Hear, Hear!

First-past-the-post has more or less guaranteed this for years.

Long may it continue.

We´re talking British Standards so here goes...for the first time in my very short existance , I find myself in full agreement with the one and only Mr O´Leary!
http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/...k-8929255.html

He's Irish and he's telling the UK what to do?

That point slightly ammused me too. The cheek of the Irish eh.
Besides, it´s obvious he´s trying to bow to poplular opinion in his fight for approval from his discontented customers.

everyone else does it so why not the Irish

Much the same debate has been taking place in Ireland and other EU countries, two of which I believe have already banned them.

Instead of having petty disputes regarding M.O.L.s right to an opinion, maybe we should consider the broader picture a little more seriously and the virtual impunity Burkas can give to terrorists of whatever belief and background to plan and operate with almost virtual impunity and no I'm not too sweet on Hoodies either especially where it's obvious they are being used for no other reason than to hide identities in public places.

Yeah, let's have the government tell us what we can wear and when. Excellent plan.

PS: How many crimes in the UK have been committed under the cover of a burqa?

How would we ever know, because as with hoodies they obviously makes their crimes many times more difficult to detect ?

It was noticeable during the riots a few years back how many hoodies who had been looting would have got away scott free had they not been picked up by surveillance cameras they weren't aware of in neighbouring streets having removed their covers thinking they'd got away undetected.

Interesting link.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/shopp...n-7201085.html

So you say "how would we know" but yet you seem to know it's a problem. Don't you think at least it would have been reported as "gang of mad burqa-wearing people terrorize shopping mall" etc?


As for the looters, to be sure their behaviour is criminal - but then so is all the same behaviour shown by those not wearing hoodies.

This does not even come close to making it desirable to have the government dictating what we can and cannot wear. It is bad enough that we are all on camera all the time, but to not have the freedom to choose our own clothes because some potentate has decided not to allow it, and to presumably have the police have the powers to enforce that, has nothing to do with a free and open society and should not be tolerated.

who is to say the burqa isn't for the same purpose ?
meanwhile motorcyclists have to remove their (law imposed) helmet on entering many buildings.

The use of the burqa by a terrorist suspect only makes the case for not wearing them more not less an issue.

wearing hoodies has become a right of passage, a badge, usually accompanied by a muttered "don't diss me" or similar with the head bowed looking at people's feet.

but we have already given the keys to the loony bin to all the fluffy bunnies who won't allow us to wear a cross around our necks, rename Christmas to Winterval and give the kids a day off school to celebrate a holy day for a religion they know nothing about.

but at least my daughter did manage to visit a mosque before she visited the cathedral in our home town.

the govt tells the firemen, the police, nurses, soldiers, sailors, airmen what they will wear. many companies, especially in security but also in other jobs such as cleaning and cooking also tell their staff what they will wear.
and yet no one complains (except you it would appear)

perhaps it might be a good idea to have a universal uniform, like Chairman Mao (rather than Ghandi), everyone would be the same, all those deviating would be spotted immediately.
and of course all such clothing would be made in Govt factories and cheap imports would not be allowed. this would take many people off benefits to fill the jobs this would create.

There are not so many CCTV cameras here in Spain as there are in the UK, but I have to say that whether I'm here or back there on a visit, I never give a second thought to the fact that I'm on camera. I'm not doing anything but going about my lawful business, after all.

I have, however, seen enough screened footage from them which has been used to help identify and convict criminals, track the movements of missing children and vulnerable elderly people, even provide evidence of misconduct by police and other public servants, to convince me they are more of a good thing than a bad one.

Here in Spain there are other kinds of local laws governing styles of clothing apart from the burqua or niquab (which is banned in a very few places) - for example, making it an offence for men not to wear a shirt in town centres or tourists to wear swimwear in towns. It is a pity that people's own commonsense can't be relied upon so these kinds of things become necessary, but I can't say I object to them. I see no good reason why people (any people) should be allowed to go about with their identities concealed in public, either.

I suppose it's a matter of principles. To me, the private movements of private individuals should not be the business of the state. Monitoring the entire population because some people might at some point do something illegal or undesirable (according the state's laws of the moment) is, again to me, fundamentally opposed to the principles of a free society. Are criminals sometimes caught this way? Yes, I'm sure they are. But I am not willing to accept constant monitoring simply on the grounds that I myself am not about to commit a crime. What next? Spying on people's private communications via the phone? Oh, wait, we're already doing that aren't we. We are simply fostering a more and more furtive society being monitored by bureaucrats through screens. History tells us that state monitoring has never suppressed dissent or crime - it just changes how it is planned and executed. In the meantime, the way we all live is changed for the worse.

I agree with Lynn and Dom.

I have absolutely no objection to surveillance cameras in public places and without doubt they help reduce crime, solve crime and make our streets safer places than they would otherwise be.
Where is the problem with them ?

If a person is present in a public place then the whole world and his wife can see him anyway, he can and probably is photographed numerous times without his knowledge anyway, on most occasions unintentionally.
That's the way it always has been long before security cameras were ever even dreamed of.

There are times when it is in everyone's interest apart from the wrongdoers, when it is essential that peoples lives, safety and security are considered ahead of petty principles.

And when certain principles are considered petty - principles that reflect hard-won freedoms z- that's when I start to worry.