Thanks to everybody who took part in last week's Fun Online Poll. Forty-two out of the four thousand people who visited this 'blog in the last week felt competent to answer the question "Do ionized particles encourage low-level cloud formation?" and 88% of those responding answered "Yes".
So to use the jargon, I think that "The Science Is Settled". If you're wondering what this is all about, you can read up here, only they are going to spend zillions of Euros either proving or disproving the theory - my way seems a lot cheaper and just as likely to be correct.
------------------------------------
UKIP have managed to stir the hornet's nest a bit with their proposal that people should be banned from covering their faces in public, an idea which has been caricatured as Ban the burkha. In principle, I agree with Sue, although I would be worried about actual enforcement, would wearers be liable to a summary fine, like when you drink in the street, or would it be a proper criminal offence with arrests, formal charges, witness statements, jury trials and so on? Can't say I'm too fussed either way, so this is an ideal topic for this week's Fun Online Poll.
Vote here or use the widget in the sidebar.
Put On Your Big Boy Pants, Maybe?
4 minutes ago
8 comments:
I was really hacked off when I saw Farage on the Politics Show making his case for banning veils. No sooner does a small party start to look electable than some looney instinct (or more likely, urge to jump on a populist bandwagon a la francaise) surfaces and starts me wondering where on earth to look to now to find a reasonable, reasoning party to give my vote to.
If you ban veils on the basis that you make it illegal for women to wear it in public, are you attacking the freedom of choice of women, or of Muslims? If you legislate against face coverings in general, watch out the next time you want to wrap a scarf round your lower face on a cold day, or to ward off bugs on public transport. Or next time you want to go to a fancy dress do. Or just have a bit of fun. Or join Old Holborn on his march. Or wear a hoodie / baseball cap combination (not me, thanks, but I'm thinking of others here). And believe me, I'm no great fan of hoodies, Muslims in veils, Old Holborn, FCUK t-shirts, tattoos, politicians or football supporters - but I don't think they should all be banned.
Farage said "he's not allowed to wear a motorcycle helmet in a bank", which is untrue. No law exists to forbid this. The banks request customers to remove helmets, and customers are free to choose to do so, or not to do so. Same with filling stations. The bank or filling station is free to choose whether to serve the customer whose expression of free choice is to wear a helmet (I'm a committed biker for many years and choose to remove mine - but if someone wants to make a fuss, that's fine, I'll keep it on, thanks).
Your link to Sue's blog reveals a depressing and authoritarian view of what should be done to people who wear things she doesn't like - "what's the use of CCTV if everyone wears veils?" Exactly. But forcing the baring of the face - anyone's face - to make CCTV more effective (yeah, right - you mean they've solved the resolution / lighting issues on all cameras in place?) is a bit like requiring the rubbing of salt into wounds, after the event.
The other thought that struck me was that I thought Farage had stood down as leader of the Party in favour of some invisible guy who's lost his voice. Was that the reason the former leader was announcing policy?
It's a damn shame. UKIP were starting to look reasonably reasonable.
How fitting in this instance that the word verification should be "hateres"!
Mark, I would have taken part in your poll but I don't understand the question :) (not being a science nerd)...
As far as the Burkha is concerned, I'm so dead against it purely because I knew someone who was and probably still is being forced to wear the whole garb and is miserable about it.
She was forced into an arranged marriage with a much older man (she was born in the UK and spent most of her teenage years like any normal girl her age). He insists she lives the strict, disciplined life of Islam. I can quite honestly say she has practically been driven to suicide a couple of times...
I am only against the covering of their faces. If they wish to dress in black from head to toe, I don't give a hoot!
formertory.. does that mean I would be allowed to say that peoples faces must be visible if they enter my business?
How quick do you think someone is going to scream "discrimation?"
I'm sick and tired of positive discrimination and the more it occurs, the angrier and more unreasonable I become.. I am only human!
Sue: I think you have every right to ask someone to remove sunglasses or a veil or a bike helmet. I think you have every right to declare that you'll only deal with people who'll compromise with your cultural norms and respond to your own courtesy. You have every right to make those choices and to get or lose the business accordingly.
I have a thing about speaking with someone who's wearing very dark or mirrored sunglasses. Unless they're blind, I won't deal with them unless they remove their glasses while we're speaking. I'd call it "courtesy", given the importance of eye contact in our culture.
I (really) do understand the frustration you're talking about. As I said, I'm no fan of veils and many other things besides. But the fact, as you say, that you're only human is why we can't be going round passing legislation against face coverings. You're human, and you mean about burqas. Some politician, 5 years down the line might be human (I know, but bear with me) and mean any sort of cosmetic treatment which covers skin blemishes, surgery marks, injuries, or maybe hair that covers facial features, or scarfs used in cold weather, or use of contact lenses which change eye colour, or tinted spectacles, or wide hat brims...
Ask the Icelanders what they think about contemporary application of out terrorism laws. Ask four fishermen in Kent what they think about losing everything because of the Proceeds of Crime Act (you know, for drug smuggling and money laundering) being used against them for a fisheries law infringement. Ask the hundreds of thousands of people a year stopped under S44 provisions, which uncovered nothing to do with terrorism (and which are now declared unlawful).
It's not you as an individual I'm worried about, of course. It's some future Gordon Brown or David Cameron (or Nigel Farage) seeing short term political advantage in stoking up a row and then (ab)using powers intended for something else entirely.
They do that already:)
Er.... QED?
How can UKIP continue calling themselves "libertarian" now Mark?
Funny, my word verification is "banteex". Will UKIP be wnting to ban teex next?
It's not meant for polling. That's why ten replies is usually the most for a question. I'd like to do a poll for fun and get a lot of replies.
Post a Comment