Tweet
Originally posted by SithHappens
View Post
-
Me too…the first time! -
A burqa allows the eyes to see out from behind a mesh. A niqab covers the face but the eyes remain uncovered and the view unrestricted.Originally posted by SithHappens View Post
Personally, I think that - as with most religious ‘artefacts’ - it’s all a bit bonkers and unnecessary but, like Sith, none of my business.
Think the whole security issue was put into perspective by Covid. Suddenly we were all likely to be prevented from flying, using public transport or entering a supermarket if we weren’t wearing a face covering. Yes there have been examples of terrorists disguising their appearance via the use of a burqa. Equally terrorists and criminals have ‘hidden’ behind balaclavas, hoodies, baseball caps and sunglasses for years. Don’t see any call for them to be banned.Comment
-
One wonders if Zia Yusuf is on borrowed time as despite others backing Pochin he said it's not policy and was a dumb question to ask.Comment
-
Have seen plenty of objections to balaclavas on matches protesting against this and that where clearly being used to cover identity when lobbing bricks or looting etc! But it would be like banning socks as there are legit reasons for use in cold weatherComment
-
No longer wonderingComment
-
Good call. They all seem to rub along about as smoothly as Trump and Musk.Originally posted by SithHappens View Post
Comment
-
Yep that relationship seems to be down the toilet too.Originally posted by ramAnag View PostGood call. They all seem to rub along about as smoothly as Trump and Musk.Comment
-
What a day really.
Reform imploding and losing the by election (probably helped with farages disastrous visit to Scotland)
Musk and Trump having a very public spat that's got more to play im sure
And to top it off Tommy Robinson and pals getting kicked out of a restaurant because staff felt uncomfortable serving them
If Carlsberg and all that...Comment
-
Good(ish) result for Labour. Seems Reform continue to take most of their votes from the Tories and Richard Tice’s maths seems worse than mine!Originally posted by SithHappens View Post
Wouldn’t be surprised if the steakhouse can expect ‘recriminations’. Lovely people Tommy Steven Yaxley-Lennon-Robinson supporters.Comment
-
Off the subject but why do you persist with the childish habit of not referring to Tommy Robinson by his recognised name? I?m sure you never refer to Stefani Germanotta, Harry Webb, Gary Webb, Aubrey Graham, Shelton Lee, Piercarlo Gassolini or thousands of others who change names by their given name so why Robinson? Seriously it?s fourth grade know-all stuff and, to quote yourself, ?you?re better than that?Originally posted by ramAnag View PostComment
-
Apologies. No intention to offend you. Just covering all bases, Andy. Think he’s commonly referred to as Tommy Ten Names and I didn’t really know what he was calling himself this week. I’ll stick with Tommy Robinson if it helps in future.Originally posted by Andy_Faber View PostLast edited by ramAnag; 06-06-2025, 12:24 PM.Comment
-
No need to apologise it?s just an outlier from your usual styleOriginally posted by ramAnag View PostComment
-
Trump thinking of selling his Tesla. Game set and match that.Comment
-
Meanwhile, here in Clogland, about a year after the coalition was finally formed following the previous General Election, the coalition has collapsed.
Probably for the best as it has achieved next to nothing thus far. The cause? Well, the right wing PVV (Wilders) pulled the plug. His incompetent Migration and Asylum Minister, Faber, was trying to get a dog's dinner of a Law through Parliament (as explained earlier) without explaining one iota of how, why where, when and what it would cost. Even when asked questions on it in the House, she never gave an answer, merely repeating that it's her policy and the lady's not for turning. The independent government committee that looks at new proposals and gives their verdict on affordability, workability and legality hammered it on all 3 points. Saying what was wrong and why. Opposition parties did the same as did the other 3 coalition parties. Civil Servants also pointed out what was wrong. All of the above provided changes that would make the proposal affordable, workable and legal yet still deliver Wilders' required "strongest asylum Law ever". Faber's response was I'm not changing a single comma. Then 2 weeks ago, Wilders came up with 10 extra migration/asylum proposals that would, if not passed, see the PVV withdraw from the coalition. He has done just that. The new elections will be on October 29th.
As I've said previously, IMO, he put the incompetent Faber in that role, knowing the coalition would last a year max and that he could get in first and cause the collapse. That would mean he had a chance to push migration/asylum further up the "leader board". At the last election it was the public's biggest issue. It has now dropped to 5 or 6. That would damage Wilders share of the vote and mean less seats. All going to plan, it seems but I don't think the public will fall for it again. Wilders is done. Even if he is the largest party again or gets a largish number of seats, I really don't see any other party being willing to have him in a coalition. He can go back to being in opposition, pointing out what's wrong but never supplying workable solutions. Of the other 3 coalition parties, both BBB (currently 7 seats) and NSC (20 seats) have 2 each in the latest polls. it's expected that the "lost" voters will go to VVD (Liberals), CDA (Christian Democrats), PvdA/Groen Links (progressive socialists) and D66 (social democrats). I expect those 4 to form the next coalition.Comment
-
MA "His incompetent Migration and Asylum Minister, Faber..."
Not the first time on here that I've heard Faber described as incompetent....Comment
Comment