes aren't likely to contain very sophisticated weapons unless they've been designed by "Q", and neither of them conceal the carrier's identity anyway.

 

Yeah so it sounds very rare. As rare as the burka robbery, one case in 7 months in a country as big as France? Or even a handful in France and the UK put together, even 10 would still be rare out of thousands of armed robberies that have taken place since June.

 

You see the point? Violin cases are rarely carried around by anyone, but it still wouldn't raise suspicion, by your logic, and even if it could possibly see just one robbery with a violin case, we must ban violin cases.

Great post by chuck, concise, this summing up how I feel

 

 

 

So that's all this is about? The few seconds it takes to walk up to the cash desk 'might' make some kind of difference? Like chuck wrote, we have to live with some 'extremely remote risks' but there's no need to ban anything that co-incides with your racist views.

 

Your lack of knowledge in the world of "definitions" is astounding.:dozey:

Yeah so it sounds very rare. As rare as the burka robbery, one case in 7 months in a country as big as France? Or even a handful in France and the UK put together, even 10 would still be rare out of thousands of armed robberies that have taken place since June.

 

You see the point? Violin cases are rarely carried around by anyone, but it still wouldn't raise suspicion, by your logic, and even if it could possibly see just one robbery with a violin case, we must ban violin cases.

 

As I said, violin cases aren't a way of concealing one's identity, so the point is irrelevant.:rolleyes:

However, if you wish to put forward a case for banning those, by all means do so.

That's true, the difference being that if someone walked into a bank wearing a balaclava, helmet with visor down, a stocking or some kind of mask, the staff reaction would be instant, which might make some kind of difference.

The reason why burkhas are a far greater problem is because they are meant to be regarded as "normal" attire, even though they clearly aren't, at least not in secular society.

 

I doubt many people would react quickly enough to do anything in the time it would take to notice someone wearing a balaclava and someone pointing a 9mm in your face, plus in honesty what's the point in being a hero would you really want to die for the banks money?.

I feel that, out of fear, despite remote possibilities, we tend to ban things and reduce our freedoms. Reducing the crime rate is more a matter of better economics & opportunities, greater equity and respect in society, and offering more outlets for youth activity.

As the income gap widens, and the poorer members of society begin to fall short on their ability to meet their obligations and have time for their families, doesn't this have an effect on overall tendencies towards crime as well? What about the outlook of younger people, and how they feel about themselves?

I think to address the immediate concerns can be helpful if done with respect for a person's rights, but the underlying causes are at the heart of many social problems..

I doubt many people would react quickly enough to do anything in the time it would take to notice someone wearing a balaclava and someone pointing a 9mm in your face, plus in honesty what's the point in being a hero would you really want to die for the banks money?.

 

I meant "react" in terms of raising the alarm (e.g. panic button). Those few seconds could make all the difference.

Because pressing the panic button on an innocent Muslim wearing a burkha TOTALLY isn't gonna raise suspicions of racism just because they are wearing a burkha.

 

Totally impractical and nobody will buy it.

Because pressing the panic button on an innocent Muslim wearing a burkha TOTALLY isn't gonna raise suspicions of racism just because they are wearing a burkha.

 

 

 

Which is exactly why there are calls for them to be banned from banks and public buildings at least. It's the fact they're viewed as non-suspicious that's the issue, not the opposite.

You have obviously completely missed my point... that such a ban is understandably going to be seen as racist.

You have obviously completely missed my point... that such a ban is understandably going to be seen as racist.

 

Only by idiots who don't understand the meaning of the word, or those just trying to cause trouble.

I feel that, out of fear, despite remote possibilities, we tend to ban things and reduce our freedoms. Reducing the crime rate is more a matter of better economics & opportunities, greater equity and respect in society, and offering more outlets for youth activity.

As the income gap widens, and the poorer members of society begin to fall short on their ability to meet their obligations and have time for their families, doesn't this have an effect on overall tendencies towards crime as well? What about the outlook of younger people, and how they feel about themselves?

I think to address the immediate concerns can be helpful if done with respect for a person's rights, but the underlying causes are at the heart of many social problems..

 

Chuck's post >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>Mark's head<

 

Way over.

I'd have to agree and say that's probably one of the more finer posts I've seen in argument on here, applause for chuck :clap:

Chuck's post >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>Mark's head<

 

Way over.

 

Not at all. The big difference between Chuck and you is that he's capable of putting his views across without insulting people and being generally obnoxious or facetious (pretty much how you've been here again).;)

There are indeed societal issues which need to be addressed (see "Broken Britain" articles), but it might well already be too late to turn back the tide with respect to those.:(

Not at all. The big difference between Chuck and you is that he's capable of putting his views across without insulting people and being generally obnoxious or facetious

 

Like this?

 

This robbery clearly had nothing to do with the use of a burqa, it was in the suburbs, it took 10 minutes to carry out, it would have made no difference if they were wearing burqa's or bunny suits. As far as the burqa being less suspicious, it's irrelevant, they walked in the shop and pulled out pistols, being caught off guard makes no difference.

 

This robbery only proves Sarkozy's point in an incredibly vague and tedious way, yes it is indeed true that burqa's are perfect cover for a robbery or a terrorist attack, just like many other disguises that creative robbers will use.

 

And when did Sarkozy predict this major burqa crime-wave? I just looked it up, 22nd of June! 7 and a half months later we've had one burqa related robbery in which a massive 4 grand was stolen.

 

The point is more important then how apparently 'obnoxious' or 'insulting' I supposedly am, apparently 100% of the time.

 

My posts were more focussed on this particular article, I like Chuck's posts because he can look at the biggest picture without having to directly relate every instance of his opinion to this particular story.

 

I realise that unfortunately, if I don't directly point out what's utterly insane about this ban, it will go straight over your head, and you'll end up either ignoring it (Like with Chuck's posts) or relating it with something that it has completely no relation to (Such as your Broken Britain topic).

Like this?

 

No, because it's an accurate description of how you've been acting.

 

 

 

The point is more important then how apparently 'obnoxious' or 'insulting' I supposedly am, apparently 100% of the time.

 

100%? No. But quite a lot of the time, anyway.

 

My posts were more focussed on this particular article, I like Chuck's posts because he can look at the biggest picture without having to directly relate every instance of his opinion to this particular story.

 

That's his prerogative, but that doesn't necessarily mean that everything he says can be treated as "gospel".

 

 

I realise that unfortunately, if I don't directly point out what's utterly insane about this ban, it will go straight over your head, and you'll end up either ignoring it (Like with Chuck's posts) or relating it with something that it has completely no relation to (Such as your Broken Britain topic).

 

All that is merely your opinion, and again, unnecessarily insulting.;)

No, because it's an accurate description of how you've been acting.

 

I just posted a quote from me, in this topic, stating my opinion without being insulting, if you do think it was insulting then tell me how.

 

100%? No. But quite a lot of the time, anyway.

 

You said I'm incapable of posting my opinion without insulting others, I've spent this topic as well as pages and pages of posting in other topics without being insulting, just merely stating my opinion. Don't disregard my opinion because sometimes I tell you to fuck yourself, like I said, the point is the debate, if you can't handle a debate then of course you're going to resort to focussing on my background.

 

If you think that saying a point has 'gone over your head' is a notable insult, then you need to toughen up.

I just posted a quote from me, in this topic, stating my opinion without being insulting, if you do think it was insulting then tell me how.

 

It clearly fell in the "facetious" category, as opposed to the others.;)

 

Don't disregard my opinion because sometimes I tell you to fuck yourself

 

I will do exactly that, as it completely devalues any point you might be trying to make.

 

If you think that saying a point has 'gone over your head' is a notable insult, then you need to toughen up.

 

It's still unnecessary "name-calling" which has nothing to do with any argument.

As far as I'm aware, MPs have extremely heated debates in the House of Commons without resulting to petty insults all the time, even if they will never agree with the opposing viewpoint.

That's all very convenient if you don't have responses to my arguments, you often ignore questions that I put forward in the name of your special Rulebook of Debating, which now states you can't be facetious? Why? It's not offensive, it's still getting the point across. I know how you hate tackling those.

 

A lot worse is said in the Commons then a point going 'over someones head'. You are only so over-sensitive when it suits you.

I know how you hate tackling those.

 

Yet another example there. You don't "know" at all.

 

A lot worse is said in the Commons then a point going 'over someones head'.

 

I wasn't talking about that comment specifically. However, I think you'll find that MPs are able to debate issues the vast majority of the time without getting directly "personal".

 

You are only so over-sensitive when it suits you.

 

Not really. If you wish to resort to petty jibes and name-calling that's up to you.

I'm merely pointing out that it totally devalues any points you might be trying to make, and that there is therefore far more likelihood of my treating them with contempt, whether you like it or not.

Before you started picking apart my every word in an attempt to cloud the issue, my point was that you focus on 'name calling' in a desperate attempt to avoid the actual debate.

 

In your overly pedantic Rules of Debating, we're both guilty of getting 'personal', to re-iterate, the point of the debate is more important. I rarely bring up when you get personal, but towards the end of any debate we ever have, you always bring out that card when you've got nothing left to say.