I see an MP is refusing to speak to constituents attending their surgery
if the constituent chooses to wear a burkha.
Would the right to see your MP be covered by the Equality Act ? If so,
would this action be considered to breach it, and if so, what remedy
might be available.
I am aware that in parliament, the only law that applies is parliament. However this is outside, presumably in a community building ?
On 2025-06-08, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
I see an MP is refusing to speak to constituents attending their
surgery if the constituent chooses to wear a burkha.
Would the right to see your MP be covered by the Equality Act ? If so,
would this action be considered to breach it, and if so, what remedy
might be available.
I am aware that in parliament, the only law that applies is parliament.
However this is outside, presumably in a community building ?
I can't find any news articles about this happening recently, but when a
Tory MP said the same in 2010, Liberty were of the opinion that this was certainly against the Equality Act.
On Sun, 08 Jun 2025 13:02:07 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-08, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14791511/Kemi-Badenoch-refuses- speak-burka-clad-constituents-Tories-Islamic-veils.html
I see an MP is refusing to speak to constituents attending their
surgery if the constituent chooses to wear a burkha.
Would the right to see your MP be covered by the Equality Act ? If so,
would this action be considered to breach it, and if so, what remedy
might be available.
I am aware that in parliament, the only law that applies is parliament.
However this is outside, presumably in a community building ?
I can't find any news articles about this happening recently, but when a
Tory MP said the same in 2010, Liberty were of the opinion that this was
certainly against the Equality Act.
I see an MP is refusing to speak to constituents attending their surgery
if the constituent chooses to wear a burkha.
Would the right to see your MP be covered by the Equality Act ? If so,
would this action be considered to breach it, and if so, what remedy
might be available.
I am aware that in parliament, the only law that applies is parliament. >However this is outside, presumably in a community building ?
On 8 Jun 2025 at 14:20:55 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>refuses-
wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jun 2025 13:02:07 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-08, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14791511/Kemi-Badenoch-
I see an MP is refusing to speak to constituents attending their
surgery if the constituent chooses to wear a burkha.
Would the right to see your MP be covered by the Equality Act ? If
so, would this action be considered to breach it, and if so, what
remedy might be available.
I am aware that in parliament, the only law that applies is
parliament.
However this is outside, presumably in a community building ?
I can't find any news articles about this happening recently, but when
a Tory MP said the same in 2010, Liberty were of the opinion that this
was certainly against the Equality Act.
speak-burka-clad-constituents-Tories-Islamic-veils.html
You'd think the Daily Mail would be able to work out that burka were not veils, and vice versa.
On 08/06/2025 in message <10240h4$1nufa$15@dont-email.me> Jethro_uk
wrote:
[quoted text muted]
To be clear she said:
"The Conservative leader said she had a rule at surgeries in her North
West Essex constituency that 'you have to remove your face covering,
whether it's a burka or a balaclava."
Frankly it seems reasonable to me.
On Sun, 08 Jun 2025 13:43:37 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 08/06/2025 in message <10240h4$1nufa$15@dont-email.me> Jethro_uk
wrote:
[quoted text muted]
To be clear she said:
"The Conservative leader said she had a rule at surgeries in her North
West Essex constituency that 'you have to remove your face covering, >>whether it's a burka or a balaclava."
Frankly it seems reasonable to me.
I didn't say it was unreasonable.
However, reason and law have nothing to do with each other.
On 08/06/2025 in message <10245t9$1nufa$18@dont-email.me> Jethro_uk
wrote:
[quoted text muted]
That is a very profound observation, sadly true.
You OP did say:
"I see an MP is refusing to speak to constituents attending their
surgery if the constituent chooses to wear a burkha."
Which isn't what Badenoch actually said.
I see an MP is refusing to speak to constituents attending their surgery
if the constituent chooses to wear a burkha.
Would the right to see your MP be covered by the Equality Act ? If so,
would this action be considered to breach it, and if so, what remedy
might be available.
I am aware that in parliament, the only law that applies is parliament. However this is outside, presumably in a community building ?
On 08/06/2025 in message <10240h4$1nufa$15@dont-email.me> Jethro_uk wrote:
I see an MP is refusing to speak to constituents attending their surgery
if the constituent chooses to wear a burkha.
Would the right to see your MP be covered by the Equality Act ? If so,
would this action be considered to breach it, and if so, what remedy
might be available.
I am aware that in parliament, the only law that applies is parliament.
However this is outside, presumably in a community building ?
To be clear she said:
"The Conservative leader said she had a rule at surgeries in her North
West Essex constituency that 'you have to remove your face covering,
whether it's a burka or a balaclava."
Frankly it seems reasonable to me.
On 08/06/2025 14:43, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 08/06/2025 in message <10240h4$1nufa$15@dont-email.me> Jethro_ukDo banks still have a rule that motorcycle helmets aren't allowed?
wrote:
I see an MP is refusing to speak to constituents attending their
surgery if the constituent chooses to wear a burkha.
Would the right to see your MP be covered by the Equality Act ? If so,
would this action be considered to breach it, and if so, what remedy
might be available.
I am aware that in parliament, the only law that applies is
parliament. However this is outside, presumably in a community
building ?
To be clear she said:
"The Conservative leader said she had a rule at surgeries in her North
West Essex constituency that 'you have to remove your face covering,
whether it's a burka or a balaclava."
Frankly it seems reasonable to me.
I see an MP is refusing to speak to constituents attending their surgery
if the constituent chooses to wear a burkha.
Would the right to see your MP be covered by the Equality Act ? If so,
would this action be considered to breach it, and if so, what remedy
might be available.
I am aware that in parliament, the only law that applies is parliament. However this is outside, presumably in a community building ?
On Sun, 08 Jun 2025 14:33:08 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 08/06/2025 in message <10245t9$1nufa$18@dont-email.me> Jethro_uk
wrote:
[quoted text muted]
That is a very profound observation, sadly true.
You OP did say:
"I see an MP is refusing to speak to constituents attending their
surgery if the constituent chooses to wear a burkha."
Which isn't what Badenoch actually said.
Oh I admit that.
Does adding context make things better or worse ?
On 08/06/2025 in message <10247ho$1nufa$19@dont-email.me> Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jun 2025 14:33:08 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 08/06/2025 in message <10245t9$1nufa$18@dont-email.me> Jethro_uk
wrote:
[quoted text muted]
That is a very profound observation, sadly true.
You OP did say:
"I see an MP is refusing to speak to constituents attending their
surgery if the constituent chooses to wear a burkha."
Which isn't what Badenoch actually said.
Oh I admit that.
Does adding context make things better or worse ?
I would be concerned that requiring somebody to remove a burqa but
letting somebody else keep a balaclava on would put this in a whole
different light.
On 08/06/2025 in message <10247ho$1nufa$19@dont-email.me> Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jun 2025 14:33:08 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 08/06/2025 in message <10245t9$1nufa$18@dont-email.me> Jethro_uk
wrote:
[quoted text muted]
That is a very profound observation, sadly true.
You OP did say:
"I see an MP is refusing to speak to constituents attending their
surgery if the constituent chooses to wear a burkha."
Which isn't what Badenoch actually said.
Oh I admit that.
Does adding context make things better or worse ?
I would be concerned that requiring somebody to remove a burqa but
letting somebody else keep a balaclava on would put this in a whole
different light.
On 08/06/2025 06:18 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 08/06/2025 in message <10247ho$1nufa$19@dont-email.me> Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jun 2025 14:33:08 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 08/06/2025 in message <10245t9$1nufa$18@dont-email.me> Jethro_uk >>>>wrote:
[quoted text muted]
That is a very profound observation, sadly true.
You OP did say:
"I see an MP is refusing to speak to constituents attending their >>>>surgery if the constituent chooses to wear a burkha."
Which isn't what Badenoch actually said.
Oh I admit that.
Does adding context make things better or worse ?
I would be concerned that requiring somebody to remove a burqa but
letting somebody else keep a balaclava on would put this in a whole >>different light.
Fair enough, but a balaclava doesn't hide the face, does it?
I've never had one, but lots of classmates at primary school did and they >were all easily recognisable.
On Sun, 08 Jun 2025 13:02:07 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-08, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
I see an MP is refusing to speak to constituents attending their
surgery if the constituent chooses to wear a burkha.
Would the right to see your MP be covered by the Equality Act ? If so,
would this action be considered to breach it, and if so, what remedy
might be available.
I am aware that in parliament, the only law that applies is parliament.
However this is outside, presumably in a community building ?
I can't find any news articles about this happening recently, but when a
Tory MP said the same in 2010, Liberty were of the opinion that this was
certainly against the Equality Act.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14791511/Kemi-Badenoch-refuses- speak-burka-clad-constituents-Tories-Islamic-veils.html
I see an MP is refusing to speak to constituents attending their surgery
if the constituent chooses to wear a burkha.
Would the right to see your MP be covered by the Equality Act ? If so,
would this action be considered to breach it, and if so, what remedy
might be available.
On 08/06/2025 in message <mam399Frt7rU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
On 08/06/2025 06:18 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 08/06/2025 in message <10247ho$1nufa$19@dont-email.me> Jethro_uk
wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jun 2025 14:33:08 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 08/06/2025 in message <10245t9$1nufa$18@dont-email.me> Jethro_uk
wrote:
[quoted text muted]
That is a very profound observation, sadly true.
You OP did say:
"I see an MP is refusing to speak to constituents attending their
surgery if the constituent chooses to wear a burkha."
Which isn't what Badenoch actually said.
Oh I admit that.
Does adding context make things better or worse ?
I would be concerned that requiring somebody to remove a burqa but
letting somebody else keep a balaclava on would put this in a whole
different light.
Fair enough, but a balaclava doesn't hide the face, does it?
I've never had one, but lots of classmates at primary school did and
they were all easily recognisable.
All the best TV crims wear them and they only leave an opening for the
mouth nowadays :-)
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
There's probably not many burqa-wearers in Essex.
I’m tempted to remark that you don’t seem to get about much.
There's probably not many burqa-wearers in Essex.
She wore a full veil of some sort - I'm not sure
if it was, technically a burqa - and I often ended up speaking to her
because she was usually one of the last ones out. And I really struggled to understand more than one word in three. It didn't help that she had a very strong Stoke-on-Trent accent, which, as a southerner, doesn't come easy to
me anyway.
All the best TV crims wear them and they only leave an opening for the mouth nowadays
:-)
On 08/06/2025 in message <mam399Frt7rU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
On 08/06/2025 06:18 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 08/06/2025 in message <10247ho$1nufa$19@dont-email.me> Jethro_uk wrote: >>>
On Sun, 08 Jun 2025 14:33:08 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 08/06/2025 in message <10245t9$1nufa$18@dont-email.me> Jethro_uk
wrote:
[quoted text muted]
That is a very profound observation, sadly true.
You OP did say:
"I see an MP is refusing to speak to constituents attending their
surgery if the constituent chooses to wear a burkha."
Which isn't what Badenoch actually said.
Oh I admit that.
Does adding context make things better or worse ?
I would be concerned that requiring somebody to remove a burqa but
letting somebody else keep a balaclava on would put this in a whole
different light.
Fair enough, but a balaclava doesn't hide the face, does it?
I've never had one, but lots of classmates at primary school did and they
were all easily recognisable.
All the best TV crims wear them and they only leave an opening for the
mouth nowadays :-)
All the best TV crims wear them and they only leave an opening for the >>mouth nowadays :-)
Are you sure that such things are balaclavas? The ones I remember would
have been no use for a bank robbery.
Here's an image of some of Scott's team in balaclavas:
<https://imgur.com/a/4O6zPrS>
On 08/06/2025 in message <mama3sFt0iaU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
All the best TV crims wear them and they only leave an opening for the
mouth nowadays :-)
Are you sure that such things are balaclavas? The ones I remember
would have been no use for a bank robbery.
Here's an image of some of Scott's team in balaclavas:
<https://imgur.com/a/4O6zPrS>
Here's the 2025 version on Amazon:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/fuinloth-Balaclava-Protector-Motorcycle-Tactical/dp/B086Z2WR6Y/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?sr=8-1-spons&sp_csd=d2lkZ2V0TmFtZT1zcF9hdGY&psc=1
Difficult to see if it has an opening for eyes!
On 08/06/2025 14:04, Fredxx wrote:
On 08/06/2025 13:43, Jethro_uk wrote:
I see an MP is refusing to speak to constituents attending their surgery >>> if the constituent chooses to wear a burkha.
Would the right to see your MP be covered by the Equality Act ? If so,
would this action be considered to breach it, and if so, what remedy
might be available.
I am aware that in parliament, the only law that applies is parliament.
However this is outside, presumably in a community building ?
Since I am told to remove my hoodie in certain areas, my helmet before
I can dispense fuel I don't have any reason why this shouldn't be seen
as anything other than reasonable.
If you were a Sikh would you be happy to remove your turban?
On 09/06/2025 01:00 PM, John wrote:
On 08/06/2025 14:04, Fredxx wrote:
On 08/06/2025 13:43, Jethro_uk wrote:
I see an MP is refusing to speak to constituents attending their
surgery
if the constituent chooses to wear a burkha.
Would the right to see your MP be covered by the Equality Act ? If so, >>>> would this action be considered to breach it, and if so, what remedy
might be available.
I am aware that in parliament, the only law that applies is parliament. >>>> However this is outside, presumably in a community building ?
Since I am told to remove my hoodie in certain areas, my helmet before
I can dispense fuel I don't have any reason why this shouldn't be seen
as anything other than reasonable.
If you were a Sikh would you be happy to remove your turban?
Is this one of the new ones that cover the face?
Not seen those yet.
On 09/06/2025 08:44 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 08/06/2025 in message <mama3sFt0iaU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent
wrote:
All the best TV crims wear them and they only leave an opening for the >>>> mouth nowadays :-)
Are you sure that such things are balaclavas? The ones I remember
would have been no use for a bank robbery.
Here's an image of some of Scott's team in balaclavas:
<https://imgur.com/a/4O6zPrS>
Here's the 2025 version on Amazon:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/fuinloth-Balaclava-Protector-Motorcycle-
Tactical/dp/B086Z2WR6Y/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?sr=8-1-
spons&sp_csd=d2lkZ2V0TmFtZT1zcF9hdGY&psc=1
Difficult to see if it has an opening for eyes!
The Captain Scott version is the balaclava. The whole of the face is
exposed.
What you referenced above, despite the advertiser's claims, is a face
mask. Presumably, they think it sounds better to describe the article as something it isn't.
On 09/06/2025 14:07, JNugent wrote:
On 09/06/2025 01:00 PM, John wrote:
On 08/06/2025 14:04, Fredxx wrote:
On 08/06/2025 13:43, Jethro_uk wrote:
I see an MP is refusing to speak to constituents attending their
surgery
if the constituent chooses to wear a burkha.
Would the right to see your MP be covered by the Equality Act ? If so, >>>>> would this action be considered to breach it, and if so, what remedy >>>>> might be available.
I am aware that in parliament, the only law that applies is
parliament.
However this is outside, presumably in a community building ?
Since I am told to remove my hoodie in certain areas, my helmet before >>>> I can dispense fuel I don't have any reason why this shouldn't be seen >>>> as anything other than reasonable.
If you were a Sikh would you be happy to remove your turban?
Is this one of the new ones that cover the face?
Not seen those yet.
I was thinking more of the religious aspect, so unless the burkha was
banned in this country then women who wear it are perfectly free to do
so. It is against their religiosity to remove it, except in rare circumstances (eg court id)
I agree with Todal, this is just gesture politics to a certain demographic.
On 09/06/2025 11:42, JNugent wrote:
On 09/06/2025 08:44 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 08/06/2025 in message <mama3sFt0iaU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent
wrote:
All the best TV crims wear them and they only leave an opening for the >>>>> mouth nowadays :-)
Are you sure that such things are balaclavas? The ones I remember
would have been no use for a bank robbery.
Here's an image of some of Scott's team in balaclavas:
<https://imgur.com/a/4O6zPrS>
Here's the 2025 version on Amazon:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/fuinloth-Balaclava-Protector-Motorcycle-
Tactical/dp/B086Z2WR6Y/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?sr=8-1-
spons&sp_csd=d2lkZ2V0TmFtZT1zcF9hdGY&psc=1
Difficult to see if it has an opening for eyes!
The Captain Scott version is the balaclava. The whole of the face is
exposed.
What you referenced above, despite the advertiser's claims, is a face
mask. Presumably, they think it sounds better to describe the article
as something it isn't.
That's not a "face mask" (which is a tautology in any case). There
really aught to be a different name for the IRA/common crim fashion
item, which only has openings for the eyes and mouth.
On 09/06/2025 03:09 PM, John wrote:
On 09/06/2025 14:07, JNugent wrote:
On 09/06/2025 01:00 PM, John wrote:
On 08/06/2025 14:04, Fredxx wrote:
On 08/06/2025 13:43, Jethro_uk wrote:
I see an MP is refusing to speak to constituents attending their
surgery
if the constituent chooses to wear a burkha.
Would the right to see your MP be covered by the Equality Act ? If >>>>>> so,
would this action be considered to breach it, and if so, what remedy >>>>>> might be available.
I am aware that in parliament, the only law that applies is
parliament.
However this is outside, presumably in a community building ?
Since I am told to remove my hoodie in certain areas, my helmet before >>>>> I can dispense fuel I don't have any reason why this shouldn't be seen >>>>> as anything other than reasonable.
If you were a Sikh would you be happy to remove your turban?
Is this one of the new ones that cover the face?
Not seen those yet.
I was thinking more of the religious aspect, so unless the burkha was
banned in this country then women who wear it are perfectly free to do
so. It is against their religiosity to remove it, except in rare
circumstances (eg court id)
I agree with Todal, this is just gesture politics to a certain
demographic.
You can't think of ANY reasons at all why others might not agree with that?
What about the social norms of western society?
Or don't they matter?
On 09/06/2025 14:07, JNugent wrote:
On 09/06/2025 01:00 PM, John wrote:
On 08/06/2025 14:04, Fredxx wrote:
On 08/06/2025 13:43, Jethro_uk wrote:
I see an MP is refusing to speak to constituents attending their
surgery
if the constituent chooses to wear a burkha.
Would the right to see your MP be covered by the Equality Act ? If so, >>>>> would this action be considered to breach it, and if so, what remedy >>>>> might be available.
I am aware that in parliament, the only law that applies is parliament. >>>>> However this is outside, presumably in a community building ?
Since I am told to remove my hoodie in certain areas, my helmet before >>>> I can dispense fuel I don't have any reason why this shouldn't be seen >>>> as anything other than reasonable.
If you were a Sikh would you be happy to remove your turban?
Is this one of the new ones that cover the face?
Not seen those yet.
You miss the point. The turban, like the burqua, is a religious symbol,
a part of religious identity.
Why should an MP require a constituent to remove the face covering? Is
it really to prevent burglaries or assaults? Or is it because the MP
believes in their ability to read faces, to communicate better with
someone whose facial expressions can be seen?
I'd say if an MP was not accustomed to talking with women who wear a
burqua, then they should get some practice in. Rather than show
disrespect to an important demographic.
In the case of Kemi Bad-enough it seems like a gesture to impress the anti-immigrant, anti-refugee, pro-Reform voters.
On 09/06/2025 11:42, JNugent wrote:
On 09/06/2025 08:44 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 08/06/2025 in message <mama3sFt0iaU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent
wrote:
All the best TV crims wear them and they only leave an opening for the >>>>> mouth nowadays :-)
Are you sure that such things are balaclavas? The ones I remember
would have been no use for a bank robbery.
Here's an image of some of Scott's team in balaclavas:
<https://imgur.com/a/4O6zPrS>
Here's the 2025 version on Amazon:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/fuinloth-Balaclava-Protector-Motorcycle-
Tactical/dp/B086Z2WR6Y/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?sr=8-1-
spons&sp_csd=d2lkZ2V0TmFtZT1zcF9hdGY&psc=1
Difficult to see if it has an opening for eyes!
The Captain Scott version is the balaclava. The whole of the face is
exposed.
What you referenced above, despite the advertiser's claims, is a face
mask. Presumably, they think it sounds better to describe the article as
something it isn't.
That's not a "face mask" (which is a tautology in any case). There
really aught to be a different name for the IRA/common crim fashion
item, which only has openings for the eyes and mouth.
On 9 Jun 2025 at 14:18:46 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 09/06/2025 14:07, JNugent wrote:
On 09/06/2025 01:00 PM, John wrote:
On 08/06/2025 14:04, Fredxx wrote:
On 08/06/2025 13:43, Jethro_uk wrote:
I see an MP is refusing to speak to constituents attending their
surgery
if the constituent chooses to wear a burkha.
Would the right to see your MP be covered by the Equality Act ? If so, >>>>>> would this action be considered to breach it, and if so, what remedy >>>>>> might be available.
I am aware that in parliament, the only law that applies is parliament. >>>>>> However this is outside, presumably in a community building ?
Since I am told to remove my hoodie in certain areas, my helmet before >>>>> I can dispense fuel I don't have any reason why this shouldn't be seen >>>>> as anything other than reasonable.
If you were a Sikh would you be happy to remove your turban?
Is this one of the new ones that cover the face?
Not seen those yet.
You miss the point. The turban, like the burqua, is a religious symbol,
a part of religious identity.
Why should an MP require a constituent to remove the face covering? Is
it really to prevent burglaries or assaults? Or is it because the MP
believes in their ability to read faces, to communicate better with
someone whose facial expressions can be seen?
I'd say if an MP was not accustomed to talking with women who wear a
burqua, then they should get some practice in. Rather than show
disrespect to an important demographic.
In the case of Kemi Bad-enough it seems like a gesture to impress the
anti-immigrant, anti-refugee, pro-Reform voters.
That seems to be a long way round to right "racists".
That's not a "face mask" (which is a tautology in any case). There really aught to be a different name for the IRA/common crim fashion item, which
only has openings for the eyes and mouth.
On 09/06/2025 14:07, JNugent wrote:
On 09/06/2025 01:00 PM, John wrote:
If you were a Sikh would you be happy to remove your turban?
Is this one of the new ones that cover the face?
Not seen those yet.
You miss the point. The turban, like the burqua, is a religious symbol,
a part of religious identity.
Why should an MP require a constituent to remove the face covering? Is
it really to prevent burglaries or assaults? Or is it because the MP
believes in their ability to read faces, to communicate better with
someone whose facial expressions can be seen?
I'd say if an MP was not accustomed to talking with women who wear a
burqua, then they should get some practice in. Rather than show
disrespect to an important demographic.
In the case of Kemi Bad-enough it seems like a gesture to impress the >anti-immigrant, anti-refugee, pro-Reform voters.
On 09/06/2025 02:36 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 09/06/2025 11:42, JNugent wrote:
The Captain Scott version is the balaclava. The whole of the face is
exposed.
What you referenced above, despite the advertiser's claims, is a face
mask. Presumably, they think it sounds better to describe the article
as something it isn't.
That's not a "face mask" (which is a tautology in any case). There
really aught to be a different name for the IRA/common crim fashion
item, which only has openings for the eyes and mouth.
Yes: face mask, unless and until. ;-)
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 14:18:46 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 09/06/2025 14:07, JNugent wrote:
On 09/06/2025 01:00 PM, John wrote:
If you were a Sikh would you be happy to remove your turban?
Is this one of the new ones that cover the face?
Not seen those yet.
You miss the point. The turban, like the burqua, is a religious symbol,
a part of religious identity.
So is a nun's habit and a Jewish kippah.
This is one of those situations where it would be useful to be able to do a Venn diagram. But I can't be bothered to try to come up wuth an ascii art approximation, so you'll just have to imagine it. Basically, in the circle
on the left, labelled "Things which cover the face", you've got
Motorcycle helmet
medical mask
Balaclava
and in the circle on the right, labelled "Religious headwear", we have
Turban
Habit
Kippah
and in the intersecting part of the two circles, we have
Burqa
This gives a potential quandary if we have rules which apply differently to both circles. If the rule for the circle on the left is "You must remove
when requested to do so", but the rule for the circle on the right is "You
do not have to remove unless you are willing to do so", then what do we do for an item which falls into both circles?
Now, for avoidance of doubt, I'm not saying that a Burqa, or similar, must always be treated as subject to the rules of circle one. What I am saying is that it cannot always, automatically be treated as subject only to the rules of circle two. That is, the question of which rule is paramount will be dependent on circumstances. But that then simply leads us on to the next question, which is: what circumstances justify making rule 1 the most important?
Why should an MP require a constituent to remove the face covering? Is
it really to prevent burglaries or assaults? Or is it because the MP
believes in their ability to read faces, to communicate better with
someone whose facial expressions can be seen?
I'd say if an MP was not accustomed to talking with women who wear a
burqua, then they should get some practice in. Rather than show
disrespect to an important demographic.
Jack Straw, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, did it because he was
hard of hearing and found that he was simply unable to communicate effectively face to face with someone whose face was hidden, as he relied considerably on the additional cues imparted by the mouth and expression.
In the case of Kemi Bad-enough it seems like a gesture to impress the
anti-immigrant, anti-refugee, pro-Reform voters.
I have no idea who you are referring to here, as I'm not aware of anyone
with that name and I'm sure you wouldn't be so puerile as to resort to primary school name-calling as a substitute for a reasoned argument.
On 09/06/2025 17:35, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 14:18:46 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>> On 09/06/2025 14:07, JNugent wrote:
On 09/06/2025 01:00 PM, John wrote:
If you were a Sikh would you be happy to remove your turban?
Is this one of the new ones that cover the face?
Not seen those yet.
You miss the point. The turban, like the burqua, is a religious symbol,
a part of religious identity.
So is a nun's habit and a Jewish kippah.
This is one of those situations where it would be useful to be able to do a >> Venn diagram. But I can't be bothered to try to come up wuth an ascii art
approximation, so you'll just have to imagine it. Basically, in the circle >> on the left, labelled "Things which cover the face", you've got
Motorcycle helmet
medical mask
Balaclava
and in the circle on the right, labelled "Religious headwear", we have
Turban
Habit
Kippah
and in the intersecting part of the two circles, we have
Burqa
This gives a potential quandary if we have rules which apply differently to >> both circles. If the rule for the circle on the left is "You must remove
when requested to do so", but the rule for the circle on the right is "You >> do not have to remove unless you are willing to do so", then what do we do >> for an item which falls into both circles?
Now, for avoidance of doubt, I'm not saying that a Burqa, or similar, must >> always be treated as subject to the rules of circle one. What I am saying is >> that it cannot always, automatically be treated as subject only to the rules >> of circle two. That is, the question of which rule is paramount will be
dependent on circumstances. But that then simply leads us on to the next
question, which is: what circumstances justify making rule 1 the most
important?
Why should an MP require a constituent to remove the face covering? Is
it really to prevent burglaries or assaults? Or is it because the MP
believes in their ability to read faces, to communicate better with
someone whose facial expressions can be seen?
I'd say if an MP was not accustomed to talking with women who wear a
burqua, then they should get some practice in. Rather than show
disrespect to an important demographic.
Jack Straw, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, did it because he was
hard of hearing and found that he was simply unable to communicate
effectively face to face with someone whose face was hidden, as he relied
considerably on the additional cues imparted by the mouth and expression.
In the case of Kemi Bad-enough it seems like a gesture to impress the
anti-immigrant, anti-refugee, pro-Reform voters.
I have no idea who you are referring to here, as I'm not aware of anyone
with that name and I'm sure you wouldn't be so puerile as to resort to
primary school name-calling as a substitute for a reasoned argument.
I'm sure you do recognise the name of the leader of the Tory Party but
you want to get on your high horse and object to any mutilation of the woman's name. Should you be admired for that? Weren't you able to deal
with the main point, the fact that she is competing with Farage for the
most racist voters?
On 09/06/2025 15:48, JNugent wrote:
On 09/06/2025 02:36 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 09/06/2025 11:42, JNugent wrote:
The Captain Scott version is the balaclava. The whole of the face is
exposed.
What you referenced above, despite the advertiser's claims, is a face
mask. Presumably, they think it sounds better to describe the article
as something it isn't.
That's not a "face mask" (which is a tautology in any case). There
really aught to be a different name for the IRA/common crim fashion
item, which only has openings for the eyes and mouth.
Yes: face mask, unless and until. ;-)
Like a "foot pedal".
On 09/06/2025 15:49, JNugent wrote:
On 09/06/2025 03:09 PM, John wrote:
On 09/06/2025 14:07, JNugent wrote:
On 09/06/2025 01:00 PM, John wrote:
On 08/06/2025 14:04, Fredxx wrote:
On 08/06/2025 13:43, Jethro_uk wrote:
I see an MP is refusing to speak to constituents attending their >>>>>>> surgery
if the constituent chooses to wear a burkha.
Would the right to see your MP be covered by the Equality Act ? If >>>>>>> so,
would this action be considered to breach it, and if so, what remedy >>>>>>> might be available.
I am aware that in parliament, the only law that applies is
parliament.
However this is outside, presumably in a community building ?
Since I am told to remove my hoodie in certain areas, my helmet before >>>>>> I can dispense fuel I don't have any reason why this shouldn't be seen >>>>>> as anything other than reasonable.
If you were a Sikh would you be happy to remove your turban?
Is this one of the new ones that cover the face?
Not seen those yet.
I was thinking more of the religious aspect, so unless the burkha was
banned in this country then women who wear it are perfectly free to do
so. It is against their religiosity to remove it, except in rare
circumstances (eg court id)
I agree with Todal, this is just gesture politics to a certain
demographic.
You can't think of ANY reasons at all why others might not agree with that?
None of us are Bad-Enough.
What about the social norms of western society?
You presumably mean, only girls should have long hair, men should have
neatly trimmed hairstyles. No conspicuous tattoos because your gran
always said they were for thugs and layabouts, shoes should be polished
the way your grandad taught you, women should dress modestly in public
and not show a cleavage unless they were at a party. Always wear a tie
if you're going to a job interview and look your interviewer in the eye
and shake hands firmly.
Or don't they matter?
They don't matter a bit. You need to get out more. Mind your manners
towards women, even Muslim women.
On 2025-06-09, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 09/06/2025 17:35, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 14:18:46 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
In the case of Kemi Bad-enough it seems like a gesture to impress the
anti-immigrant, anti-refugee, pro-Reform voters.
I have no idea who you are referring to here, as I'm not aware of anyone >>> with that name and I'm sure you wouldn't be so puerile as to resort to
primary school name-calling as a substitute for a reasoned argument.
I'm sure you do recognise the name of the leader of the Tory Party but
you want to get on your high horse and object to any mutilation of the
woman's name. Should you be admired for that? Weren't you able to deal
with the main point, the fact that she is competing with Farage for the
most racist voters?
Mark is unable to publicly criticise Kemi for obvious reasons.
Although I do think it would be fun if he'd stand for MP and get
himself selected as the new leader. Either he'd suddenly become
an idiot, which would prove that they do require their leaders
to get a lobotomy, or he'd be much better than any leader they've
had this century, which would be good for the country.
On 2025-06-09, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I'm sure you do recognise the name of the leader of the Tory Party but
you want to get on your high horse and object to any mutilation of the
woman's name. Should you be admired for that? Weren't you able to deal
with the main point, the fact that she is competing with Farage for the
most racist voters?
Mark is unable to publicly criticise Kemi for obvious reasons.
Although I do think it would be fun if he'd stand for MP and get
himself selected as the new leader. Either he'd suddenly become
an idiot, which would prove that they do require their leaders
to get a lobotomy, or he'd be much better than any leader they've
had this century, which would be good for the country.
On 08/06/2025 14:04, Fredxx wrote:
On 08/06/2025 13:43, Jethro_uk wrote:
I see an MP is refusing to speak to constituents attending their
surgery if the constituent chooses to wear a burkha.
Would the right to see your MP be covered by the Equality Act ? If
so, would this action be considered to breach it, and if so, what
remedy might be available.
I am aware that in parliament, the only law that applies is
parliament. However this is outside, presumably in a community
building ?
Since I am told to remove my hoodie in certain areas, my helmet
before I can dispense fuel I don't have any reason why this
shouldn't be seen as anything other than reasonable.
If you were a Sikh would you be happy to remove your turban?
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 21:59:11 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-09, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I'm sure you do recognise the name of the leader of the Tory Party but
you want to get on your high horse and object to any mutilation of the
woman's name. Should you be admired for that? Weren't you able to deal
with the main point, the fact that she is competing with Farage for the
most racist voters?
Mark is unable to publicly criticise Kemi for obvious reasons.
I'm perfectly capable of criticising Conservative leaders if I want to. I have, in the past, been quite vocally critical of Theresa May (although, in retrospect, I think some of my criticisms were unjustified), Boris Johnson and Liz Truss. But I do object to the use of simple name-calling as a debating tool. In some cases, where a nickname is both amusing and apposite, it may be justified in a throwaway remark or spur of the moment retort. But the routine use of pejorative nicknames in otherwise serious discussion is neither illuminating nor persuasive. If you can't criticise someone without changing their name, then you probably don't have enough evidence with which to usefully criticise them at all.
(And yes, I equally object to the casual repetitive use of "two-tier Keir", "Sadiq Khant" and "Rachel from accounts". They're all amusing the first
time, and when used sparingly, but they don't stand up to sustained use).
Although I do think it would be fun if he'd stand for MP and get
himself selected as the new leader. Either he'd suddenly become
an idiot, which would prove that they do require their leaders
to get a lobotomy, or he'd be much better than any leader they've
had this century, which would be good for the country.
I have absolutely no intention whatsoever of climbing that far up the political greasy pole.
On 13:00 9 Jun 2025, John said:
On 08/06/2025 14:04, Fredxx wrote:
On 08/06/2025 13:43, Jethro_uk wrote:
I see an MP is refusing to speak to constituents attending their
surgery if the constituent chooses to wear a burkha.
Would the right to see your MP be covered by the Equality Act ? If
so, would this action be considered to breach it, and if so, what
remedy might be available.
I am aware that in parliament, the only law that applies is
parliament. However this is outside, presumably in a community
building ?
Since I am told to remove my hoodie in certain areas, my helmet
before I can dispense fuel I don't have any reason why this
shouldn't be seen as anything other than reasonable.
If you were a Sikh would you be happy to remove your turban?
Would you be in favour of carrying religious swords (such as the
kirpan) in public?
(And yes, I equally object to the casual repetitive use of "two-tier
Keir",
"Sadiq Khant" and "Rachel from accounts". They're all amusing the first >>time, and when used sparingly, but they don't stand up to sustained use).
There are better variants of Keir Starmer. His political opponents call
him Keith Starmer, or just Keith, as a way of saying that he isn't really
a socialist in the same mould as Keir Hardie. He has also been dubbed Kid >Starver, which works very well. You object, perhaps? Objection overruled.
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 14:18:46 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Why should an MP require a constituent to remove the face covering? Is
it really to prevent burglaries or assaults? Or is it because the MP >>believes in their ability to read faces, to communicate better with
someone whose facial expressions can be seen?
I'd say if an MP was not accustomed to talking with women who wear a >>burqua, then they should get some practice in. Rather than show
disrespect to an important demographic.
Jack Straw, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, did it because he was
hard of hearing and found that he was simply unable to communicate effectively face to face with someone whose face was hidden, as he relied considerably on the additional cues imparted by the mouth and expression.
On 10/06/2025 12:41, Pamela wrote:
On 13:00 9 Jun 2025, John said:
On 08/06/2025 14:04, Fredxx wrote:
On 08/06/2025 13:43, Jethro_uk wrote:
I see an MP is refusing to speak to constituents attending their
surgery if the constituent chooses to wear a burkha.
Would the right to see your MP be covered by the Equality Act ? If
so, would this action be considered to breach it, and if so, what
remedy might be available.
I am aware that in parliament, the only law that applies is
parliament. However this is outside, presumably in a community
building ?
Since I am told to remove my hoodie in certain areas, my helmet
before I can dispense fuel I don't have any reason why this
shouldn't be seen as anything other than reasonable.
If you were a Sikh would you be happy to remove your turban?
Would you be in favour of carrying religious swords (such as the
kirpan) in public?
For my part I have no idea whether there is any exemption in law for
Sikhs carrying offensive weapons, nor do I find it interesting.
What is more interesting is that the law requiring motorcycle riders to
wear helmets has an exemption for Sikhs wearing turbans. It shows
respect to their religion and their community to have such an exemption. Maybe there are folk who say "so unfair, why can't I wear a kitchen
towel wrapped around my head instead of an uncomfortable helmet?"
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 21:59:11 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-09, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I'm sure you do recognise the name of the leader of the Tory Party but
you want to get on your high horse and object to any mutilation of the
woman's name. Should you be admired for that? Weren't you able to deal
with the main point, the fact that she is competing with Farage for the
most racist voters?
Mark is unable to publicly criticise Kemi for obvious reasons.
I'm perfectly capable of criticising Conservative leaders if I want to. I have, in the past, been quite vocally critical of Theresa May (although, in retrospect, I think some of my criticisms were unjustified), Boris Johnson and Liz Truss.
But I do object to the use of simple name-calling as a debating tool.
In some cases, where a nickname is both amusing and apposite, it may
be justified in a throwaway remark or spur of the moment retort. But
the routine use of pejorative nicknames in otherwise serious
discussion is neither illuminating nor persuasive. If you can't
criticise someone without changing their name, then you probably don't
have enough evidence with which to usefully criticise them at all.
(And yes, I equally object to the casual repetitive use of "two-tier
Keir", "Sadiq Khant" and "Rachel from accounts". They're all amusing
the first time, and when used sparingly, but they don't stand up to
sustained use).
Although I do think it would be fun if he'd stand for MP and get
himself selected as the new leader. Either he'd suddenly become
an idiot, which would prove that they do require their leaders
to get a lobotomy, or he'd be much better than any leader they've
had this century, which would be good for the country.
I have absolutely no intention whatsoever of climbing that far up the political greasy pole.
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 21:59:11 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I'm perfectly capable of criticising Conservative leaders if I want to.
I have, in the past, been quite vocally critical of Theresa May
(although, in retrospect, I think some of my criticisms were
unjustified),
On 2025-06-09, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 14:18:46 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Why should an MP require a constituent to remove the face covering? Is
it really to prevent burglaries or assaults? Or is it because the MP >>>believes in their ability to read faces, to communicate better with >>>someone whose facial expressions can be seen?
I'd say if an MP was not accustomed to talking with women who wear a >>>burqua, then they should get some practice in. Rather than show >>>disrespect to an important demographic.
Jack Straw, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, did it because he was
hard of hearing and found that he was simply unable to communicate
effectively face to face with someone whose face was hidden, as he relied
considerably on the additional cues imparted by the mouth and expression.
That sounds quite reasonable, but Badenoch is vice-signalling.
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 10:50:05 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2025-06-09, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 14:18:46 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>That sounds quite reasonable, but Badenoch is vice-signalling.
Why should an MP require a constituent to remove the face covering? Is >>>> it really to prevent burglaries or assaults? Or is it because the MP
believes in their ability to read faces, to communicate better with
someone whose facial expressions can be seen?
I'd say if an MP was not accustomed to talking with women who wear a
burqua, then they should get some practice in. Rather than show
disrespect to an important demographic.
Jack Straw, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, did it because he was >>> hard of hearing and found that he was simply unable to communicate
effectively face to face with someone whose face was hidden, as he relied >>> considerably on the additional cues imparted by the mouth and expression. >>
I think it's reasonable, no matter who you are or what the circumstances
are, to expect someone to be willing to remove a face covering if they want to have a face-to-face conversation with you. Whether or not you actually
ask them to will itself depend on circumstances. And there may be circumstances where someone has a justifiable reason to decline, although they may then need to accept that their conversation will be limited. But I don't think anyone ever needs to justify asking, beyond a simple assertion that doing so will facilitate better communication.
Mark
On 2025-06-10, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 21:59:11 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-09, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I'm sure you do recognise the name of the leader of the Tory Party but >>>> you want to get on your high horse and object to any mutilation of the >>>> woman's name. Should you be admired for that? Weren't you able to deal >>>> with the main point, the fact that she is competing with Farage for the >>>> most racist voters?
Mark is unable to publicly criticise Kemi for obvious reasons.
I'm perfectly capable of criticising Conservative leaders if I want to. I
have, in the past, been quite vocally critical of Theresa May (although, in >> retrospect, I think some of my criticisms were unjustified), Boris Johnson >> and Liz Truss.
While they were leader?
(And yes, I equally object to the casual repetitive use of "two-tier
Keir", "Sadiq Khant" and "Rachel from accounts". They're all amusing
the first time, and when used sparingly, but they don't stand up to
sustained use).
I think it depends a lot on whether there's any truth in them. So
"Two-Tier Kier" is irritating because it's a lie. "Sir Kid Starver"
is based on truth so is fair enough. Emphasising the "Bad" in
"Badenoch" also seems fair enough since she is, er, bad (in both
the senses of "evil" and "incompetent").
Although I do think it would be fun if he'd stand for MP and get
himself selected as the new leader. Either he'd suddenly become
an idiot, which would prove that they do require their leaders
to get a lobotomy, or he'd be much better than any leader they've
had this century, which would be good for the country.
I have absolutely no intention whatsoever of climbing that far up the
political greasy pole.
"No plans at the present time" eh? Not quite the full Sherman.
Say no more.
On 11 Jun 2025 at 18:38:37 BST, "Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 10:50:05 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote: >>
On 2025-06-09, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 14:18:46 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>That sounds quite reasonable, but Badenoch is vice-signalling.
Why should an MP require a constituent to remove the face covering? Is >>>>> it really to prevent burglaries or assaults? Or is it because the MP >>>>> believes in their ability to read faces, to communicate better with
someone whose facial expressions can be seen?
I'd say if an MP was not accustomed to talking with women who wear a >>>>> burqua, then they should get some practice in. Rather than show
disrespect to an important demographic.
Jack Straw, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, did it because he was >>>> hard of hearing and found that he was simply unable to communicate
effectively face to face with someone whose face was hidden, as he relied >>>> considerably on the additional cues imparted by the mouth and expression. >>>
I think it's reasonable, no matter who you are or what the circumstances
are, to expect someone to be willing to remove a face covering if they want >> to have a face-to-face conversation with you. Whether or not you actually
ask them to will itself depend on circumstances. And there may be
circumstances where someone has a justifiable reason to decline, although
they may then need to accept that their conversation will be limited. But I >> don't think anyone ever needs to justify asking, beyond a simple assertion >> that doing so will facilitate better communication.
Mark
Even that is very much a cultural idea rather than a universal human concept.
In many cultures it is not considered polite to gaze at the face of the person you are talking to. I've never been very much at home with it myself, for that matter.
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 10:50:05 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2025-06-09, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 14:18:46 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>>Why should an MP require a constituent to remove the face covering? Is >>>>it really to prevent burglaries or assaults? Or is it because the MP >>>>believes in their ability to read faces, to communicate better with >>>>someone whose facial expressions can be seen?That sounds quite reasonable, but Badenoch is vice-signalling.
I'd say if an MP was not accustomed to talking with women who wear a >>>>burqua, then they should get some practice in. Rather than show >>>>disrespect to an important demographic.
Jack Straw, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, did it because he was >>> hard of hearing and found that he was simply unable to communicate
effectively face to face with someone whose face was hidden, as he relied >>> considerably on the additional cues imparted by the mouth and expression. >>
I think it's reasonable, no matter who you are or what the circumstances
are, to expect someone to be willing to remove a face covering if they want to have a face-to-face conversation with you. Whether or not you actually
ask them to will itself depend on circumstances. And there may be circumstances where someone has a justifiable reason to decline, although they may then need to accept that their conversation will be limited. But I don't think anyone ever needs to justify asking, beyond a simple assertion that doing so will facilitate better communication.
I don't think it's a valid argument to say "when in England, you must do
as the English do". That seems disrespectful and inconsiderate. And to announce, as a policy, that you intend to ask all Muslim women to remove their veils sounds like an aggressive and hostile gesture directed at a larger audience, not a kindly one. I would not vote for a politician who announced such a policy.
On 09/06/2025 15:49, JNugent wrote:
On 09/06/2025 03:09 PM, John wrote:
On 09/06/2025 14:07, JNugent wrote:
On 09/06/2025 01:00 PM, John wrote:
On 08/06/2025 14:04, Fredxx wrote:
On 08/06/2025 13:43, Jethro_uk wrote:
I see an MP is refusing to speak to constituents attending their >>>>>>> surgery
if the constituent chooses to wear a burkha.
Would the right to see your MP be covered by the Equality Act ?
If so,
would this action be considered to breach it, and if so, what remedy >>>>>>> might be available.
I am aware that in parliament, the only law that applies is
parliament.
However this is outside, presumably in a community building ?
Since I am told to remove my hoodie in certain areas, my helmet
before
I can dispense fuel I don't have any reason why this shouldn't be
seen
as anything other than reasonable.
If you were a Sikh would you be happy to remove your turban?
Is this one of the new ones that cover the face?
Not seen those yet.
I was thinking more of the religious aspect, so unless the burkha was
banned in this country then women who wear it are perfectly free to do
so. It is against their religiosity to remove it, except in rare
circumstances (eg court id)
I agree with Todal, this is just gesture politics to a certain
demographic.
You can't think of ANY reasons at all why others might not agree with
that?
What about the social norms of western society?
You don't have to agree with it, but it is their choice in line with
their culture/religiousity, is it harming you or anyone else in any way?
Or don't they matter?
In this country we are all free to dress in the way we want, and if
someone wants to wear a burqa, then they are perfectly at liberty to do so.
I disagree with people having excessive tattoo's, but accept in a free society that is their choice.
On 2025-06-11, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 10:50:05 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote: >>>On 2025-06-09, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 14:18:46 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>>>Why should an MP require a constituent to remove the face covering? Is >>>>>it really to prevent burglaries or assaults? Or is it because the MP >>>>>believes in their ability to read faces, to communicate better with >>>>>someone whose facial expressions can be seen?That sounds quite reasonable, but Badenoch is vice-signalling.
I'd say if an MP was not accustomed to talking with women who wear a >>>>>burqua, then they should get some practice in. Rather than show >>>>>disrespect to an important demographic.
Jack Straw, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, did it because he was >>>> hard of hearing and found that he was simply unable to communicate
effectively face to face with someone whose face was hidden, as he relied >>>> considerably on the additional cues imparted by the mouth and expression. >>>
I think it's reasonable, no matter who you are or what the circumstances
are, to expect someone to be willing to remove a face covering if they want >> to have a face-to-face conversation with you. Whether or not you actually
ask them to will itself depend on circumstances. And there may be
circumstances where someone has a justifiable reason to decline, although
they may then need to accept that their conversation will be limited. But I >> don't think anyone ever needs to justify asking, beyond a simple assertion >> that doing so will facilitate better communication.
On the other hand, if you have chosen to be an MP, and you are unable
to represent some of your constituents because you refuse even to speak
to them, you should probably resign.
In this country we are all free to dress in the way we want, and if
someone wants to wear a burqa, then they are perfectly at liberty to do
so.
I'm surprised no-one has invented a helmet that fits over a turban,
although I did find a "Tough Turban" with impact-resistant layers.
<https://toughturban.com/>
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 00:25:11 +0100, John wrote:
In this country we are all free to dress in the way we want, and if
someone wants to wear a burqa, then they are perfectly at liberty to do
so.
... with the acceptance that if somebody *chooses* not to deal with
someone whose face is covered, then that is also that.
But we are returning back to the beginning. As long as the person who
wants to see the face is not doing so to discriminate (i.e. they apply it
to all) then who is "right" ?
And there is only so far you can go. Law or no law, you will never
convince me to be 100% sure that what someone is saying behind a covering
is the truth. If that adversely impacts them (say in court ?) then bad
luck.
If my arm was twisted sufficiently I'd consider standing as an MP. But I don't think that's at all likely.
On 09/06/2025 22:59, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-09, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Mark is unable to publicly criticise Kemi for obvious reasons.
Although I do think it would be fun if he'd stand for MP and get
himself selected as the new leader. Either he'd suddenly become
an idiot, which would prove that they do require their leaders
to get a lobotomy, or he'd be much better than any leader they've
had this century, which would be good for the country.
That's a pretty high bar as there were some great leaders of old, but I certainly wouldn't rank Mark anywhere near the last 4 leaders, all of
whom have done a pretty bad job in different ways (imo of course)
I would never vote Conservative but I do wish Penny Mourdant was leader.
Much as I disagree with a lot of their policies I think she would have
have been an excellent choice, but unfortunately she lost her seat.
On 11/06/2025 20:33, The Todal wrote:
<snip>
I don't think it's a valid argument to say "when in England, you must
do as the English do". That seems disrespectful and inconsiderate. And
to announce, as a policy, that you intend to ask all Muslim women to
remove their veils sounds like an aggressive and hostile gesture
directed at a larger audience, not a kindly one. I would not vote for
a politician who announced such a policy.
If motorcyclists are forced to removed the helmets in order to get
served for fuel or cash in a bank, then I am happy for that to apply to
all head coverings. To do otherwise is religious discrimination and
willing to support such a policy.
Positive discrimination is another's negative discrimination.
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 10:52:45 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com>
wrote:
I'm surprised no-one has invented a helmet that fits over a turban, >>although I did find a "Tough Turban" with impact-resistant layers.
<https://toughturban.com/>
Part of the point of a turban, AIUI, is that it's a visible symbol of adherance to the tenets of Sikhism. So hiding it under a helmet would probably be missing the point.
You may recall that "indirect discrimination" is a thing. You can't hide behind flimsy excuses ("I don't hate Muslims, I wouldn't talk to a
Catholic in a capirote either!") to pretend you're not illegally discriminating.
On 2025-06-11, John <megane.06@gmail.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I said "this century" not "the last 100 years". So there's Hague, Smith, Howard, Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss, Sunak, Badenoch.
On 11/06/2025 23:18, Fredxx wrote:
On 11/06/2025 20:33, The Todal wrote:
<snip>
I don't think it's a valid argument to say "when in England, you must do as the
English do". That seems disrespectful and inconsiderate. And to announce, as a
policy, that you intend to ask all Muslim women to remove their veils sounds like an
aggressive and hostile gesture directed at a larger audience, not a kindly one. I
would not vote for a politician who announced such a policy.
If motorcyclists are forced to removed the helmets in order to get served for fuel or
cash in a bank, then I am happy for that to apply to all head coverings. To do
otherwise is religious discrimination and willing to support such a policy.
As a matter of interest, are motorcyclists required to remove their helmets in these
situations? I don't know any motorcyclists.
On 11/06/2025 18:49, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 11 Jun 2025 at 18:38:37 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 10:50:05 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2025-06-09, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 14:18:46 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:That sounds quite reasonable, but Badenoch is vice-signalling.
Why should an MP require a constituent to remove the face covering? Is >>>>>> it really to prevent burglaries or assaults? Or is it because the MP >>>>>> believes in their ability to read faces, to communicate better with >>>>>> someone whose facial expressions can be seen?
I'd say if an MP was not accustomed to talking with women who wear a >>>>>> burqua, then they should get some practice in. Rather than show
disrespect to an important demographic.
Jack Straw, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, did it because he was >>>>> hard of hearing and found that he was simply unable to communicate
effectively face to face with someone whose face was hidden, as he relied >>>>> considerably on the additional cues imparted by the mouth and expression. >>>>
I think it's reasonable, no matter who you are or what the circumstances >>> are, to expect someone to be willing to remove a face covering if they want >>> to have a face-to-face conversation with you. Whether or not you actually >>> ask them to will itself depend on circumstances. And there may be
circumstances where someone has a justifiable reason to decline, although >>> they may then need to accept that their conversation will be limited. But I >>> don't think anyone ever needs to justify asking, beyond a simple assertion >>> that doing so will facilitate better communication.
Mark
Even that is very much a cultural idea rather than a universal human concept.
In many cultures it is not considered polite to gaze at the face of the >> person you are talking to. I've never been very much at home with it myself,
for that matter.
I find I am very comfortable conversing with women who wear face coverings that
show only their eyes. It may be unfamiliar for many white British people, but if
you work with a person who wears a veil it's actually easy to get used to it.
There may be a valid argument that a teacher or teaching assistant in a school
ought to show their face to the children. Sometimes it's important to keep discipline or to show sympathy to a child who is unhappy, by means of facial expressions.
I don't think it's a valid argument to say "when in England, you must do as the
English do". That seems disrespectful and inconsiderate. And to announce, as a
policy, that you intend to ask all Muslim women to remove their veils sounds like an aggressive and hostile gesture directed at a larger audience, not a kindly one. I would not vote for a politician who announced such a policy.
On 11/06/2025 23:18, Fredxx wrote:
On 11/06/2025 20:33, The Todal wrote:
<snip>
I don't think it's a valid argument to say "when in England, you must
do as the English do". That seems disrespectful and inconsiderate.
And to announce, as a policy, that you intend to ask all Muslim women
to remove their veils sounds like an aggressive and hostile gesture
directed at a larger audience, not a kindly one. I would not vote for
a politician who announced such a policy.
If motorcyclists are forced to removed the helmets in order to get
served for fuel or cash in a bank, then I am happy for that to apply
to all head coverings. To do otherwise is religious discrimination and
willing to support such a policy.
As a matter of interest, are motorcyclists required to remove their
helmets in these situations? I don't know any motorcyclists.
On 11/06/2025 18:32, Mark Goodge wrote:
If my arm was twisted sufficiently I'd consider standing as an MP. But I
don't think that's at all likely.
Our former MP turned up at communal events wearing a stab-proof vest.
That would make me think twice about standing as a candidate.
I don't know if there's standard issue PPE for MPs?
It could be said that *not* doing in England as the English do is disrespectful of our culture. We do "talk" with our facial expressions.
And, you know what? it is good to see a smile.
On 11/06/2025 20:33, The Todal wrote:
On 11/06/2025 18:49, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 11 Jun 2025 at 18:38:37 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 10:50:05 +0100, Adam Funk
<a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2025-06-09, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 14:18:46 +0100, The Todal
<the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Why should an MP require a constituent to remove the face
covering? Is
it really to prevent burglaries or assaults? Or is it because the MP >>>>>>> believes in their ability to read faces, to communicate better with >>>>>>> someone whose facial expressions can be seen?
I'd say if an MP was not accustomed to talking with women who wear a >>>>>>> burqua, then they should get some practice in. Rather than show
disrespect to an important demographic.
Jack Straw, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, did it because
he was
hard of hearing and found that he was simply unable to communicate >>>>>> effectively face to face with someone whose face was hidden, as he >>>>>> relied
considerably on the additional cues imparted by the mouth and
expression.
That sounds quite reasonable, but Badenoch is vice-signalling.
I think it's reasonable, no matter who you are or what the
circumstances
are, to expect someone to be willing to remove a face covering if
they want
to have a face-to-face conversation with you. Whether or not you
actually
ask them to will itself depend on circumstances. And there may be
circumstances where someone has a justifiable reason to decline,
although
they may then need to accept that their conversation will be
limited. But I
don't think anyone ever needs to justify asking, beyond a simple
assertion
that doing so will facilitate better communication.
Mark
Even that is very much a cultural idea rather than a universal human
concept.
In many cultures it is not considered polite to gaze at the face of
the
person you are talking to. I've never been very much at home with it
myself,
for that matter.
I find I am very comfortable conversing with women who wear face
coverings that show only their eyes. It may be unfamiliar for many
white British people, but if you work with a person who wears a veil
it's actually easy to get used to it.
Unless, as many people are, you are deaf.
I am.
And, oddly enough, because I am I also wonder how women who wear one of
those all encompassing headscraves get on when their hearing worsens,
given their ears are covered (and the covering can make hearing aids whine!). I suppose they have to lipread...
There may be a valid argument that a teacher or teaching assistant in
a school ought to show their face to the children. Sometimes it's
important to keep discipline or to show sympathy to a child who is
unhappy, by means of facial expressions.
I don't think it's a valid argument to say "when in England, you must
do as the English do". That seems disrespectful and inconsiderate. And
to announce, as a policy, that you intend to ask all Muslim women to
remove their veils sounds like an aggressive and hostile gesture
directed at a larger audience, not a kindly one. I would not vote for
a politician who announced such a policy.
It could be said that *not* doing in England as the English do is disrespectful of our culture. We do "talk" with our facial expressions.
And, you know what? it is good to see a smile.
And, oddly enough, because I am I also wonder how women who wear one
of those all encompassing headscraves get on when their hearing
worsens, given their ears are covered (and the covering can make
hearing aids whine!). I suppose they have to lipread...
Well, you make an excellent point. I think it would be fair to say to a burqa-clad woman that you need to be able to lip-read, if that is the
case. So long as it's the truth, of course.
On 11/06/2025 23:18, Fredxx wrote:
On 11/06/2025 20:33, The Todal wrote:
<snip>
I don't think it's a valid argument to say "when in England, you must
do as the English do". That seems disrespectful and inconsiderate.
And to announce, as a policy, that you intend to ask all Muslim women
to remove their veils sounds like an aggressive and hostile gesture
directed at a larger audience, not a kindly one. I would not vote for
a politician who announced such a policy.
If motorcyclists are forced to removed the helmets in order to get
served for fuel or cash in a bank, then I am happy for that to apply
to all head coverings. To do otherwise is religious discrimination and
willing to support such a policy.
As a matter of interest, are motorcyclists required to remove their
helmets in these situations? I don't know any motorcyclists.
Positive discrimination is another's negative discrimination.
The David Amess incident has changed things a lot. Senior MPs, such as cabinet members and leaders of opposition parties, have always had
additional protection. But Amess's murder illustrated that even backbench
MPs could be a target. It's still possible for an MP to lead a reasonably normal everyday life at home if they want to, but they're all taught how to mitigate the risk of an attack. Even lowly political mortals such as us councillors and council candidates at election time get a briefing from the police on personal security.
On 12/06/2025 20:14, The Todal wrote:
And, oddly enough, because I am I also wonder how women who wear one
of those all encompassing headscraves get on when their hearing
worsens, given their ears are covered (and the covering can make
hearing aids whine!). I suppose they have to lipread...
Well, you make an excellent point. I think it would be fair to say to
a burqa-clad woman that you need to be able to lip-read, if that is
the case. So long as it's the truth, of course.
A friend of ours had a handheld directional microphone that was linked
to his hearing aids. It suited him because he didn't get on with the microphones built into his hearing aids. That would work perfectly well
with a burqa, too.
On 12/06/2025 21:02, GB wrote:
On 12/06/2025 20:14, The Todal wrote:
And, oddly enough, because I am I also wonder how women who wear one
of those all encompassing headscraves get on when their hearing
worsens, given their ears are covered (and the covering can make
hearing aids whine!). I suppose they have to lipread...
Well, you make an excellent point. I think it would be fair to say to
a burqa-clad woman that you need to be able to lip-read, if that is
the case. So long as it's the truth, of course.
A friend of ours had a handheld directional microphone that was linked
to his hearing aids. It suited him because he didn't get on with the
microphones built into his hearing aids. That would work perfectly
well with a burqa, too.
My elderly relative had the same sort of device - very useful in
restaurants where there was a lot of ambient noise because he could
point the microphone at the person who was speaking to him across the
dining table. But he was dissatisfied with it. It didn't always solve
the problem. In his latter years he was very much preoccupied with
finding apps for his smartphone that would reproduce speech as written
text that he could then read. None of them seemed to work very well but
he was only willing to try the free apps.
On 12/06/2025 11:17, kat wrote:
On 11/06/2025 20:33, The Todal wrote:
On 11/06/2025 18:49, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 11 Jun 2025 at 18:38:37 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 10:50:05 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2025-06-09, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 14:18:46 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Why should an MP require a constituent to remove the face covering? Is >>>>>>>> it really to prevent burglaries or assaults? Or is it because the MP >>>>>>>> believes in their ability to read faces, to communicate better with >>>>>>>> someone whose facial expressions can be seen?
I'd say if an MP was not accustomed to talking with women who wear a >>>>>>>> burqua, then they should get some practice in. Rather than show >>>>>>>> disrespect to an important demographic.
Jack Straw, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, did it because he was
hard of hearing and found that he was simply unable to communicate >>>>>>> effectively face to face with someone whose face was hidden, as he relied
considerably on the additional cues imparted by the mouth and expression.
That sounds quite reasonable, but Badenoch is vice-signalling.
I think it's reasonable, no matter who you are or what the circumstances >>>>> are, to expect someone to be willing to remove a face covering if they want
to have a face-to-face conversation with you. Whether or not you actually >>>>> ask them to will itself depend on circumstances. And there may be
circumstances where someone has a justifiable reason to decline, although >>>>> they may then need to accept that their conversation will be limited. But I
don't think anyone ever needs to justify asking, beyond a simple assertion
that doing so will facilitate better communication.
Mark
Even that is very much a cultural idea rather than a universal human concept.
In many cultures it is not considered polite to gaze at the face of the >>>> person you are talking to. I've never been very much at home with it myself,
for that matter.
I find I am very comfortable conversing with women who wear face coverings >>> that show only their eyes. It may be unfamiliar for many white British
people, but if you work with a person who wears a veil it's actually easy to
get used to it.
Unless, as many people are, you are deaf.
I am.
And, oddly enough, because I am I also wonder how women who wear one of those
all encompassing headscraves get on when their hearing worsens, given their >> ears are covered (and the covering can make hearing aids whine!). I suppose
they have to lipread...
Well, you make an excellent point. I think it would be fair to say to a burqa-
clad woman that you need to be able to lip-read, if that is the case. So long as
it's the truth, of course.
There may be a valid argument that a teacher or teaching assistant in a
school ought to show their face to the children. Sometimes it's important to
keep discipline or to show sympathy to a child who is unhappy, by means of >>> facial expressions.
I don't think it's a valid argument to say "when in England, you must do as >>> the English do". That seems disrespectful and inconsiderate. And to announce,
as a policy, that you intend to ask all Muslim women to remove their veils >>> sounds like an aggressive and hostile gesture directed at a larger audience,
not a kindly one. I would not vote for a politician who announced such a policy.
It could be said that *not* doing in England as the English do is
disrespectful of our culture. We do "talk" with our facial expressions. And, >> you know what? it is good to see a smile.
Well, if the constituent lives in a damp mouldy council flat and wants to seek
help from his constituency MP, perhaps cracking a smile to please his MP is asking a bit much. I agree of course that male MPs, particularly of a certain age, very much enjoy meeting young women who smile at them. Such men like to believe that power is an aphrodisiac.
On 12/06/2025 20:14, The Todal wrote:
On 12/06/2025 11:17, kat wrote:
It could be said that *not* doing in England as the English do is
disrespectful of our culture. We do "talk" with our facial
expressions. And, you know what? it is good to see a smile.
Well, if the constituent lives in a damp mouldy council flat and wants
to seek help from his constituency MP, perhaps cracking a smile to
please his MP is asking a bit much. I agree of course that male MPs,
particularly of a certain age, very much enjoy meeting young women who
smile at them. Such men like to believe that power is an aphrodisiac.
Your view is very limited. I think all of us like to see a smile. Not just dirty old men.
As we will (mostly) all discover, it's not just hearing that
deteriorates as we get older. The brain does a lot of work to decipher
what we do hear, and it's hardly surprising news that our brains
deteriorate as we get older. So, we hear the sounds, but can't
necessarily interpret the words being spoken.
As we will (mostly) all discover, it's not just hearing that
deteriorates as we get older. The brain does a lot of work to decipher
what we do hear, and it's hardly surprising news that our brains
deteriorate as we get older. So, we hear the sounds, but can't
necessarily interpret the words being spoken.
I'm increasingly using subtitles whilst watching things on TV, despite
having quite good hearing still. That's particularly for foreign and
regional accents, which I had no trouble with when I was younger.
On 2025-06-13, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
As we will (mostly) all discover, it's not just hearing that
deteriorates as we get older. The brain does a lot of work to decipher
what we do hear, and it's hardly surprising news that our brains
deteriorate as we get older. So, we hear the sounds, but can't
necessarily interpret the words being spoken.
I'm increasingly using subtitles whilst watching things on TV, despite
having quite good hearing still. That's particularly for foreign and
regional accents, which I had no trouble with when I was younger.
Honestly I think the TV thing might be that TV programmes genuinely have
got harder to hear. (Take for example American programmes which switch rapidly between whispered conversations and EARTHSHAKING EXPLOSIONS...
while seemingly always being set in a coal cellar at midnight.)
Mind you, I also think policemen genuinely have got younger... either
that or I somehow failed to notice the 15-year-old constables when
I was younger.
On 13/06/2025 12:28, kat wrote:
On 12/06/2025 20:14, The Todal wrote:
On 12/06/2025 11:17, kat wrote:
It could be said that *not* doing in England as the English do is
disrespectful of our culture. We do "talk" with our facial expressions. And,
you know what? it is good to see a smile.
Well, if the constituent lives in a damp mouldy council flat and wants to >>> seek help from his constituency MP, perhaps cracking a smile to please his MP
is asking a bit much. I agree of course that male MPs, particularly of a >>> certain age, very much enjoy meeting young women who smile at them. Such men
like to believe that power is an aphrodisiac.
Your view is very limited. I think all of us like to see a smile. Not just
dirty old men.
No, I don't like to see a smile if it's someone in distress who is only smiling
to reassure me that she's so desperate that she'll accept whatever meagre help I
can offer.
(as it happens, I do regularly deal with ordinary people who are in distress)
On 13/06/2025 17:20, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-13, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
As we will (mostly) all discover, it's not just hearing that
deteriorates as we get older. The brain does a lot of work to decipher
what we do hear, and it's hardly surprising news that our brains
deteriorate as we get older. So, we hear the sounds, but can't
necessarily interpret the words being spoken.
I'm increasingly using subtitles whilst watching things on TV, despite
having quite good hearing still. That's particularly for foreign and
regional accents, which I had no trouble with when I was younger.
Honestly I think the TV thing might be that TV programmes genuinely have
got harder to hear. (Take for example American programmes which switch
rapidly between whispered conversations and EARTHSHAKING EXPLOSIONS...
while seemingly always being set in a coal cellar at midnight.)
Mind you, I also think policemen genuinely have got younger... either
that or I somehow failed to notice the 15-year-old constables when
I was younger.
I was passing a local school and noticed a couple of pupils coming out rather late. Then, I realised that they were teachers!
One issue with TVs is that the design has changed over the years. They used to
have the speakers on the front. Now, with flat screens, the speakers are tucked
round the back, and the high frequencies tend to get badly abated. Coupled with
age-related hearing loss, which chiefly affects high frequencies, that's a double whammy.
On 2025-06-13, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
As we will (mostly) all discover, it's not just hearing that
deteriorates as we get older. The brain does a lot of work to decipher
what we do hear, and it's hardly surprising news that our brains
deteriorate as we get older. So, we hear the sounds, but can't
necessarily interpret the words being spoken.
I'm increasingly using subtitles whilst watching things on TV, despite
having quite good hearing still. That's particularly for foreign and
regional accents, which I had no trouble with when I was younger.
Honestly I think the TV thing might be that TV programmes genuinely have
got harder to hear. (Take for example American programmes which switch rapidly between whispered conversations and EARTHSHAKING EXPLOSIONS...
while seemingly always being set in a coal cellar at midnight.)
On 2025-06-13, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-13, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
As we will (mostly) all discover, it's not just hearing that
deteriorates as we get older. The brain does a lot of work to decipher
what we do hear, and it's hardly surprising news that our brains
deteriorate as we get older. So, we hear the sounds, but can't
necessarily interpret the words being spoken.
I'm increasingly using subtitles whilst watching things on TV, despite
having quite good hearing still. That's particularly for foreign and
regional accents, which I had no trouble with when I was younger.
Honestly I think the TV thing might be that TV programmes genuinely have
got harder to hear. (Take for example American programmes which switch
rapidly between whispered conversations and EARTHSHAKING EXPLOSIONS...
while seemingly always being set in a coal cellar at midnight.)
It's not just you or older people:
Subtitles aren’t just for the hard of hearing, with Netflix
reporting 40% of its viewers regularly use them. But do we just
enjoy them or is there a more annoying reason?
There’s a reason Bradley Johnston watches “literally everything”
with subtitles on. It’s not an accessibility issue – the
25-year-old is a native English speaker and isn’t hard of
hearing. He is “the kind of TV viewer that just doesn’t want to
work for it”.
“Like, if there’s a subtle moment some people might miss that’s
integral to the plot, let me know about it,” he says.
<https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2023/jan/28/mumbling-actors-bad-speakers-or-lazy-listeners-why-everyone-is-watching-tv-with-subtitles-on>
<https://www.wired.com/story/closed-captions-everywhere/>
On 2025-06-13, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-13, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
As we will (mostly) all discover, it's not just hearing that
deteriorates as we get older. The brain does a lot of work to decipher
what we do hear, and it's hardly surprising news that our brains
deteriorate as we get older. So, we hear the sounds, but can't
necessarily interpret the words being spoken.
I'm increasingly using subtitles whilst watching things on TV, despite
having quite good hearing still. That's particularly for foreign and
regional accents, which I had no trouble with when I was younger.
Honestly I think the TV thing might be that TV programmes genuinely have
got harder to hear. (Take for example American programmes which switch
rapidly between whispered conversations and EARTHSHAKING EXPLOSIONS...
while seemingly always being set in a coal cellar at midnight.)
It's not just you or older people:
Subtitles aren’t just for the hard of hearing, with Netflix
reporting 40% of its viewers regularly use them. But do we just
enjoy them or is there a more annoying reason?
There’s a reason Bradley Johnston watches “literally everything”
with subtitles on. It’s not an accessibility issue – the
25-year-old is a native English speaker and isn’t hard of
hearing. He is “the kind of TV viewer that just doesn’t want to
work for it”.
“Like, if there’s a subtle moment some people might miss that’s
integral to the plot, let me know about it,” he says.
<https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2023/jan/28/mumbling-actors-bad-speakers-or-lazy-listeners-why-everyone-is-watching-tv-with-subtitles-on>
<https://www.wired.com/story/closed-captions-everywhere/>
On 2025-06-13, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-13, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
As we will (mostly) all discover, it's not just hearing that
deteriorates as we get older. The brain does a lot of work to decipher
what we do hear, and it's hardly surprising news that our brains
deteriorate as we get older. So, we hear the sounds, but can't
necessarily interpret the words being spoken.
I'm increasingly using subtitles whilst watching things on TV, despite
having quite good hearing still. That's particularly for foreign and
regional accents, which I had no trouble with when I was younger.
Honestly I think the TV thing might be that TV programmes genuinely have
got harder to hear. (Take for example American programmes which switch
rapidly between whispered conversations and EARTHSHAKING EXPLOSIONS...
while seemingly always being set in a coal cellar at midnight.)
It's not just you or older people:
Subtitles aren’t just for the hard of hearing, with Netflix
reporting 40% of its viewers regularly use them. But do we just
enjoy them or is there a more annoying reason?
There’s a reason Bradley Johnston watches “literally everything”
with subtitles on. It’s not an accessibility issue – the
25-year-old is a native English speaker and isn’t hard of
hearing. He is “the kind of TV viewer that just doesn’t want to
work for it”.
“Like, if there’s a subtle moment some people might miss that’s
integral to the plot, let me know about it,” he says.
<https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2023/jan/28/mumbling-actors-bad-speakers-or-lazy-listeners-why-everyone-is-watching-tv-with-subtitles-on>
<https://www.wired.com/story/closed-captions-everywhere/>
On 16/06/2025 11:51, Adam Funk wrote:
It's not just you or older people:
Subtitles aren’t just for the hard of hearing, with Netflix
reporting 40% of its viewers regularly use them. But do we just
enjoy them or is there a more annoying reason?
There’s a reason Bradley Johnston watches “literally everything” >> with subtitles on. It’s not an accessibility issue – the
25-year-old is a native English speaker and isn’t hard of
hearing. He is “the kind of TV viewer that just doesn’t want to
work for it”.
“Like, if there’s a subtle moment some people might miss that’s
integral to the plot, let me know about it,” he says.
<https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2023/jan/28/mumbling-actors-bad-speakers-or-lazy-listeners-why-everyone-is-watching-tv-with-subtitles-on>
<https://www.wired.com/story/closed-captions-everywhere/>
I find it an interesting idea that using subtitles is lazy. Perhaps he
has the sound on as well? For otherwise one must concentrate on the
screen all the time, and in two ways, reading the words and watching the action.
And, often enough the subtitles aren't quite the same as the speech, my limited lip reading ability can spot quite a bit.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 08:44:26 |
| Calls: | 10,388 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,835 |
| Posted today: | 1 |