Jack Straw

Perhaps through from having a name that suggests a B Movie Horror flick our Jack seems to have raised a devil of a discussion.

It seems that since the problems of the last few years there has been an increasing tendancy for burqa type veils to be worn by women who would not previously have considered doing so. I have to confess to being troubled as to where this is likely to go. I have an increasing concern that it might result in other people also covering their faces (using the white variety with a pointy tendancy in the head department).

Now it has to be to said this does not directly affect me - I am not sure there are any Muslms living in my town let alone having any feeling of threat or being swamped. However, I appreciate that in some English towns there are serious flash points and that civil strife is possible. I guess what I am asking is, has Jack pricked the boil or has he merely hastened the infection?

Edit:

For those wondering what I am talking about

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...de/5415478.stm

Quote:

---

...the attacker was white and slim with silver-grey hair...

---

Hmmm, has anyone questioned Mr Straw over his whereabouts at the time of the attack?

Seriously, it troubles me that muslims complaining about the comments seem to think that Mr Straw has ordered veils be removed. From the reports that I've heard his comments don't suggest this at all, merely that he would prefer it.
Whether this is due to mis- or disinformation doesn't really matter; seems like they hear what they want to hear.

What is the stance have the the banks taken, if any, to the wearing of Burqas and veils? They stop people wearing crash helmets.

Should the Forum ban this --> :ph34r:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

What is the stance have the the banks taken, if any, to the wearing of Burqas and veils? They stop people wearing crash helmets.

Should the Forum ban this --> :ph34r:

---

Excellent point.

I think.

As an American, I can't be so sure, you see. :huh:

It's very possible the comments have been twisted when reported and probably someone in the audience will have decided he said something he didn't. We see that all the time here.
When it comes to religion (among other things) it seems there are some that are a tad over sensitive. It's not always the comment either, but rather who said it.
That said, as a seasoned public figure, Straw should know "the game" and be a bit more careful.

If A "Hoodie" tries to go into A large store he will be turned away; rightly so. And it is for the reason that A CCTV cannot identifie A thief or anyone that is responsible for a crime, who has their face "MASQUED".
This type of thing started about 30 years ago whe the government allowed Sieks to use motorcycles without Crash Helmets

Also the "Yank's" have not got A clue, they are so far removed from the problem. Does everyone know that 57% of their race still thinks that the "World" was created in 7 days!!!!!

In any case, it seems Straw made a point needing airing (again).

To my mind, it is refreshing to hear things stated plainly rather than with the verbal ballet required by today's "diplomatic sensitivity", which is utter horseshit.

Straw wasn't being insensitive.

arrynev-

You'd be well-advised to count your own tiny allotment of "clues" before commenting on others.

The tabloid press are really stirring things up, based on what Jack Straw said.

Whether you agree with him or not, in a free society you've a right to express your opinion, and his opinion is that it's better to talk to people face to face where you can see their facial expressions.

I happen to agree with him. This is one of the reasons we have emoticons on message boards and text messages, to convey a mood when the face can't be seen.

He never said he was forcing Muslim women to remove the veil, he just suggested it when they came in for appointments, to aid clearer communication.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

In any case, it seems Straw made a point needing airing (again).

To my mind, it is refreshing to hear things stated plainly rather than with the verbal ballet required by today's "diplomatic sensitivity", which is utter horseshit.

Straw wasn't being insensitive.

---

All that depends on which set of ears the words fall on and how it was actually said.
Given that we don't have the full context it's hard to tell if he was being insensitive or not. The point he says he was making will be lost on the target audience if it is not worded carefully.
We see this all the time in politics and and even on this forum. People interpret what is said in a way that suits them.

It's only refreshing to hear things stated plainly if it's something you agree with and want to hear, as your reaction to arrynev's post apparently shows ;)

They have to move their Burqa to have a passport photo taken. Thats a shame really. They could have chosen off the shelf photos. 'Blue eyes or green eyes madam?' :lol:

I think they are now forced to remove it prior to sitting their driving test. This is due to a number of 'frauds' in passing the tests. Someone, apparantly was charging a 'fee' to sit the driving test professing to be someone else.

I read the above in the paper. It was probably 'The Mail'. :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

I read the above in the paper. It was probably 'The Mail'. :lol:

---

:O For shame!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

I read the above in the paper. It was probably 'The Mail'. :lol:

---

:O For shame!

---

Every time I quote something along those lines of the above posts. I get the same thing.:ph34r:

'Faither have you been reading the Mail again'.:lol:

It seems that the most extreme views on either side of the debate will always draw the most attention, in my humble opinion, extremeness = stubborness

J2K4-
The "Yanks" came down heavy 60 yrs ago with 1+2 (the biggies) but they now panic when N.K. blows up a "LORRY full of TNT" underground!!!
I've just laughed through FOREST GUMP (says it all).
Can anybody tell me why there is never a profile for a Yank?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arrynev

J2K4-
The "Yanks" came down heavy 60 yrs ago with 1+2 (the biggies) but they now panic when N.K. blows up a "LORRY full of TNT" underground!!!
I've just laughed through FOREST GUMP (says it all).
Can anybody tell me why there is never a profile for a Yank?

---

I see you've skimmed enough history to be aware of events which occurred 60+ years ago.

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the events of the subsequent four decades and get back to me.

BTW-

You seem to be lacking a profile...are you a Yank at all, at all.

OK?
You can see my profile,
I'm not a "YANK",
We English are above those descripsions,
However I see that in 1983 your nation did indeed achieve your first and only victory "GRENADA" (28 students lived there and the COCA COLA MACHINES were the first to be dropped HURRAA'HURRAA) since the the civil war of the "Americas"
Your Land has gone right down the nick since then

Although I started this thread I can honestly I have no idea what it is about anymore :blink:

nor can I but it's fun

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arrynev

OK?
You can see my profile,
I'm not a "YANK",
We English are above those descripsions,

---

Are you a gang-member at all (at all).

As to the rest, I'm with 'Les. :huh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

Although I started this thread I can honestly I have no idea what it is about anymore :blink:

---

do you know anything "Biggie" have you ever crossed the border? (See you Jimmy).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arrynev

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

Although I started this thread I can honestly I have no idea what it is about anymore :blink:

---

do you know anything "Biggie" have you ever crossed the border? (See you Jimmy).

---

Uh-oh.

You've done it now...:unsure:

For someone who disagrees with the majority of what j2k4 has to say/post with regards to politics I find the caliber of idiots who turn up and start posting "against" him quite disheartening. It would be so nice to read a post from these guys and not roll my eyes.

It's kind of like discussing politics at university, except the posters are more naive and less female.

Edit: Sorry, I had to get that off my chest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arrynev

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

Although I started this thread I can honestly I have no idea what it is about anymore :blink:

---

do you know anything "Biggie" have you ever crossed the border? (See you Jimmy).

---

I can see by the cut of your jib you are one of those under bridge dwellers. :dry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arrynev

do you know anything "Biggie" have you ever crossed the border? (See you Jimmy).

---

I can see by the cut of your jib you are one of those under bridge dwellers. :dry:

---

Agreed.

I can hardly cross a span today without hoisting my cheeks 'pon the rail so as to eliminate, broadcasting my mud o'er the patrons arrayed therebelow.

Decorum regrettfully precludes. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

I can see by the cut of your jib you are one of those under bridge dwellers. :dry:

---

Agreed.

I can hardly cross a span today without hoisting my cheeks 'pon the rail so as to eliminate, broadcasting my mud o'er the patrons arrayed therebelow.

Decorum regrettfully precludes. ;)

---

There are almost certainly laws against that kind of thing too. :unsure:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Agreed.

I can hardly cross a span today without hoisting my cheeks 'pon the rail so as to eliminate, broadcasting my mud o'er the patrons arrayed therebelow.

Decorum regrettfully precludes. ;)

---

There are almost certainly laws against that kind of thing too. :unsure:

---

Well, yes; in addition to decorum, there is the law. :P