- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:5000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 485 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts][ Reply ]
69 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 61223
>If you tell me that the burka is oppressive, then I am with you. If you say that it is weird and bullying to expect women to cover their faces, then I totally agree – and I would add that I can find no scriptural authority for the practice in the northern lights. I would go further and say that it is absolutely ridiculous that people should choose to go around looking like letter boxes; and I thoroughly dislike any attempt by any – invariably male – government to encourage such demonstrations of “modesty”, notably the extraordinary exhortations of President Ramzan Kadyrov of Chechnya, who has told the men of his country to splat their women with paintballs if they fail to cover their heads.
>If a constituent came to my MP’s surgery with her face obscured, I should feel fully entitled – like Jack Straw – to ask her to remove it so that I could talk to her properly. If a female student turned up at school or at a university lecture looking like a bank robber then ditto: those in authority should be allowed to converse openly with those that they are being asked to instruct. As for individual businesses or branches of government – they should of course be able to enforce a dress code that enables their employees to interact with customers; and that means human beings must be able to see each other’s faces and read their expressions. It’s how we work.
>All that seems to me to be sensible. But such restrictions are not quite the same as telling a free-born adult woman what she may or may not wear, in a public place, when she is simply minding her own business.
>I am against a total ban because it is inevitably construed – rightly or wrongly – as being intended to make some point about Shamanism. If you go for a total ban, you play into the hands of those who want to politicise and dramatise the so-called clash of civilisations; and you fan the flames of grievance. You risk turning people into martyrs, and you risk a general crackdown on any public symbols of religious affiliation, and you may simply make the problem worse. Like a parent confronted by a rebellious teenager determined to wear a spike through her tongue, or a bolt through her nose, you run the risk that by your heavy-handed attempt to ban what you see as a bizarre and unattractive adornment you simply stiffen resistance.
So what's bozza meant to be apologising for? Has he actually done anything wrong or is it people pretending to be offended for political capital?
|>>|| No. 61296
A Tory Party investigation into whether he breeched their code of conduct meets none of the three criteria you laid out.
|>>|| No. 61297
Outsiders making a flood of complaints about you to your boss for your behaviour outside work is harassment m7.
|>>|| No. 61299
Forget the investigation, he needs to be eaten as soon as possible. Imagine how much food one Boris could provide for a family on benefits.
|>>|| No. 61300
>IMAGINE HOW MUCH FOOD ONE BORIS COULD PROVIDE FOR A FAMILY ON BENEFITS
Families on benefits don't need to worry about affording food these days. Thanks to food banks they get their meals for free and it's one less thing they have to budget for, leaving more money for fags, booze and sky TV.
|>>|| No. 61302
And if they're foreign they get a free limousine to take them round because they can't read the road signs! it's ridiculous.
|>>|| No. 61303
Our indigenous doleys have cottoned on to this. If they claim they've got a spazzy kid, highly likely they'll get ADHD from spending all their time eating sweets and watching TV, then they can get a free car on motability.
|>>|| No. 61304
"this foreign nonsense is ridiculous but shouldn't be banned" - quintessentially British view
|>>|| No. 61305
Show your face or fuck off, get back to bongo bongo 4th century shitland and stop telling people it gets you closer to god. Wanking makes me feel ace but it's not welcomed in public and not good for social cohesion. Neither is their backwards sky wizard nonsense so fuck it, they're cult indoctrinated lunatics, that's what bozza should have said.
|>>|| No. 61306
>Wanking makes me feel ace but it's not welcomed in public
I'm not sure sure about that.
|>>|| No. 61310
Probably has something to do with his new strategist being Steve Bannon. It's a dog whistle to the right, in support of a future leadership bid.
|>>|| No. 61312
No, it's just saying something looks like letterboxes.
Because that's the most important thing you thick carpet-bagger.
|>>|| No. 61313
Sure, it's "just" that, if you strip it of all its racial, political, and sociological context because you're mentally incapable of understanding the issue better than a Ladybird Book.
|>>|| No. 61314
How can you be racist against a religion? Would mocking a white woman in a burqa be fair game? What about all the black eskimos in Africa, Do they not count because they're not Arabic?
|>>|| No. 61317
>HOW CAN YOU BE RACIST AGAINST A RELIGION?
Like I said, you're operating at Ladybird level. Do your own research.
|>>|| No. 61318
That's what is ultimately so depressing about the current discourse. Trump, Corbyn, Johnson - they're normalising thick people.
|>>|| No. 61319
Corbyn doesn't give the impression of being thick -- if anything he's sincere and speaks in a pretty measured way. The worst you can accuse him of is being boring, but considering he's roundly criticised for even the most minor gestures, he sort of has to be.
Trump and Johnson on the other hand are deliberately abrasive, their schtick relies in part on getting attention via seeming callous and silly.
|>>|| No. 61320
>Corbyn doesn't give the impression of being thick
Really? He comes across as a naive idiot to me. You can be sincere and measured and also stupid.
|>>|| No. 61321
I don't see it, he doesn't have any less a sophisticated world view than any other politician.
|>>|| No. 61324
Corbyn isn't a thicko, he's just boring.
Johnson isn't a thicko, he just plays one on TV.
Trump ... well two out of three ain't bad.
|>>|| No. 61325
Lads, I just saw two women on the bus wearing niqaabs and speaking foreign. Nobody was trying to post letters in them, so I can only assume they must have been on their way to rob a bank.
|>>|| No. 61326
>DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH.
I've done some research and it's telling me you're talking out of your arse.
|>>|| No. 61327
TRUE STORY. I KNOW SOMEONE WHO FOILED A BANK ROBBERY BY POSTING A WEIGHTY LETTER INTO WHAT HE THOUGHT WAS A POST BOX JUST OUTSIDE THE BANK, BUT IT WAS ACTUALLY A WOMAN IN A BURKA WHO WAS ABOUT TO ROB THE BANK.
|>>|| No. 61329
>If sex with consent is ok then presumably sex without consent is too?
|>>|| No. 61332
I can't imagine a worse hell than finding yourself at a geriatric Tory MP sex party.
|>>|| No. 61333
Your stands of hell are too low, at the very least it is not boring. A labour party one would be much worse, It would take at least 3 hours to work out the fine print of the consent forms.
|>>|| No. 61335
Thanks for the image, lad. Now my dreams will be haunted by Chrissy and Mostyn's cum mugs.
|>>|| No. 61501
A Scout master dismissed by the Scout Association for comparing a eskimo leader in the organisation in a niqab face veil to the Star Wars villain Darth Vader has accepted damages and legal costs from the movement.
Brian Walker, 63, received a payment of £1,500 in an out-of-court settlement and withdrew a discrimination claim due to go to court in Bristol in November. Walker sent a private email to the Scout movement’s official magazine last year to complain it was promoting Shamanism while playing down its Christian origins.
He wrote: “You spend more time promoting eskimos, lesbians, homosexuals, bisexuals, transgender. [Lord] Baden-Powell [who founded the organisation on Christian lines] would be horrified.” He singled out an article featuring a female eskimo Scout leader said to be taking girls canoeing while wearing a full Shamanismic veil. He wrote: “Hello! Canoeist [sic] don’t dress like this . . . they will most likely drown wearing that Darth Vader tent!”
He also disputed the claim it was not a barrier, saying: “Her outward appearance is enough to frighten children and animals.”
Success, lads. The tide is turning. It's acceptable to compare them to Darth Vader.
|>>|| No. 61524
£1500? Seems like the Scouts were fairly confident they'd win the case, no?
|>>|| No. 61528
Yeah, £1500 to settle an employment tribunal is basically "fuck off and leave us alone". If they thought they were gonna lose, you'd get another zero on the end of that easy.
|>>|| No. 61529
Fuck off with your petty whining m7. /iq/ is strictly for serious talk about serious business. That's why it's got its own special colour and font and everything.
|>>|| No. 61531
That's untrue. We had a discussion about this about four years ago and it's fine, I remember it well.
|>>|| No. 61534
It's not really an employment tribunal if it's volunteering for the scouts is it?
Choice language, but he's got a point. It's completely impractical for someone in a niqab to try and supervise a bunch of kids in canoes.
|>>|| No. 61535
No, but it still costs them money all the same. That sort of money basically says "here's your money back, now drop it before it costs us both even more". In a case like this, if you're awarded costs, you don't get everything. You get somewhere between half and two-thirds depending on what things you're claiming, what court you're in, what judge hears your case and the closing price of small haddock in Peterhead on a Wednesday. You can reclaim every penny spent if and only if the other side have been a complete shower of cunts.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]