Navy Net - Royal Navy Community

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

Veil teacher 'should be sacked'

Good point about crash helmets there. I am a motorcyclist and I 'always' have to take off my lid when entering a bank, shop etc, but then again, I would not dream of NOT taking it off.

Its the same at petrol stations. I have to take off my lid to fill up the bike and many stations will not start the pump until I do and often get very shirty about it. I don't really care myself, but the car drivers waiting to fill up behind me do as they have to wait ages for me to 're lid' etc. Blame Shell, BP etc, not me.

I wonder if they would ask the same from these women who wear the full kit? Doubt it very much as it goes and what is the difference? All you are able to see are theeyes of both the Islamic women and myself. I appreciate wearing a lid could be construed as 'about to do a job' on the shop, but its highly unlikely that having just filled up with fuel and then entering the shop with my wallet in my hand, that I am about to hold up the garage. Especially with the CCTV about. :oops:

As Lingy has said, why the sudden influx of this rig? We have had Muslims living in this country for many years now and I cannot remember it being such a big issue back then.

Better stop this sort of talk though, I may be accused of being a bigot or racist once again. ;-)
 
Just seen the latest news, has anyone seen the news conference? I see she won’t back down, or is that the work of the Blair’s professional friends?
 
andym said:
Well she got £1100 compo for her its a result,however it was deemed she wasnt discriminated against.

Compo was for victimisation rather than religious discrimination, yet she's appealing against discrimination having been ruled out - I wonder who's paying her legal fees?
 
FlagWagger said:
andym said:
Well she got £1100 compo for her its a result,however it was deemed she wasnt discriminated against.

Compo was for victimisation rather than religious discrimination, yet she's appealing against discrimination having been ruled out - I wonder who's paying her legal fees?

No legal aid is available for employment tribunals last I heard
 
rosinacarley said:
FlagWagger said:
andym said:
Well she got £1100 compo for her its a result,however it was deemed she wasnt discriminated against.

Compo was for victimisation rather than religious discrimination, yet she's appealing against discrimination having been ruled out - I wonder who's paying her legal fees?

No legal aid is available for employment tribunals last I heard

Being judgmental, I doubt whether she's funding this action herself, I'm sure that there are plenty of "civil rights" type organisations that are happy to support her stand in order to further their own particular viewpoint and who will have their own source of funding. What I find annoying is that its the tax-payers of the local authority who will ultimately pay for this - what sort of costs will the council be having to find from its own budget?
 
brigham600 said:
Better stop this sort of talk though, I may be accused of being a bigot or racist once again. ;-)

There's a distinct difference between squawking for sacking/deportation/stoning/whatever and reasoning with issues in a balanced way. The woman concerned is, and was obviously, chasing the issue rather than defending her virtue and faith, and for that she thoroughly deserves the judgements she got. I have no truck with people who drive roughshod through what is palinly a cut-and-dried case ... as a lecturer-teacher-instructor or educational specialist of whatever ilk, facial contact (especially with young people) is absolutely essential to convey emotions, emphasis and authority as much as is vocal contact. Shrouded in black with just eyes showing because of a religious idiosyncracy is in no waybeing dressed for the job in the same way that a Aircraft Handler wouldn't turn up for flying stations in knicks and flop-flops. If victimising oneself by proxy for religion is a crime because it is subjective against men (and it is, let's face it) then surely we should be asking what we as a western culture is doing to stop the opression of women and the victimisation of men who are denied visual contact with the opposite sex, because some Islamic beliefs are viciously parochial regarding females.

There you go again. No swearing.

Levers
 
Levers_Aligned said:
brigham600 said:
Better stop this sort of talk though, I may be accused of being a bigot or racist once again. ;-)

There's a distinct difference between squawking for sacking/deportation/stoning/whatever and reasoning with issues in a balanced way. The woman concerned is, and was obviously, chasing the issue rather than defending her virtue and faith, and for that she thoroughly deserves the judgements she got. I have no truck with people who drive roughshod through what is palinly a cut-and-dried case ... as a lecturer-teacher-instructor or educational specialist of whatever ilk, facial contact (especially with young people) is absolutely essential to convey emotions, emphasis and authority as much as is vocal contact. Shrouded in black with just eyes showing because of a religious idiosyncracy is in no waybeing dressed for the job in the same way that a Aircraft Handler wouldn't turn up for flying stations in knicks and flop-flops. If victimising oneself by proxy for religion is a crime because it is subjective against men (and it is, let's face it) then surely we should be asking what we as a western culture is doing to stop the opression of women and the victimisation of men who are denied visual contact with the opposite sex, because some Islamic beliefs are viciously parochial regarding females.

There you go again. No swearing.

Levers

Thanks Levers a well written point of view and for once I'm in full agreement with you
 
Stop snivelling Slim, for Gawds sake!

Just because he 's trying to use words of more than one syllable, doesn't mean he hasn't knobbed Polly Toynbee!
 
Leavers
I am aghast. I take my hat off to you. And I must say a good post indeed and must agree with you.



One thing to say if what I can remember of employment law (if you mislead/tell lies at interview or application time) the employer can rightly terminate your contract. So what goes on here? re the first reported interview? Re man at interview no veil or was all that some fabrication from the press.
Bet it has more to do with the human rights brigade (money making type) than anybody else.
 
FlagWagger said:
rosinacarley said:
FlagWagger said:
andym said:
Well she got £1100 compo for her its a result,however it was deemed she wasnt discriminated against.

Compo was for victimisation rather than religious discrimination, yet she's appealing against discrimination having been ruled out - I wonder who's paying her legal fees?

No legal aid is available for employment tribunals last I heard

Being judgmental, I doubt whether she's funding this action herself, I'm sure that there are plenty of "civil rights" type organisations that are happy to support her stand in order to further their own particular viewpoint and who will have their own source of funding. What I find annoying is that its the tax-payers of the local authority who will ultimately pay for this - what sort of costs will the council be having to find from its own budget?

I suggest that fundamentalists within her community are backing it as a test case. If they win they will, as before, seek to extend the boundaries further by further challenges. The problem is that there has been too much political appeasement. Only once has such a campaign been stood up to - by academics at London University in the 1980s, when Muslim radicals demanded that gay students were expelled from the University. Having said this, the Conservatives did not back London University - like the majority of politicians in Westminster they kept quiet. This was the first challenge of this kind mounted by Muslim radicals in this country and passed largely unnoticed elsewhere. Despite their failure, the very quiescence of Parliament emboldened them.

Appeasement does not work - it encourages and accelerates the very behaviour it seeks to accomodate. Had a decisive stance been taken in the 1980s and Britain's liberterian traditions been made clear then, we might have averted this. It is too late now. The politicians have established a precident of appeasing those religious fundamentalists who cause the most trouble and make the most noise. We have made our proverbial bed, and now we must lie in it.
 
I'm still reminded of the Life of Brian stoning scene whenever I see anybody wearing the niqab!

There was a letter in yesterday's Mail, where a Moslem woman likened the position of Islamic people in th UK with that of Jews in Nazi Germany. I don't remember any reports of British Moslems being forcibly removed from their homes because they were Moslem, although I accept that, where the police and intelligence services have believed that a few Moslem people posed a security threat, that they have been arrested and incarcerated. We don't have any concentration camps and gassing facilities, to my knowledge.

I hope that this continues to happen, as I would that anybody posing such a threat should be arrested first, investigated and released if there were no case to answer. Any reasonable citizen would accept this situation, I am sure, knowing that in the case of there being nothing proved it would be easy to gain financial recompense.

At the end of the day, there is always the option to emigrate to a country that will support a way of life that is alien to the UK as a whole.
 
moist or damp , i dont mind which. there both lovely .
Just thought I'd use the ex as my Avatar
Dondon,
Just thought you might like to know that her mother was even better!

Nice to keep it in the family, though.

OSD
 

Latest Threads

Top