Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Crosses and Bangles!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by chinadog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
All very sensible, I'm sure, China Doll.
As �Elf �n Safety� is alleged to be the issue here, perhaps somebody could tell me how many people � including schoolchildren - have been garrotted, strangled or choked as a result of wearing fine chain necklaces in the normal fashion whilst going about their normal everyday business (so long as that did not involve operating machinery, or such like).
Or is it a case that although no such incidents have actually taken place, because there is the remotest chance that there could be such an occurrence, that chance must be eliminated?
As �Elf �n Safety� is alleged to be the issue here, perhaps somebody could tell me how many people � including schoolchildren - have been garrotted, strangled or choked as a result of wearing fine chain necklaces in the normal fashion whilst going about their normal everyday business (so long as that did not involve operating machinery, or such like).
Or is it a case that although no such incidents have actually taken place, because there is the remotest chance that there could be such an occurrence, that chance must be eliminated?
It doesn't make a difference whether it's a health and safety issue or not New Judge. My point is that it that it's not the first incident or it's kind and it's a simple case of media stirring the muddy puddle and people falling for it. It's a complete non-story.
My other point was that if you're going to have a whinge about the muslims then it's probably best not to quote stories about sikhs.
My other point was that if you're going to have a whinge about the muslims then it's probably best not to quote stories about sikhs.
I dont know how many children a school would ewant to see strangled before they introduced such a rule; but 'none' sounds a good total to me.
And besides, as many people have spotted, this is just another anti-Muslim rant, tripped up by an inability to distinguish between Muslims and Sikhs... which makes me suspect in turn that it's actually about race not religion, since all these Muslims and Sikhs are, like, you know, another colour.
And besides, as many people have spotted, this is just another anti-Muslim rant, tripped up by an inability to distinguish between Muslims and Sikhs... which makes me suspect in turn that it's actually about race not religion, since all these Muslims and Sikhs are, like, you know, another colour.
Professional footballers are ordered to remove necklaces before they take to the field, and they, like children in a playground, are just going to run around a bit.
I assume, the perceived danger is that it could go into their or someone else's eyes.
You do not get footballers getting all tanty and claiming religious persecution, so why should this little girl.
That it should make the headline in a national newspaper shows how desperate that newspaper, and the family in question are to push an anti-multicultural agenda. It is sad that chinadog and New Judge fall for it.
I assume, the perceived danger is that it could go into their or someone else's eyes.
You do not get footballers getting all tanty and claiming religious persecution, so why should this little girl.
That it should make the headline in a national newspaper shows how desperate that newspaper, and the family in question are to push an anti-multicultural agenda. It is sad that chinadog and New Judge fall for it.
I�ve fallen for nothing, Gromit.
As it happens, I would like to see this country pursue a purely secular agenda. Religion (of any persuasion) has no place in work or school. It causes friction and division and since there are so many religions followed among the UK population the only answer is to allow none to be followed outside the home or places of worship. The multicultural Utopia which the liberal classes would like to see in place has failed � a fact recognised by many people for a long time but only recently given credence because Trevor Phillips has put his two pennyworth in.
I accept that the ban which is the subject of this question has been imposed on H&S grounds. All I want to know is how great the risk is (if there is a risk at all) and where I can find details of the risk assessment.
As it happens, I would like to see this country pursue a purely secular agenda. Religion (of any persuasion) has no place in work or school. It causes friction and division and since there are so many religions followed among the UK population the only answer is to allow none to be followed outside the home or places of worship. The multicultural Utopia which the liberal classes would like to see in place has failed � a fact recognised by many people for a long time but only recently given credence because Trevor Phillips has put his two pennyworth in.
I accept that the ban which is the subject of this question has been imposed on H&S grounds. All I want to know is how great the risk is (if there is a risk at all) and where I can find details of the risk assessment.
As �Elf �n Safety� is alleged to be the issue here, perhaps somebody could tell me how many people � including schoolchildren - have been garrotted, strangled or choked as a result of wearing fine chain necklaces in the normal fashion whilst going about their normal everyday business
While we are on the subject of religion and 'Elf 'n Safety' Why are Sikhs allowed to ride Motor Cycles without crash helmets? There is more chance of injury than wearing a fine chain around one's neck.
The 'law of the land' was altered to accommodate their religion, I wonder if the 'law of the land' would be altered to accommodate The Church of England? I doubt it very much.
While we are on the subject of religion and 'Elf 'n Safety' Why are Sikhs allowed to ride Motor Cycles without crash helmets? There is more chance of injury than wearing a fine chain around one's neck.
The 'law of the land' was altered to accommodate their religion, I wonder if the 'law of the land' would be altered to accommodate The Church of England? I doubt it very much.
The 'law of the land' was altered to accommodate their religion, I wonder if the 'law of the land' would be altered to accommodate The Church of England? I doubt it very much.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England _Assembly_(Powers)_Act_1919
The Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 (1919 c. 76) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that gives the Church of England the power to pass primary legislation called Measures. Measures have the same force and effect as Acts of Parliament. The power to pass measures was originally granted to the Church Assembly, which was replaced by the General Synod of the Church of England in 1970
Why let facts get in the way of a rant eh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England _Assembly_(Powers)_Act_1919
The Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 (1919 c. 76) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that gives the Church of England the power to pass primary legislation called Measures. Measures have the same force and effect as Acts of Parliament. The power to pass measures was originally granted to the Church Assembly, which was replaced by the General Synod of the Church of England in 1970
Why let facts get in the way of a rant eh?
Get a grip, vic!
As you will see from the Wiki article, the Church of England (which, after all, is the established church in England of which the reigning monarch is the head) cannot pass legislation. It can offer legislation to Parliament who can then approve it or otherwise.
This is somewhat different to theoldgit's point about Sikhs and crash helmets. Here, a law which applies to everybody else particularly excludes Sikhs because of their religious foibles.
The exemption was a disgrace when the legislation was introduced and is an even bigger disgrace now. Similar exemptions are creeping in by stealth. It is now arguable that a Muslim woman can give evidence in court wearing a full face mask. No other religions are afforded such a privilege. This is divisive nonsense and breeds hostility.
Your contention that the exemption is OK because the only person at risk is the Sikh is somewhat incongruous, Gromit. The only person ever at risk by not wearing a helmet is the rider, whatever his or her religion. So why is it OK for Sikhs to imperil themselves, but not anybody else?
But, I fear, we digress!
As you will see from the Wiki article, the Church of England (which, after all, is the established church in England of which the reigning monarch is the head) cannot pass legislation. It can offer legislation to Parliament who can then approve it or otherwise.
This is somewhat different to theoldgit's point about Sikhs and crash helmets. Here, a law which applies to everybody else particularly excludes Sikhs because of their religious foibles.
The exemption was a disgrace when the legislation was introduced and is an even bigger disgrace now. Similar exemptions are creeping in by stealth. It is now arguable that a Muslim woman can give evidence in court wearing a full face mask. No other religions are afforded such a privilege. This is divisive nonsense and breeds hostility.
Your contention that the exemption is OK because the only person at risk is the Sikh is somewhat incongruous, Gromit. The only person ever at risk by not wearing a helmet is the rider, whatever his or her religion. So why is it OK for Sikhs to imperil themselves, but not anybody else?
But, I fear, we digress!
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles12 mins ago
ChatterBank43 mins ago
News53 mins ago
ChatterBank60 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.