Burka

[Suzi]

Be stoning in the streets at this rate!!!
The full 'letterbox' bhurkha IMHO is a tad worrying and I still have a private (loud!) laugh re the woman (presumably) seen in Brick Lane- wearing one with her horn rimmed glasses on the outside!!!!!! ( )

When in Rome springs to mind I guess- but- will we be saying the same thing re turbans and hassidic jews next?- I hope not!
Mind you Mr L if someone turns up to read my meter in a balaclava- OK that may raise some concern- mind you- the last person who did that was female with tattoos and mega face piercings- very sweet she was too!

Suz x

[Bob Hinton]

Bob,
So what happens if a person who has killed as a result of mental health problems arising from an illness such as paranoid schizophrenia, ie due to an illness of the mind that was beyond his or her control? Do we hang these people by the neck too?
Also what if,as in the case of Timothy Evans, an innocent person is hung by mistake and its later discovered that he was renting part of a serial killer"s house and hanging him was all a tragic mistake?The serial killer in question who had not yet been caught ,Christie , even went along to court and testified against the poor man.
Besides who on earth wants this country to become the laughing stock of Europe by doing an about turn to hanging in line with the kind of barbaric stuff that goes on in Saudi Arabia and Iran with public beheadings and stonings? Surely you are not recommending a return to hanging and flogging are you?

Good points but someone who was mentally ill would not be convicted of murder as they would plead insanity.

I think the point that upsets people is that when hanging was finally abolished in the early seventies I believe, we were told by the government that for the publics protection murderers would now serve life terms.

The public took that to mean that they would be in prison for the rest of their life, however that turned out not to be true. The problem you have in not having execution as an option is that someone serving time for a murder has nothing to lose if he kills again. I believe there are several murderers inside you have comitted further murders, what are we going to use as a sanction? Locking them up for longer than life?

I would be happier if we had a system of everybody convicted of murder was sentenced to death which would be commuted to life imprisonment meaning they go in but don't come out.

However if they transgress while in prison the death penalty is immediately re-instated. This would be a powerful insentive for them to behave themselves.

I freely admit that mistakes are made and there have been innocent people ( I don't count Evans in this total) who have been wrongly hanged. However are these peoples lives any more precious than the innocent victims who have been murdered by released killers?

It could only be a judge or politician who said it is better for ten guilty men to go free rather than one innocent man is convicted, for it is very unlikely that such a person would ever be the next victim of those ten guilty men, but the rest of us, not living in well protected ivory towers, would most definitely be the future victims.

[Natalie Severn]

Bob,
So what happens if a person who has killed as a result of mental health problems arising from an illness such as paranoid schizophrenia, ie due to an illness of the mind that was beyond his or her control? Do we hang these people by the neck too?
Also what if,as in the case of Timothy Evans, an innocent person is hung by mistake and its later discovered that he was renting part of a serial killer"s house and hanging him was all a tragic mistake?The serial killer in question who had not yet been caught ,Christie , even went along to court and testified against the poor man.
Besides who on earth wants this country to become the laughing stock of Europe by doing an about turn to hanging in line with the kind of barbaric stuff that goes on in Saudi Arabia and Iran with public beheadings and stonings? Surely you are not recommending a return to hanging and flogging are you?

[Bob Hinton]

Hi Robert



To answer your question - no - I do not want people to be hanged. Hanging is not the actions of a civilised society in my opinion. State violence is no answer to a violent society.

?

The problem with that Limehouse is the phrase "a civilised society". If this really was a civilised society we wouldn't need to hang people. Let me know when it arrives and I'll sign the petition to stop hanging. Of course state violence is the answer to a violent society, all societies are run on the ultimate sanction of violence. What do you think war is?

If a person just convicted of murder in a court refuses to go with the warder to prison, what do you think happens? Does the judge simply let him walk away because he doesn't want to use violence? No he is forced, by violence, to comply.

I can give you a list of several hundred people who have been executed who never offended again. I can also give you a list of several hundred people who weren't execute who did go on to kill again.

[Bob Hinton]

But Bob - as you describe above - if terrorists are just as likely to not be wearing a Burka as wearing one - there is no real justification of banning them on the basis of preventing terrorism - is there?

Limehouse,

It's all to do with making things easier for us and harder for the terrorist. You must imagine a terrorist as a rat who runs down a maze leading to a room. In the walls of the room are many holes, any one of which the rat could use to excape. Your job is to block off as many holes as possible and even when you have done that you will still have several left.

Allowing people on the streets of Britain in times like these to completely cover their features is just making things easier for anyone wishing to do us harm as one of our main weapons in the fight against terrorists is visual surveillance. This is even more important when the traditional wearers of the Burka come from the same grouping as the terrorists.

My objection to the Burka is mainly because of the complete lack of respect wearers are showing to our western culture. From showing disrespect, to rioting in the streets to planting bombs is a well trodden path. People who wish to integrate with the indigenous population, respecting their culture and history rarely start chucking bombs about. Now I have said before my objection is not about the Burka per se but about the act of hiding your features from others.

No one so far has ever answered my question why incomers should be allowed to show a complete lack of respect for our culture yet take to the streets rioting in defence of theirs?

[Robert]

Well Claire, the thing about a court appearance is, that if a woman is giving evidence as a witness or a defendant, it's important for the jury to be able to see her face. And men serve on juries. For that matter, the barristers and the judge must see her face too.

[claire]

One would imagine that, just as you see at passport control all over the middle east, and in little curtained areas at Heathrow, covered women would show their face to another woman discreetly to identify themselves in situations where such matters are important (eg. for a court appearance). We can't insist that people identify themselves simply because we like to think there might be some instance in which they might commit an offence. For the most part, in my experience (and I have lived in the middle east for a number of years previously), people are pretty pragmatic...if they refuse, then there is a problem.

As for teaching in schools--then if the teaching is done to small children, there is no reason in the world that a female teacher would cover her face like that in a classroom.

The key is the extent to which the individual is being reasonable. If she is just going about her business, shopping or strolling up the road, it doesn't matter. If she refuses to identify herself in an appropriate manner (by which I mean, appropriate to all parties, and not just some garrulous white bloke), then there is clearly cause to suggest that she is being unnecessarily militant, and possibly a cause for concern.

As for cappuccina's nasty men in revealing shorts--I hear you on that!! It sort of proves the point, though, doesn't it? Getting a load of some bloke's wares is generally unlikely to lead to any sort of erotic response!! Heheh.

[Robert]

Well, it's none of the Government's business who employs whom, or why - but that's a separate issue.

For personal communication, I have no problem with not being able to see their faces, since I'm more of a voice person. But I realise I might be in a minority on that. Obviously if a [I]man[I] turned up to read my electricity meter wearing a balaclava, I'd be a bit concerned! And for teaching, or giving evidence in court, etc, or in security situations, burkas shouldn't be allowed.

On headscarves, women here used to wear hats, or headscarves - those silk things - or even hairnets (Ena Sharples).

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE=cappuccina;142223]

The same is true with some teachers who get jobs in public schools and think they can teach that way....uhm...no thanks....If my child cannot see your face, you are not teaching him/her in the public school system, period.

I get your point, Cappucina..
Teaching is about 'communication' basically, and we use facial expressions to communicate as much as language.

I don't have a problem with headscarves at all, however I was appalled by one story that I read in the paper : the owner of a small hairdressers was taken to court for 'racial discrimination' and threatened with a hefty fine which would close her business, because she had refused to employ a job
applicant-who had all the right qualifications- unless she agreed not to wear the scarf for work. The woman explained -quite rightly- that prospective
customers always looked at the staff's hair before making an appointment,
to get an idea of their skills (presumably they cut each others), and a trendy
haircut was a prerequisite for the job.

Would you get 'done' for not employing a highly qualified make up artist who wanted to wear a burqua at your beauty counter ? I'm afraid that the answer is probably 'yes', since the burqua would not prevent the job being done.

[cappuccina]

Here's a practical, but very serious problem that exists where I live...I am all for diversity, and freedom of expression, worship, etc. There are a lot of Muslims here, ranging from very liberal folks dressing completely in Western clothing, to women completely covered from head to toe except for their eyes, and I have even seen a few in burqa's(برقع)....Now, where a woman has her hair covered, but you can still see her face, I have no problem whatsoever. However, where I have been in a bank with someone where you could not see her face at all, or just her eyes, this was extremely unsettling to me and everyone else there for obvious reasons. The same is true with some teachers who get jobs in public schools and think they can teach that way....uhm...no thanks....If my child cannot see your face, you are not teaching him/her in the public school system, period.

I also have this problem, and no I am not exaggerating....I go to a grocery store that is frequented by a very multi-ethnic population, including conservative Muslims....So, you have mom and dad and the kiddies, and the younger kiddies are completely in Western clothing, while the older girls are more covered, mom is completely covered, sometimes even except her eyes, or literally in a burqa' (برقع), but dear old dad is in bikini running shorts (with hair that I don't want to see sticking out...LOL), a mesh tank top and several gold chains...

I'm sorry, but that is just ****ed up....

[Stephen Thomas]

Anyway, back to the burkas.

So there's these two Muslim blokes standing on the corner watching two ladies in burkas approaching and one says 'I don't fancy yours much'.

[Robert]

Hi Limehouse

Once again, it's not a question of capital punishment, but of democracy - or the lack of it.

Anyway, back to the burkas.

[Limehouse]

It's true that, as Ally says, there might have been some change in the figures over the last few years, owing to indoctrination and so on. But I would still put the pro-hanging figure at around 70%. Remember that as the Thought Police encroach ever more upon our lives, people become reluctant to give their true opinions to strangers asking them questions. In any case, as Ally says, there
was a substantial majority in favour of it around the time it was abolished.

Limehouse and Retro, remember that we're not talking about the opinions of a "Question Time" audience or of the Church of England General Synod. We're talking about the real world here.

We can cut to the question : is anyone seriously suggesting that the vast majority of voters did NOT want Myra Hindley hung? Or what about the man and woman who were recently found guilty of killing a baby, and were sentenced to a minimum of 15 and 13 years respectively? How does the public think they should be dealt with? Or Ian Huntley, now trying to sue for £100 000?

Hi Robert

Well - obviously you are not affected by the actions of the 'thought police' so what makes you think the rest of us can't think for ourselves as well?

To answer your question - no - I do not want people to be hanged. Hanging is not the actions of a civilised society in my opinion. State violence is no answer to a violent society.

A society should tackle the causes of such crimes and seek to punish them adequately but humanely.

You may well have been satisfied to see Hindley swinging from a rope but what of Derek Bentley?

And what on earth has all this to do with wearing a Burka?

[caz]

Totally agree with you, Claire.

Love,

Caz
X

[Robert]

It's true that, as Ally says, there might have been some change in the figures over the last few years, owing to indoctrination and so on. But I would still put the pro-hanging figure at around 70%. Remember that as the Thought Police encroach ever more upon our lives, people become reluctant to give their true opinions to strangers asking them questions. In any case, as Ally says, there
was a substantial majority in favour of it around the time it was abolished.

Limehouse and Retro, remember that we're not talking about the opinions of a "Question Time" audience or of the Church of England General Synod. We're talking about the real world here.

We can cut to the question : is anyone seriously suggesting that the vast majority of voters did NOT want Myra Hindley hung? Or what about the man and woman who were recently found guilty of killing a baby, and were sentenced to a minimum of 15 and 13 years respectively? How does the public think they should be dealt with? Or Ian Huntley, now trying to sue for £100 000?