Cover-up Swimming

[Thracian]

Hasn't Thracian had enough of Lisa making him look stupid yet?

a) She doesn't need her faithful Swan Lestas defending her every word because she's well capable of speaking for herself.

b) On what grounds stupid? If an Islamic country can make such an obscenely oppressive law to be applied by the Sharia then what laws might be applied here by the same courts as time goes on and their strength grows.

It is not so long that at least one of Lisa's friends doubted there would be Sharia courts in this country. Another denied there would be 3m unemployed when it's now known that the figure is close to 6m.

[Guest]

a) She doesn't need her faithful Swan Lestas defending her every word because she's well capable of speaking for herself.

b) On what grounds stupid? If an Islamic country can make such an obscenely oppressive law to be applied by the Sharia then what laws might be applied here by the same courts as time goes on and their strength grows.

It is not so long that at least one of Lisa's friends doubted there would be Sharia courts in this country. Another denied there would be 3m unemployed when it's now known that the figure is close to 6m.

Did you not read anything? The Afghan law was for a minority Islamic group in that country. I guess that feeling that the Sharia courts in the UK would not adopt these is naive in your view, Thrac.

Sharia courts are technically tribunals according to the Arbitration Act 1996. As long as both parties agree to the use and ruling of the "court", the rulings are binding. Do you have a problem with Jewish Beth Din "courts", as well?

[Alexikokopops]

a) She doesn't need her faithful Swan Lestas defending her every word because she's well capable of speaking for herself.

b) On what grounds stupid? If an Islamic country can make such an obscenely oppressive law to be applied by the Sharia then what laws might be applied here by the same courts as time goes on and their strength grows.

It is not so long that at least one of Lisa's friends doubted there would be Sharia courts in this country. Another denied there would be 3m unemployed when it's now known that the figure is close to 6m.

Where do you get 6 million from?!?!?! Last I read it was 2.4 million!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8196549.stm

[Guest]

Hasn't Thracian had enough of Lisa making him look stupid yet?

[Babylon]

Where do you get 6 million from?!?!?! Last I read it was 2.4 million!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8196549.stm

What's 3.6 million between friends.

[James.]

Where do you get 6 million from?!?!?! Last I read it was 2.4 million!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8196549.stm

Thracian's 3 step approch to his next post:

Step 1: attack official statistics (combined with an attack on the government)

Step 2: provide anicdote of someone who's out of work (probably with reference to immigrants)

Step 3: blame the Swan Lestas for ganging up on him

[Lillehamring]

What? If you talk to a Muslim woman, she doesn't cover herself cos she is forced to by a man. She covers herself cos of what she believes. Maybe a few are scared of their husbands/fathers/brothers but the percentage of sexism or bullying is no less in western society.

I don't see how you come to the conclusion that a Muslim woman covering her body in a swimming pool must mean that the Muslim male is treating her as a second class citizen? I think that if you knew any Muslim families you would learn that the women rule the roost mostly, and that they are not oppressed or treated as lower than men.

I gotta admit I can see why many folk come to this conclusion though.

so, making women use a seperate entrance is their choice, too?

of course she is forced to cover up by man - was it not a man who founded muslimism, is not men that preach and 'enforce' the religious regimes, it's an enormously patriarchal society, so ultimately it is man that has enforced the culture and beliefs to which women are indoctrinated.

centuries of persuasion will make an oppressed society believe anything, time was when many women in england felt they weren't 'good enough' or 'smart enough' to vote or work... i'm pretty sure for generations of african slaves, many of them 'believed' that it was 'god's will'...

one of the key elements of 'bullying' is enforcing shame on the victim, making them feel as though they are unatural or different, the idea that a woman should cover her body is simply this; in the contemporary world the notion that a woman should cover herself if is a repression of civil and personal liberty, be it in the home or on the high street or in a swimming pool.

no doubt many muslim women are happy to cover up, which i would say is a shame as it must hinder many social and physical joys of life, however, i am also sure that there are many muslim women who happily practice their religion, without pandering to some archaic dresscode.

ultimately, to people uneducated in muslim beliefs (plus many that are familiar with muslim 'belief'), it is no surprise that a universal rule governing the behaviour of a complete section of a society is partiality no more justified than racism...

[Nick]

so, making women use a seperate entrance is their choice, too?

of course she is forced to cover up by man - was it not a man who founded muslimism, is not men that preach and 'enforce' the religious regimes, it's an enormously patriarchal society, so ultimately it is man that has enforced the culture and beliefs to which women are indoctrinated.

centuries of persuasion will make an oppressed society believe anything, time was when many women in england felt they weren't 'good enough' or 'smart enough' to vote or work... i'm pretty sure for generations of african slaves, many of them 'believed' that it was 'god's will'...

one of the key elements of 'bullying' is enforcing shame on the victim, making them feel as though they are unatural or different, the idea that a woman should cover her body is simply this; in the contemporary world the notion that a woman should cover herself if is a repression of civil and personal liberty, be it in the home or on the high street or in a swimming pool.

no doubt many muslim women are happy to cover up, which i would say is a shame as it must hinder many social and physical joys of life, however, i am also sure that there are many muslim women who happily practice their religion, without pandering to some archaic dresscode.

ultimately, to people uneducated in muslim beliefs (plus many that are familiar with muslim 'belief'), it is no surprise that a universal rule governing the behaviour of a complete section of a society is partiality no more justified than racism...

[Webbo]

Where do you get 6 million from?!?!?! Last I read it was 2.4 million!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8196549.stm

I think that's only people claiming Job seekers allowance. Thracian's 6million includes people who are not eligible for job seekers allowance.

It's a way of fiddling the figures, all govts do it.

[davieG]

I think that's only people claiming Job seekers allowance. Thracian's 6million includes people who are not eligible for job seekers allowance.

It's a way of fiddling the figures, all govts do it.

Like me

[Thracian]

Did you not read anything? The Afghan law was for a minority Islamic group in that country. I guess that feeling that the Sharia courts in the UK would not adopt these is naive in your view, Thrac.

Sharia courts are technically tribunals according to the Arbitration Act 1996. As long as both parties agree to the use and ruling of the "court", the rulings are binding. Do you have a problem with Jewish Beth Din "courts", as well?

I asked your opinion seeing as you are a lawyer. No more no less.

Your definition of the situation is welcome though you still don't answer my question as to whether YOU are happy with the existence of Sharia courts in this land.

And yes I did read that the law related to a minority Islamic group. Are you therefore saying that law would not be applied by the local Sharia?

I have no idea what laws the sharia courts of this country will adopt as and when they get more powerful and influential though some of the crimes already carried out in this country in apparent obeisance to strict Islamic dictates (whether sanctioned by any sharia court or not) appal me.

My instinctive view, seeing as you asked, would be not to allow a situation to develop that might go against the essential freedoms and protection from harm which women in our land are basically entitled to.

But your view is of much more importance in the matter than mine because it is you who are and will be representing the established law of this land.

As for the Jewish Beth Din courts I'll put forward the following to fill people in on the situation and refer to the last paragraph which is significant because while that paragraph fairly states the Jewish situation it is plainly written that the Islamists must work constantly towards a world which is governed according to its own philosophy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7233040.stm

[Thracian]

Where do you get 6 million from?!?!?! Last I read it was 2.4 million!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8196549.stm

The figure has been reported widely in the last two days:

Those 6m or so on unemployment benefits are defined by a report from thethink-tank Policy Exchange as follows:

1.58 million on Jobseeker's Allowance.

2.6 million on incpacity benefit and the new Empoloyment and Support Allowance.

740,000 oin lone parent benefits.

400.000 on carer's benefits.

180,000 on income-related benefits.

360.000 on disability benefits.

95,000 on bereavement benefits.

The remainder is accepted as being made up because of the gap between now and the compilation of the report.

Total joblessness for the under 25s is over 1 million. Or one in five!!!!!!!

Using the government's own forecasts the total number on benefits will total 6.5 million by the end of this year.

The current cost of benefits is £193 BILLION - up from £93 billion in 1997!!!!!!.

It is obscene and the economics of the madhouse.

And still people defend it or justify the policies that have fostered such a disaster - and one that will leave its imprint on our nation and, in particular its young people, for decades to come.

[Thracian]

[Guest]

I asked your opinion seeing as you are a lawyer. No more no less.

Your definition of the situation is welcome though you still don't answer my question as to whether YOU are happy with the existence of Sharia courts in this land.

And yes I did read that the law related to a minority Islamic group. Are you therefore saying that law would not be applied by the local Sharia?

I have no idea what laws the sharia courts of this country will adopt as and when they get more powerful and influential though some of the crimes already carried out in this country in apparent obeisance to strict Islamic dictates (whether sanctioned by any sharia court or not) appal me.

My instinctive view, seeing as you asked, would be not to allow a situation to develop that might go against the essential freedoms and protection from harm which women in our land are basically entitled to.

But your view is of much more importance in the matter than mine because it is you who are and will be representing the established law of this land.

As for the Jewish Beth Din courts I'll put forward the following to fill people in on the situation and refer to the last paragraph which is significant because while that paragraph fairly states the Jewish situation it is plainly written that the Islamists must work constantly towards a world which is governed according to its own philosophy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7233040.stm

I haven't given an opinion, because it is not a black and white issue. I just wonder about your motives sometimes, when questioning me.

[l444ry]

The BBC's non-partisan reportage is in contrast to some of the print media. I guess this surprises no-one. Yet one cannot read "Labour's hidden unemployment: 6m on the dole" without wondering whether the sub-editor has been remotely objective. Such headlines are no attempt to do anything except talk Britain down, and bash a few easy targets while they're at it.

Of course, the six million includes carers, single parents, the disabled, and those who have lost their jobs. Quite unlike those poor millionaires forced to do their civic duty from their death-beds.

Not many lay the recession at the government's door, so accusations of 'mismanagement of the economy' are so wide of the mark that only those who slavishly follow the right-wing mantra or the truly gullible will believe them. If Britain alone was in recession then maybe such views would be credible. As it is, to lay the worldwide recession at the door of the Labour government is to credit us with influence that we just do not have.

I think we all know that the adherents of the Daily Express have a "bash those on benefits" agenda, conveniently ignoring that when we are told that these are the worst figures for twelve years we are actually saying "these are the worst figures since the Tories last wrecked our economy".

[Thracian]

The BBC's non-partisan reportage is in contrast to some of the print media. I guess this surprises no-one. Yet one cannot read "Labour's hidden unemployment: 6m on the dole" without wondering whether the sub-editor has been remotely objective. Such headlines are no attempt to do anything except talk Britain down, and bash a few easy targets while they're at it.

Of course, the six million includes carers, single parents, the disabled, and those who have lost their jobs. Quite unlike those poor millionaires forced to do their civic duty from their death-beds.

Not many lay the recession at the government's door, so accusations of 'mismanagement of the economy' are so wide of the mark that only those who slavishly follow the right-wing mantra or the truly gullible will believe them. If Britain alone was in recession then maybe such views would be credible. As it is, to lay the worldwide recession at the door of the Labour government is to credit us with influence that we just do not have.

I think we all know that the adherents of the Daily Express have a "bash those on benefits" agenda, conveniently ignoring that when we are told that these are the worst figures for twelve years we are actually saying "these are the worst figures since the Tories last wrecked our economy".

The report was in the Sun and presumably most other papers too - being universally available as far as I could see so seeking to cloud the issue as being Right-wing reaction is nonsense.

As for describing the BBC as "non-partisan" I presume you are merely steering your usual entertaining good humour in another direction!

We all know there's a world recession but the 6m unemployed are tesimony to our recession and it is no comfort whatsoever to any one of those 6m that there are difficulties elsewhere too.

You wouldn't take the view that we shouldn't tackle bubonic plague just because it was prevalent in America or Europe as well as in England.

Economic problems might well have been inevitable whoever was in charge but that should not deflect from the woeful inadequacies of this government, the misguided philosophies, the huge waste of resources and the lack of inspiring and effective leadership that has beset this country for so long.

[Thracian]

I haven't given an opinion, because it is not a black and white issue. I just wonder about your motives sometimes, when questioning me.

Should I have a motive other than to elicit an answer?

Yes I sometimes argue with you but are not all issues relating to the law based on the consideration of various arguments?

Yes I play devil's advocate on occasions. And have a different philosophy to your own on others.

But I'm really not one for ulterior motives. My nature is far too frank and straightforward for such subtleties.

I simply like to test a viewpoint on occasions. To see how it stands up to sustained opposition either from those who's views are entrenched and immovable or from those, like yourself of course, who might have expert input to contribute.

[skinnydipper]

Should I have a motive other than to elicit an answer?

Yes I sometimes argue with you but are not all issues relating to the law based on the consideration of various arguments?

Yes I play devil's advocate on occasions. And have a different philosophy to your own on others.

But I'm really not one for ulterior motives. My nature is far too frank and straightforward for such subtleties.

I simply like to test a viewpoint on occasions. To see how it stands up to sustained opposition either from those who's views are entrenched and immovable or from those, like yourself of course, who might have expert input to contribute.

I can feel a Foxestalk wedding in the air

Step aside Sir Fynwy

[Thracian]

I can feel a Foxestalk wedding in the air

Step aside Sir Fynwy

[ozleicester]

Oh how i enjoy reading an articulate debate, even if there are racist undertones.

I must ask the question as to why we only focus on the unfairness of these "imported" religions, when the religion that governs the UK still has its own inadequacies and unfairness when it comes to women, gays etc etc.

It seems easy to pick the faults with the newcomer...and just let the incumbent continue on its merry way of abuse, sexism and homophobia. I am confident for every offensive part of the imported religion there is an equally offensive part of christianity that goes unmentioned. (lets not even mention Catholicism).

[Dr The Singh]

I wouldn't smile just yet, there's a long queue and i'm at the front of it and i'm going nowhere!!!

[Lillehamring]

Oh how i enjoy reading an articulate debate, even if there are racist undertones.

I must ask the question as to why we only focus on the unfairness of these "imported" religions, when the religion that governs the UK still has its own inadequacies and unfairness when it comes to women, gays etc etc.

It seems easy to pick the faults with the newcomer...and just let the incumbent continue on its merry way of abuse, sexism and homophobia. I am confident for every offensive part of the imported religion there is an equally offensive part of christianity that goes unmentioned. (lets not even mention Catholicism).

this is true, but the initial post was about muslim regimes...

as far as i know, christianity has eased up on it's bigotry, one would guess more to prevent it becoming obsolete here (at least as c of e) than through tolerance, can't say i know much about catholicism but, like, muslimism, it is forced upon it's members from a very early age and tends to be much more indoctrinating than c of e, which to be honest is a relatively bland religion as far as practice and worship and regulation is concerned, and thus it's members are more inclined to accept the institutional bigotry involved...

let's face it mr oz, ALL religions in some way corrupt the free-thought of man, in fact you could go as far to lump supporting a football team in with this, i'm sure a lot of mancs hate scousers because they have been brought up to, and no doubt being a leeds fan probably increases your chances of being a racist intolerant scumbag.

any involvment with organisations inevitably reduces individualism.

[ozleicester]

this is true, but the initial post was about muslim regimes...

as far as i know, christianity has eased up on it's bigotry, one would guess more to prevent it becoming obsolete here (at least as c of e) than through tolerance, can't say i know much about catholicism but, like, muslimism, it is forced upon it's members from a very early age and tends to be much more indoctrinating than c of e, which to be honest is a relatively bland religion as far as practice and worship and regulation is concerned, and thus it's members are more inclined to accept the institutional bigotry involved...

let's face it mr oz, ALL religions in some way corrupt the free-thought of man, in fact you could go as far to lump supporting a football team in with this, i'm sure a lot of mancs hate scousers because they have been brought up to, and no doubt being a leeds fan probably increases your chances of being a racist intolerant scumbag.

any involvment with organisations inevitably reduces individualism.

Fair points indeed...all except one...

probably?

[Webbo]

The BBC's non-partisan reportage is in contrast to some of the print media. I guess this surprises no-one. Yet one cannot read "Labour's hidden unemployment: 6m on the dole" without wondering whether the sub-editor has been remotely objective. Such headlines are no attempt to do anything except talk Britain down, and bash a few easy targets while they're at it.

Should we get a change of govt at the next general election, I look forward to your pro Britain endorsements.

[Guest]

I can't believe it, they're fighting over me!

Perhaps I shouldn't mention being propositioned in Sheffield on Tuesday, or at the court today!