**** that first ones a turn on. Bet she loves it up the shitter.

See? Makes no difference what they wear.

Are (Christian) nuns not symbolic of a belief that is as much political as it is religious and cultural? There's been a lot of damage done to a lot of lives, over centuries, in the name of Christianity. No different to any other religion, really (though I admit to being totally ignorant about lots of eastern religions, so that's perhaps too bold a statement). Why ban the symbol(s) of one but not another?

The burqa (much like the habit!) is worn by such a tiny minority of women. The niqab might be slightly more common, but I'd guess that the majority of Muslim women in the UK (who choose such things) wear hijab. Why does the burqa undermine equality, and should be banned, but the hijab doesn't? I don't know that it's about assimilation. I suspect western women in somewhere like KSA are covering up out of respect (fear of what would happen if they didn't?!), rather than because of assimilating to local culture. One of the things I kinda like about the UK is the freedom of choice when it comes to what people can and cannot wear.

Like I said in an earlier post, personally, I think education rather than telling people what they can and cannot wear might be part of the answer. But it's a hugely complex matter, with myriad factors impacting the issue, and I doubt there's a one-size fits all (ha!) quick fix. I don't pretend to know a solution.

Were the person in the first photograph to be dressed all in white, with a pointy hat, there would be just as much outrage - possibly even more.

Clothing is symbolic whether we like it or not. That black burqa is as offensive to me as KKK garb. I don't think there's a place in a tolerant society for the offensively intolerant.

I once asked a friend of mine a question, not realizing that that question was one of the most difficult questions to answer. because when I later posed the same question to many people from the east, the west, The north, and the south, no one apart from the Muslims managed to come up with a clear answer. My question was:
What length a lady's skirt should be for it to be called a decent dress? A hundred years ago, for example, a decent lady's skirt was supposed to cover all her leg short of her feet. That length then started shrinking by time, and now a contemporary man would be quite proud walking beside his woman who is in a foot above the knee skirt (some wouldn't mind even if the weather is windy). I’v actually thought about this subject quite deeply and I’v managed to come up with an answer that will happily satisfy all the parties (except the Muslims) . The minimum allowed length for a lady's skirt to be classified as decent is it should be long enough to cover the line right under her butt. I am on about the horizontal line!!

I find it interesting that it is usually men that determine what is right or wrong for a woman to wear.

love a bit of Gok Wan

And yet we're still talking about fairly small percentage of the overall UK population, which according to the 2011 census results is still 87.1% white.

In terms of a discussion about the burqa, that's dangerously close to a straw man argument. It's certainly comparing apples and oranges.

The last actual invasion that caused truly meaningful change was 1066. The subsequent 900-odd years saw a huge amount of immigration and are more responsible for British culture as we know it today than anything prior.

But that's their choice. The fact that other countries have hardline immigration policies doesn't make the UK wrong to be much more open and welcoming to foreigners.

What's the pandering that's going on? And who are all the people who are being fined or jailed?

I did look it up, and could find nothing to back up that specific assertion. Do you have links to credible, reputable sources?

What I did already know, and researching your assertion confirmed, is that the oldest Britons are Welsh. It had long been surmised that what is now Wales and Cornwall were the areas of Britain first colonised by hominids, and DNA research has revealed that many individuals in Wales carry DNA which can be traced back to the last Ice Age, which is over 10,000 years ago (the Stone Age ended roughly 4000 years ago).

Given that they include tolerance and openness, I agree.

Requiring immigrants to adopt local custom and traditions would be a major change from the past. Traditionally, immigrants ended up in ghettos (which originally just meant places where members of a minority group lived, there were no connotations of crime or violence), and that was completely understandable - if you're a foreigner in a new country, you're likely to want to live near people who speak your language and understand your culture. This was repeated in big cities all over the world.

And of course, white British people who don't speak any language other than English are the absolute worst for going to live abroad and creating their own little ghettos. Most of the long-term British expats I know here can't hold a basic conversation in Arabic, they can't even read the bloody writing, which only takes a few weeks to learn. Same with all those Brits in Spain etc - and you can bet they moan about the "bloody immigrants" back in the UK when reading their Daily Mail over their breakfast in Marbella.

None of us can really understand why Norm chooses to live in foreign-land.

Ahem what other species wears clothes?
Humans in hot tropical climates wear less clothing that those in cold climates. It is the imposition of cultural stigma that enviromental needs in favour of cultural demands.

Pervert.

This is why women are meant to cover up in your religion, because you'd get too excited about a short skirt and a stuff breeze and probably think you're entitled to touch. Tut tut tut.

More the point... this particular one.

Go to Newcastle fishy where women wear basically F all on a friday night and go out, drink and arrive home safely as the men know how to behave and respect a female. A society that has to repress women because you cannot trust the men is 200 years behind a civilised country just behind India

That up to date, eh? Double the retardation and you might be closer. A quick look at the sexually frustrated Arabs reported in the post about Saudi ( hassled at mall)might change your mind....

I genuinely believe Indians are bigger *****. we only have to look at the last few rape cases there.

Probably the same thing happens in Southall, just not quite so publicised...