Britain - The Official Thread

[Lizard]

Nailed it.

In a similar vein, I laughed the other day when I saw a newspaper headline 'Secret Plot To Oust Corbyn'... I reckon the people who are openly plotting to oust Corbyn will be worried that the secret plotters might beat them to it.

And then yet again they will both fail. Corbyn has survived half the party resigning and a prediction of a 100 seat majority for the Tories.


The grassroots are leading the charge back though and everyone is calling on Tom Watson to resign for not supporting Corbyn.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Now Ruth Davidson, leader of the Scottish Conservatives, has weighed in and said 'Wearing a burqa is like wearing a crucifix and should be defended' and added "If you use the analogy of Christianity, would you ever write in the Telegraph that you should have a debate about banning Christians from wearing crucifixes?"... except that isn't even close to what he's done, but never mind. Still, she has a point about crucifixes because there is nothing weird about wearing an effigy of a dying person who has been nailed to a cross.

Ruth Davidson is wrong (and that doesn't come as a surprise) making a paralel between the burqa and the crucifix. As I believe english-speaking natives say … "Apples and Oranges".

The burqa is a problem in a western democratic society (carefully choosing words here so I'm not attacked by any member of the PC Police) not because it is related to a particular religious belief (it isn't), but because in such a society men and women are considered equal and the burqa is a symbol of inequality (Maajid Nawaz put it better).

If and when a western democratic society becomes so blinded by anti -muslim hate that what's at stake is to forbid a symbol of their religious belief (like a crescent and star hanging from a necklace), then Ruth Davidson may have a point.

I suspect, however, that a crescent in a necklace won't bother - in a western democratic society - as many as a crucifix does. Maybe it's because it depicts a dying man nailed to a cross.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The burqa is a problem in a western democratic society (carefully choosing words here so I'm not attacked by any member of the PC Police) not because it is related to a particular religious belief (it isn't), but because in such a society men and women are considered equal and the burqa is a symbol of inequality (Maajid Nawaz put it better).

It can be a symbol of inequality but it can also be a symbol of choice. Some Islaamic women and men choose to wear the veil, not because they are forced to. The same's true of some Christian women, of course... although veiled men in Christianity hasn't happened for many years, I believe.

 

[baldgye]

Setting aside the right or wrong of the language think much of the "outrage" coming from Westminster is totally a polical agenda to try and be rid of Boris once and for all and undermine any chances of his future ambitions.

They are using this (like they have with many other gaffs he has done) to orchestrate something rather than actually caring about the issue and debate that needs to be had.

Without doubt.

 

[Robin]

Still, she has a point about crucifixes because there is nothing weird about wearing an effigy of a dying person who has been nailed to a cross.

I think it's a matter of scale, what if I wear an effigy of a dying person nailed to a cross round my neck that's 1:2?

 

[baldgye]

For what it's worth, I think Maajid Nawaz has the right outlook:

This is the uniform of medieval patriarchal tyranny. It victim-blames women for their beauty. Where this is enforced it symbolises violent mysogyny. I’m not advocating banning this monstrosity but I refuse to defend it. It deserves to be ridiculed. Not the women inside it.

The problem with what Boris did was he ridiculed the people wearing it, not the outfit it’s self.

Nuance isn’t Boris’s strong suit.

 

[Mr Tree]

For what it's worth, I think Maajid Nawaz has the right outlook:

This is the uniform of medieval patriarchal tyranny. It victim-blames women for their beauty. Where this is enforced it symbolises violent mysogyny. I’m not advocating banning this monstrosity but I refuse to defend it. It deserves to be ridiculed. Not the women inside it.

I take it you agree with Maajid Nawaz I do to with one large caveat, to defend woman being allowed to wear a burka is not the same as defending the burka.
I can still critisize them wearing it and why I (we) think they ought not to wear it.

I was wondering how you think about it.

Ruth Davidson is wrong (and that doesn't come as a surprise) making a paralel between the burqa and the crucifix. As I believe english-speaking natives say … "Apples and Oranges".

The burqa is a problem in a western democratic society (carefully choosing words here so I'm not attacked by any member of the PC Police) not because it is related to a particular religious belief (it isn't), but because in such a society men and women are considered equal and the burqa is a symbol of inequality (Maajid Nawaz put it better).

If and when a western democratic society becomes so blinded by anti -muslim hate that what's at stake is to forbid a symbol of their religious belief (like a crescent and star hanging from a necklace), then Ruth Davidson may have a point.

I suspect, however, that a crescent in a necklace won't bother - in a western democratic society - as many as a crucifix does. Maybe it's because it depicts a dying man nailed to a cross.

First of I'm not attacking you
I was wondering if you agreed with boris that they should not be illegal or that you think they should be illegal and if so why?

 

[Robin]

The problem with what Boris did was he ridiculed the people wearing it, not the outfit it’s self.

Nuance isn’t Boris’s strong suit.

Exactly, it's like if you joked to a mate that an outfit made him 'look like a cowboy', you are not talking about him, his beliefs, his right to choice or cowboys, just the outfit.

Boris was trying to make a point about the outfit but in his usual eloquence he ended up mocking the people and the choice to wear it. I don't think it's unreasonable to question unusual dress.

 

[baldgye]

Exactly, it's like if you joked to a mate that an outfit made him 'look like a cowboy', you are not talking about him, his beliefs, his right to choice or cowboys, just the outfit.

Boris was trying to make a point about the outfit but in his usual eloquence he ended up mocking the people and the choice to wear it. I don't think it's unreasonable to question unusual dress.

Indeed, though with so many things, the solution to this problem isn't by mocking items of clothing but of education. You can't belittle people or clothing out of oppression.

 

[Hun200kmh]

First of I'm not attacking you
I was wondering if you agreed with boris that they should not be illegal or that you think they should be illegal and if so why?

This should be a simple thing, but it isn't. So, to start, I think people should wear whatever they want. Sounds great, right?

However I don't think people should be able to walk naked in public areas, and I guess somehow that isn't allowed (on the grounds of public decency?).

So, to be coherent with what I just wrote, I have to establish that I have no problems with rules on what is or isn't allowed. It can be based on "decency" or any other word meant to define what a determined society considers acceptable, but by doing it I am already establishing that the right to wear (or not) whatever you like isn't an absolute and that the society's "acceptance" is a factor.

Then comes the "equality" accross gender problem. In a western society, such a problem is best summarized with the nipples. Men can and do show them publicly, women don't, and the "can't" is debatable. Do I think a bare woman's chest in public is acceptable? Because I don't (and because I have no problem with men doing it) I am - and this is a confession - establishing a distinction between sexes on what to wear in public.

So, I do think it is acceptable to have rules, and I do think they shouldn't be the same according to sex. Sorry if anyone's offended, but it is my opinion.

Now, reverse all this and instead of considering what's your opinion on a legal position about "NOT" covering up your body or parts of it, consider the same about covering it "too much".

And I will say I have no problems with it, even if it embodies a certain way of a certain culture (alien to me) to treat women as their men's (be it father or husband) property. As long as those women can LEGALLY take those burqas off and can ask for legal help against any form of family violence for doing it, I say it's up to them. You don't force your ways on others, you convince them that they are wrong and you are right (or at least try).

That said, I can discuss the acceptance of a legal ban on burqas (and KKK costumes) on the grounds of public safety, by defending that, just as cars must have their license plates on them, people must have their faces uncovered when in public. So, I'm fine with a law that allows everyone to cover their entire body with clothes, with the exception of their full face.

To end on a humorous note: considering the conclusion I reached I may be accused of my christian background finding this perfectly acceptable:

… and whoever accuses me of it might have a point

 

[Mr Tree]

This should be a simple thing, but it isn't. So, to start, I think people should wear whatever they want. Sounds great, right?

However I don't think people should be able to walk naked in public areas, and I guess somehow that isn't allowed (on the grounds of public decency?).

So, to be coherent with what I just wrote, I have to establish that I have no problems with rules on what is or isn't allowed. It can be based on "decency" or any other word meant to define what a determined society considers acceptable, but by doing it I am already establishing that the right to wear (or not) whatever you like isn't an absolute and that the society's "acceptance" is a factor.

Then comes the "equality" accross gender problem. In a western society, such a problem is best summarized with the nipples. Men can and do show them publicly, women don't, and the "can't" is debatable. Do I think a bare woman's chest in public is acceptable? Because I don't (and because I have no problem with men doing it) I am - and this is a confession - establishing a distinction between sexes on what to wear in public.

So, I do think it is acceptable to have rules, and I do think they shouldn't be the same according to sex. Sorry if anyone's offended, but it is my opinion.

Now, reverse all this and instead of considering what's your opinion on a legal position about "NOT" covering up your body or parts of it, consider the same about covering it "too much".

And I will say I have no problems with it, even if it embodies a certain way of a certain culture (alien to me) to treat women as their men's (be it father or husband) property. As long as those women can LEGALLY take those burqas off and can ask for legal help against any form of family violence for doing it, I say it's up to them. You don't force your ways on others, you convince them that they are wrong and you are right (or at least try).

That said, I can discuss the acceptance of a legal ban on burqas (and KKK costumes) on the grounds of public safety, by defending that, just as cars must have their license plates on them, people must have their faces uncovered when in public. So, I'm fine with a law that allows everyone to cover their entire body with clothes, with the exception of their full face.

To end on a humorous note: considering the conclusion I reached I may be accused of my christian background finding this perfectly acceptable:

… and whoever accuses me of it might have a point

Well I think this opinion is very reasonable
Not that that's worth anything

On the illegallity of covering your face I have 1 remark. While I think it's an acceptable position in practice this law gas some practical 'issues' (speaking about Belgium as we have this law). Lawenforcement doesn't apply this law and whennthey do it's because it's a burka or violent protesters. On the other hand me and a few friends wear bandana's as dustmasks on festivals as the amount of dirt you inhale in/at the edge of a moshpit is imo intollerable, yet no one bats an eye, same for dustmask being worn during work (they could make an exception for that off coarse).
Now I understand they are diffrent things but if it's ok because the people wearing things covering their face in my examples it has a function but the burka has that too for people who want to wear it. We (I) don't think it's a good reason 'i have to dress this way because god' but it's a function none the less. They want to presserve their soul according to what they believe.

So while I'm not against it it should be very well documented what counts and what doesn't and why it doesn't count.

As long as those women can LEGALLY take those burqas off and can ask for legal help against any form of family violence for doing it, I say it's up to them. You don't force your ways on others, you convince them (or not).

This a 1000 times this I do think this is very important.

 

[Touring Mars]

This really belongs in the Funny Stories thread, but:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...-given-diversity-training-instead-sanctioned/

 

[kikie]

Glasgow effect @Touring Mars?


My father is watching the cycling championship and one of the commentators was talking about how beautiful Glasgow is except for the poverty that is clearly visible. And he mentioned the Glasgow effect, a few minutes ago.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Glasgow effect @Touring Mars?

I love Glasgow, it's a mad, bad, beautiful, desperate, insane place. It's such a mix of... everything... and to me always feels more Scotland than hipster Edinburgh.

 

[Moglet]

I love Glasgow, it's a mad, bad, beautiful, desperate, insane place. It's such a mix of... everything... and to me always feels more Scotland than hipster Edinburgh.

It's the only place I've ever been to in Scotland. My fondest memory was walking to the train station at about 9am and seeing an empty bottle of Buckfast on top of the bin bags that were out for collection.

 

[Touring Mars]

My fondest memory was walking to the train station at about 9am and seeing an empty bottle of Buckfast on top of the bin bags that were out for collection.

This is quite normal - the Buckfast man comes round about 9.30 each morning to take away the empties and replaces them with full ones.

-

Glasgow certainly is a mix of the rough with the smooth - though to the untrained eye it is mostly the former. Pub culture is still very much alive and well in Glasgow, and even 'nicer' bars still can have something of an edge to them at times - but it is quite possible to avoid trouble in Glasgow... however if you are looking for it, it will find you very quickly.

 

[Moglet]

This is quite normal - the Buckfast man comes round about 9.30 each morning to take away the empties and replaces them with full ones.

I also remember that we stayed in the Blythswood Square Hotel which has red lampshades in the windows "to acknowledge how the area used to be a red light district". Stay classy, Glasgow. (I actually enjoyed the city, everyone we met was really friendly which is a nice change from Cambridge)

 

[Touring Mars]

I also remember that we stayed in the Blythswood Square Hotel which has red lampshades in the windows "to acknowledge how the area used to be a red light district". Stay classy, Glasgow. (I actually enjoyed the city, everyone we met was really friendly which is a nice change from Cambridge)

"Used to be"...

Glasgow is generally a very friendly city, but it is also the kind of place that doesn't suffer fools gladly.

Perhaps this also explains the 'Glasgow Effect' to some extent 💡

 

[UKMikey]

I haven't been to Glasgow but remember me and a friend sharing some drinks in my Heathrow local with some friendly visiting Glaswegians who were delighted and extremely amused that their city had been chosen as the European City Of Culture that year (1990).

 

[polysmut]

I like Glasgow but I don't get there very often at all. My grandad was from there and he went to Glasgow University.

 

[Lizard]

My brother lives in Glasgow. Therefore it has got to be a total dive.

 

[polysmut]

My brother lives in Glasgow. Therefore it has got to be a total dive.

That's what you say about everything outside of Surrey. That it's a dive, I mean. The brother thing, I assume, would only apply to Glasgow.

 

[Lizard]

That's what you say about everything outside of Surrey. That it's a dive, I mean. The brother thing, I assume, would only apply to Glasgow.

Well I expect the streets lined in gold as we posh people have gotten used to.

 

[polysmut]

Well I expect the streets lined in gold as we posh people have gotten used to.

You missed the bit where I was lining the streets with limes on Saturday.

Just realised we're in O&CE & not in a chat type thread. Soz.

 

[Tired Tyres]

I haven't been to Glasgow but remember me and a friend sharing some drinks in my Heathrow local with some friendly visiting Glaswegians who were delighted and extremely amused that their city had been chosen as the European City Of Culture that year (1990).

I was in a Glasgow pub many moons ago when Jimmy Hill was on Match of the Day talking about an hooligan issue an English team had suffered from on the continent and calling it not an English problem but a British problem

Friendly and delighted are not words I would have used.

 

[Liquid]

I was in a Glasgow pub many moons ago when Jimmy Hill was on Match of the Day talking about an hooligan issue an English team had suffered from on the continent and calling it not an English problem but a British problem.

For what it's worth, the biggest tossers I've ever met on footballing travels have been Millwall fans and Rangers fans. West Ham and Chelsea fans not too far behind though.

 

[UKMikey]

I was in a Glasgow pub many moons ago when Jimmy Hill was on Match of the Day talking about an hooligan issue an English team had suffered from on the continent and calling it not an English problem but a British problem

Friendly and delighted are not words I would have used.

I'm not sure I'd blame them under the circumstances. Were the situation reversed I don't think an English pub crowd would readily accept Scottish or Welsh hooligans being their problem as well if a Scots TV pundit made a similar comment..

 

[Tired Tyres]

I'm not sure I'd blame them under the circumstances. Were the situation reversed I don't think an English pub crowd would readily accept Scottish or Welsh hooligans being their problem as well if a Scots TV pundit made a similar comment..

Never and MEAN never have I been in a place with the kind of undercurrent that pub generated in the space of seconds. Seriously, I was happy to leave in one piece.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I take it you agree with Maajid Nawaz I do to with one large caveat, to defend woman being allowed to wear a burka is not the same as defending the burka.
I can still critisize them wearing it and why I (we) think they ought not to wear it.

I was wondering how you think about it.

I think he makes that distinction in the tweet by saying he would be against banning it whilst still holding the view that its use as a garment in Britain today is indefensible.

I thought this was the best article out of the many that sprung up criticising or defending his remarks:

https://www.conservativehome.com/pl...ractice-is-not-an-attack-on-muslim-women.html

 

[Robin]

Scottish chip shop selling Britain's most unhealthy takeaway

A Scottish chip shop is offering Britain’s unhealthiest takeaway - a box consisting of fried foods worth nearly 7,000 calories.

The “Crunchy Box” includes chips, two pizza crunches, fish, two sausages, two hamburgers, onion rings, chicken nuggets - all deep fried, for the bargain price of £10. To quench your thirst from all of the fried foods, the box also comes with a two-litre bottle of Irn-Bru - bringing the total calorie count up to 6,813. However, despite the outrageously-high calorie count, the shop selling the bargain box, East West Spice, says that people cannot get enough.

According to Bahadur Singh, the manager of the shop in Greenock, Scotland, the response to the high-calorie deep-fried meal has been mostly positive. Singh also claims that the box, which goes by the name Family Crunchy Box as well, is meant to feed more than one person. “I just thought it would be nice to combine the ideas and bring something which would appeal to everyone,” he said. “We put the deal on and people seem to love it. Everything is cooked in fat but the dish is big enough for three or four people to share.”

“It’s definitely for the family to eat. People think it’s a great deal,” Singh said. Despite Singh’s insistence that the crunchy box is for more than one person, people are conflicted over the meal consisting of multiple days' worth of calories. In 2014, Pizza Hut was criticised by health campaigners after releasing a cheeseburger pizza that contained 3,000 calories.

Others, however, aren’t surprised by the Scottish offering. “That’s the most Scottish thing I’ve seen,” one person commented on Facebook.

Made me hungry...