It is not a double standard it is just that kds in their " street " uniform are far more of a crime risk to shops than others.
The shops are just protectng their profits.

Of course it´s double standards. Teenagers and adults are told to remove their "coverings" yet arms are thrown up in the air when the same is asked of a particular ethnic group!
A single standard is that the rule applies to everyone!

Hmm.. good point.

I suppose I really meant indoors. I'm thinking about public transport, government offices, schools, hospitals etc.

Shops, banks and other private buildings could do it if they choose - I've seen signs saying 'no hoodies' and 'please remove motorcycle helmets' in some establishments - just change them to 'no face coverings'.

I suppose posh shops in Oxford Street could allow their rich burka clad clients in if they want but they should realise that they could easily be men up to no good and maybe expect some of their other rich clients to scarper quick time - up to them .

You sound so proud of the fact that the UK is to have sharia banking, so proud that it is more like smugness.

Islamic banking cannot pay interest, but the investor will get "income" according to the amount invested. Same difference, even if it is called by a different name, the investor still sees a return on his money.

More pandering to minorities..

How right you are, Cameron is nothing more than a rent boy, he is purely in it for the money, and is taking the long term view.

I would suggest that women from the middle east are quite possibly a very low crime risk but that's not the point. The point is that a burkha might, as in the case we are talking about, be hiding a man - and not necessarily from the middle east either - could be anybody at all.

It is as much 'pandering to minorities' as is providing so called 'green' and 'ethical' accounts. Nothing at all wrong with it that I can see.

I rather like Islamic banking. Outlawing interest is cool.

So what exactly did your father fight for then?

For young girls to be "forced" into covering themselves, because of pressure by parents, brothers and leaders?

For young girls to be butchered by sikko parents, usually with a mother who has been through the same sickeningly painful ritual, and knows the health problems and pain her daughter will suffer for the rest of her life.

These girls cannot trust the most important person in their life (their mother) to protect them, what a tragedy, the mental scars of this must be worse than the physical.


Mothers who would sooner inflict physical harm on their daughters than be shunned by their peers, all this is happening in the UK.


Animals treat their young better, at least the female of the species does in most cases.

I don´t know how many of the apologists are mothers of girls (like me), and those that are should be ashamed, that due to labelling of racism or fear of being called a bigot, you defend the indefensible.



Men have died fighting for freedom, but what kind of freedom do these girls have.

So under the umbrella of freedom, these atrocities take place, and I can assure you that most old soldiers did not fight for that.

I agree, it is all pandering.

What's all of that got to do with wearing a burkha?

It's just providing a product your customers want - what's wrong with that?

Is there something wrong with you?

No - I'm fine. Why do you ask?

What Me Me , JT and a few others fail to realse is that our tolerace and acceptance of others and the slow but gradual assimilation of other cultures over centuries is what makes the UK the place it is.
Their UK reflects the views of Mosely and others of hs ilke and fortunately the bulk of the UK population sees them for what they are.
We have many problems today, problems imported from countries where the quality of life, levels of education , tolerance of others etc etc are very different to ours but we will find a solution , we always have.