danot

Give them a covid swab test, that'll teach em.

Thankyou Dan.

Can anyone recommend a decent bathroom fitter/tiler please?

Cheers 

Dan. 

18 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

This is entirely pointless.  It's like discussing with a five year old whether they should have a cookie or not.  Reason and logic are not relevant to Danot.  He either doesn't understand or chooses not to understand them.

Cyclone. I don't have to agree with everything you say, it's not compulsory. It's not part of the Brexit deal.  

I don't accept hypocrisy and double standards. And you and others are defending both. 

53 minutes ago, Halibut said:

 

Of course you're acknowledging that there's stigma attached to wearing a balaclava in public when you're describing the wearer as being a suspicious/nefarious character who arouses curiosity thus making themselves conspicuous to the police.  Again, I find myself having to remind you that it is you, not me, that is proclaiming balaclava wearers and niqab wearers have the exact same unrestricted freedom to conceal their face in public.

In fact, you're adamant that niqab wearers are not protected or favoured in any way and certain of there being no known laws or restrictions that prevent, restrict or favour either wearer. So,  then what is it that makes the police think of balaclava wearers as conspicuous/suspicious/nefarious characters then?  Care to hazard a guess?

And, no, no way.  This isn't a case of people being politely asked about their face concealing attire, it's about societal attitudes and prejudices that people have against certain face concealing headwear.  Treating a niqab wearer as a unknown assailants and/or the police stopping then simply because they're wearing a niqab is considered a hate crime, you know it is, and by the way, this in itself is a 'restrictive measure' that  aims to reform social attitudes and prevent the persecution of Muslim women and discourage people from unjustifiably associating the niqab with terrorism. While the balaclava wearer is immediately thought of as being a criminal.       

16 minutes ago, Halibut said:

I might respond to this latest outbreak of ridiculousness in the morning. I'm away to focus on more pressing matters - wine, food, social intercourse and such.

Was about to tell you to stop dreaming then realised I misread  social intercourse. 

8 hours ago, Halibut said:

You referred to the 'stigma' associated with wearing a balaclava. There isn't one. What has been explained to you on more than one occasion though, is the idea that a police officer on seeing someone wearing one in public in warm weather might be curious, or even suspicious, of their motive and ask questions of the wearer.

It's also been explained to you that a person wearing niqab probably wouldn't arouse such suspicion, given that the motive to wear one (modesty, not wishing to show their face to anyone other than husband/close family) is known and understood.

I'm comfortable with all of that.

You still seem (for reasons that to me are as clear as mud) to find the two ideas (balaclava/niqab) representing some kind of injustice that needs addressing - even to the point where you came out with the spectacularly poor sentence ''The crime associative prejudices against certain none religious face concealing headwear being lawfully and socially accepted as a hate crime. ''

 

From my point of view, you appear to be completely unable to sustain a clear line of thinking.  Lets look at that sentence again. You appear to be suggesting that asking someone who is wearing a balaclava why they are doing so constitutes some kind of offence and should be regarded as a hate crime. To me (and I suspect many others) that's simply absurd and makes no sense at all. Who is being hated in that scenario?

Just a point of grammar. The word you should have used is 'biased'.

Precisely.  You've hit two birds with one stone here Halibut.

Firstly,  I'm pleased to see you're  openly acknowledging  that there is stigma attached to wearing a balaclava in public by saying balaclava wearers might arouse curiosity and be thought of as being suspicious characters, which would warrant a police officer stopping and questioning them. You say this  while simultaneously supporting the view that anyone who subjected a niqab wearer  to such prejudicial unfair treatment would be committing  a hate crime.  You're also adamant that there are no actual restrictions on wearing a balaclava in public.  

Secondly, you've inadvertently (I'm sure) taken the liberty of illustrating why I've been  dismissing your explanations that I called  bias.  (sorry biased)  so I'll take this opportunity to remind you that it has been you  (and others) that have persistently claimed  that wearing either a niqab, or a balaclava in public is a "unrestricted freedom" that anyone is entitled to do since there's no laws or restrictions that prevent, restrict, or  favour either wearer.  Once again, you've managed to demonstrate that your hypocrisy actually  does know no bounds. 

10 hours ago, Cyclone said:

So now you've admitted that things other than religious (or cultural) items can cover the face in public (I think we had motorbike helmets 20 pages ago).

So you've now concluded that there is no special treatment for the religious in this case and you've just been wasting everyone's time?  (although you do now seem to be fixated on balaclavas and how unjustly the police treat balaclava wearers, perhaps you see that as a form of secular oppression?).

What's the bias then?  This should be funny.

I haven't wasted anyone's time.  Here's my original point.

On ‎19‎/‎03‎/‎2019 at 04:29, danot said:

 You and I wouldn't be allowed to wear face concealing headwear unrestrictedly in public, unless the headwear had religious significance attached to it. Religious face concealing headwear is exempt from restrive measures that may prevent you and I from wearing none religious face concealing headwear in certain public places. 

 

This exemption is most definitely exclusively placed on religious headwear, so I feel you're not being entirely honest with me here.  Care to redress the point, or are you standing by it?

This was in response to RootsBooster who then asked-

On ‎19‎/‎03‎/‎2019 at 06:02, RootsBooster said:

What would prevent you or I from wearing something that conceals our faces?

To which  I replied-

On ‎19‎/‎03‎/‎2019 at 06:53, danot said:

Nothing at all.  We're allowed to wear face concealing headwear, but when we're out in the public domain, there's restrictive measures in place that would prevent us from Doing so in certain places and establishments. Not so when wearing face concealing headwear headwear that has religious significance.

 

Where are we going with this?

 

There, you see. In post 700  I acknowledged that there's nothing stopping us from wearing face concealing headwear in public, but added that we wouldn't be allowed to do so unrestrictedly, unlike wearers of face concealing headwear that has religious significance.

And the bias lies here below, where you say- "on a sunny day like today, wearing a balaclava on the high street would be a little weird, and the police tend to take an interest in weird". But, like I said, wearing joke spectacles, nose and moustache would be just as weird, but the police wouldn't approach someone to discuss how weird they look, they wouldn't waste their time on 'weird', but,  if they'd been wearing a balaclava for no apparent reason they'd have most definitely wanted a chat with them.    

On ‎21‎/‎03‎/‎2019 at 17:33, Cyclone said:

So, what is it you think that you've now established?

After what, 10 pages, you think that you've proven that reality isn't how RootsBooster thinks it should be?

But you've not really have you.  As you say, on a sunny day like today, wearing a balaclava on the high street would be a little weird, and the police (if you happen to be so lucky as to see one in person) tend to take an interest in weird.

They won't of course demand that you remove it, as you claimed, they can't, they have no legal power to do that, and to do it forcibly would be assault.

But if you were wearing a niquab, they probably wouldn't approach you at all, as it's not weird.

 

So, you've established that the police will possibly speak to people behaving strangely in public, is that it?

And this brings me back to asking why there's stigma attached to wearing a balaclava out in public when doing so is meant to be a unrestricted freedom?

4 hours ago, Halibut said:

I think you're a bit not all there.

Why's that, is it because I've given you a ptetty damn good example that illustrates how I am able to wear something weird/strange for no apparent reason when out in public without being stopped and questioned by a passing police officer? But, you've obviously found a flaw in my reasoning so c'mon, spit it out.

2 minutes ago, RootsBooster said:

You wouldn't have done anything wrong, see post #830.

Now will you answer my question?

2 minutes ago, RootsBooster said:

You wouldn't have done anything wrong, see post #830.

Now will you answer my question?

Because, were I out in public concealing my identity by wearing joke spectacles, nose and moustache for no apparent reason' a passing police officer is likely to smirk and walk by at most. But, wearing a balaclava doesn't receive that reaction in public, but why?  Why is stigma associated with wearing a balaclava in public?

Just now, RootsBooster said:

Ah, the old "answer a question with another, diverting question".

Would you care to give an actual answer?

You give me one.  Example:  What would I have done wrong by wearing a balaclava in public if doing so warrants a passing police officer to stop me and question me?

1 minute ago, RootsBooster said:

Yes, you're being extremely ambiguous and indefinite with your posts. 

What is restrictive about the police asking you one question and letting you go on your way but not restrictive if they ask you another question and let you go on your way?

Do you believe they've have stopped me to ask me some random question if I hadn't been wearing the balaclava?

Just now, RootsBooster said:

Then why do you think it would be restrictive for police to stop and ask about a balaclava?

If I was walking down the street wearing a balaclava on a blisteringly hot day and a police officer stopped me to ask for directions then went on his/her way... 

C'mon. Need I continue?  

5 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

Bizarre, it's like you're deliberately ignoring the multiple explanations you've been given...

So you're now saying that whenever the police speak to anyone who is doing something unusual, that's a "restrictive practice".  And because it's not unusual to wear a niqab and so the police don't speak to such people, actually those people are getting special treatment.

That's broken logic.

I haven't ignored explanations. I've dismissed them because they're bias.

26 minutes ago, Halibut said:

Utterly laughable. What are you claiming these 'crime associative prejudices' are and against which non religious face concealing headware are they evident?

The types of headwear are apparent. I'm wont be listing them for you because we've already discussed them. And why do you always persist in denying the blindingly obvious truth?  Accept life as it is instead of always defending society's ideals.  

Just now, RootsBooster said:

Do you consider it restrictive if somebody stops you to ask for directions?

No?

1 minute ago, Halibut said:

What needs to happen in order for both to be treated equally?

Let's have a think. How's about- The crime associative prejudices against certain none religious face concealing headwear being lawfully and socially accepted as a hate crime.  Too much?

10 minutes ago, woodview said:

You're only loitering if you are staying there with no apparent reason. They'd have to question you to establish that.......

Having said that, I must admit to only commenting out of jest, because I'm not sure the long running niqab / balaclava debate is getting to the root of religious belief. I could be wrong of course.

For me, balaclava wearing is a unrestricted freedom, and if the police do stop a balaclava wearer in public to have a quick chat, you'll be witnessing  a 'restrictive measure'. 

Authorities wouldn't want balaclava wearing to catch on, it'd complicate policing somewhat for starters, not to mention Big Brother style street surveillance, which is why the police tend treat it as a matter of interest, and why there seems to be a mild stigma attached to wearing one or accompanying a wearer out in public. It's not the done thing,  despite it being one of the many unrestricted freedoms of this country. Anyhow. You're right.    Enough about balaclavas.  

1 minute ago, woodview said:

In the same way if you were hiding in a bush. Perfectly legal and above board, but they might ask you what you are doing!

Loitering you mean? Loitering isn't without its restrictions, so restrictive measures apply here too.  

5 hours ago, Halibut said:

You're not even making any sense now. Restrictive measures, by definition, don't permit things.

 

Can we explore this bizarre bee in your bonnet a while?

 

You are making a great issue of the idea that the police might (and I use might as it's a rather unlikely scenario) make enquiries of our chap in a balaclava on a warm day and probably wouldn't make similar enquiries of a woman wearing niqab.

 

Why? Why does it bother you?

 

Is it that you feel it's unfair? If so, who is it unfair to?

 

Do you think balaclavas should be banned? Niqabs?

 Restrictive measures reform social attitudes and discourage people from doing and/or engaging in certain things, and a prime example of a restrictive measure being applied in public is the police stopping and questioning someone wearing a balaclava for no apparent reason on a warm day despite there being no law against wearing a balaclava for no apparent reason a warm day. 

Ever asked yourself (why am I asking you this, of course you won't have) why wearing a balaclava in public for no apparent reason is considered strange and of interest to the police when wearing other unnecessary fashionable head accessories such as a woolly hat in nice weather, or, dark sunglasses in the evening, or gloves in T shirt weather isn't really picked up on?  It's due to the 'Restrictive measures' that are in place.

Not sure what makes this scenario so unlikely either. Styles of dress are becoming more diverse and weird/strange by the day. You see people wearing all sorts of odd things, but each to their own say.   And, no. I don't think either garment should be banned. I just think the wearers of both ought to be thought of and treated equally out in public.  And NO,  they're not.   

4 hours ago, Halibut said:

If this is your sole example of so called 'restrictive measures' it's utterly worthless.

Restrictive - 'imposing restrictions on someones's activities or freedom'

The person who chooses to wear a balaclava on a warm day is completely free to do so - there are no restrictions on that person.

The fact that a police officer might be curious enough to ask about it is neither here nor there.

Wearing a balaclava in public for no apparent reason on a warm day isn't a criminal act though, so why the police would  ask the wearer why they choose to do so when they have no authority to make him remove it is senseless. Wearing a balaclava in public, irrespective of weather conditions isn't a conditional freedom, it's an unrestricted  freedom, just like wearing a niqab is an unrestricted freedom, and as such, there is no reason what so ever for the police treating it any differently to wearing a niqab, but as we know, they do treat it differently, despite it being an unrestricted freedom- why? Because of the restrictive measures that permit it.

3 hours ago, Halibut said:

You've comprehensively failed to demonstrate that there are any. 

You've yet to explain why wearing a balaclava in public for no apparent reason on a warm day should be of interest to the police.

2 hours ago, Cyclone said:

"

Let's have a recap. 

 

We agree there's no law against covering our faces when out in public. 

 

We agree there's no law against wearing a balaclava when out in public.

 

We agree there's no law against keeping our head warm on a nice day when out it public."

 

That's correct. Yet, doing so becomes a matter of interest to the police. Why is that?

1 minute ago, Hots on said:

Religious groups of all faiths within societies tend to have a structure and a wholesome ethos, this is what some people are drawn to, its  something that is distinctly lacking in the secular world.  But I should think most people don't really believe in god and all that spiritual stuff really.

People are people, religion doesn't better anyone. If anything, religious people are proving to be just as troublesome what with fundamentalists, sexist's, homophobes and paedophiles.

8 hours ago, Cyclone said:

You've just agreed that there are no such restrictive measures though.  You can't have it both ways.

 

And when speaking or writing, it's considered to be good form to avoid repeating the same word over and over, so we use synonyms, like, weird, strange, odd, unusual, bizarre, unexpected, unusual, out of the ordinary.  Mostly just to keep the prose a little more interesting.

Where did I agree to there being no restrictive measures?  Are you even aware of what 'restrive measures' are and how and why they are applied?

1 hour ago, Halibut said:

 

There aren't any. You've comprehensively failed to demonstrate that they exist.

 

 

Then perhaps you can demonstrate why wearing a balaclava in public for no apparent reason on a warm day warrants being stopped by the police in spite of there having been no public order offences committed?