Post removed by forum moderator

I did say it was a different scale of crime if you read back. A very different scale yes but still it's crime being committed. Now for your article let me just pull a few things out of there...

"Islamic terrorists and other Muslim prisoners at one of Britain's highest security jails have almost doubled in number in the past two years, according to new figures."

To me that says the British police are doing very well in stopping terrorism in Britain at the minute as they have managed to jail 67 I think it was terror suspects in the last 2 years.

Also I would like you to bare in mind the prison in question is a high security prison...

"The population of Muslim inmates at Whitemoor prison in Cambridgeshire has risen from 73 in 2006 to 140 last year - representing around a third of all prisoners."

This means 66% of the inmates are not muslim, in a high security prison, so this would include the likes of murderers terrorists raapists etc.

"It is placing a disproportionate and unreasonable burden on prison officers and staff at Whitemoor. This is easily the highest percentage of Muslim prisoners in any British jail."

Which basically put means there are less than 33% of muslim prisoners in every other British jail, this would mean that less than 33% of criminals are muslim.

So in a country of over 60,000,000 people roughly a third of each prison is Muslim, amongst the large array of religions in this country...There are roughly 2.5 Muslims in the UK last time i checked, so that's a damning ratio wouldn't you agree?

Then you have to consider if these crimes were committed in traditional Muslim countries the offender would be buried in the dirt and stoned to death or some equally bad punishment. If they are lucky they might get away with just losing a hand!

I think bad is bad in every walk of life, but i have to counter your point.

Belief does not make things right. Laws do not always make things right. This is the 21st century and some of these traditions go back centuries or more and lean towards violence and the mistreatment of women in general. Just because a lady agrees to these sexist and outdated traditions does not make it right.

I said less than a third are muslin not exactly a third, if the highest percentage of muslims in one prison (by far) is 33% then in another prison it may be 4%.

So there is no hard proof I am just going off that link what he posted. I never said belief makes things right nor do I think that it does. Nor do I believe sexism or the way women are treated are right, and I also said they should live by the laws of the country they are in.

But the law in question is a ridiculous and racist law.

Nothing is infallible if you don't apply the right methodology....
About this 1 in 1 billion claim- how would you even determine that?? I haven't heard about this outside of a couple of individual studies. Authorities also don't seem to be convinced. Also, 1 in 1 billion isn't bad compared to identifying someone by the picture in their passport. Passports are valid for at least 10 years in many countries and appearances can easily be changed within weeks. You'd struggle to recognize me in my passport picture because it was taken 10 years ago.

But either way, I think we both agree that visual identification is not reliable and therefore not necessary. What are legitimate reasons for forcing someone to remove an item of clothing from their face if identification is possible otherwise?
The notion that seeing someone's face somehow makes that person less of a danger at an airport for example is simply false.

Edited at 15:00 Tue 18/09/12 (BST)

yeah maybe a ban isn't right or maybe it is who really knows

Just to point out 2 things on the fingerprint thing:

Firstly, if someone of any race is getting on a plane with the intention of flying it into a building (say), then the chances are this isn't something they have done before so their fingerprints wouldn't register as those of an offender. Also, having their fingerprints for future use is also rather pointless. A tad tasteless I know, but a valid point.

Secondly, if I was someone with the inclination to kill myself for what was, in my opinion, a just religious cause, then instead of being put off by a fingerprint scanner, I would just have a friend cut my hands off... Under any disability act they couldn't discriminate against an amputee. Good luck bringing in a law saying only people with hands can get on a plane .

Obviously some sort of DNA recognition would be the most foolproof, but as far as I know such a system doesn't exist that could produce instant results (you could just have everyone arrive 15 hours before their flight...). This however, doesn't solve my first point. Money would be better spent on systems that offered fast reactions to suspicious behaviour than on trying to catch people before they do it.

Yes this is slightly off topic I know, but Seb started it .

You missed the point about gender... but will let you off.

Didn't have enough room in my post .

I started it?!?!?

I'm not sure the argument that they wouldn't be registered if they hadn't done anything works. Everyone needs a passport to fly. So when applying for a passport (no matter what country you're in), record the fingerprints. done.

The intelligence will still be needed to determine who is a threat, but that's the same for passport pictures or any other kind of ID.

Good point about amputees by the way- they would need alternative ID. So what is your opinion on the burka then adam?? That was kind of the topic lol

I know there will be a bad reaction about this idea but here goes...

A way of determining who a person is could be kinda the way they do with dogs, like have a micro chip implanted into them. Now I know the replies will be something like being treated like animals blah blah, but it doesn't seem too bad really.

Now obviously it wouldn't solve the current situation regarding terrorists or whatever but as a plan for the future if everyone is chipped at or around the time of birth - 1 years old, and anyone who commits any offence is chipped from now it would make it easier to determine who a person is without needing to take DNA, would it not?

Just a minor thought really, what ya think?

Aside from the obvious 1) invasion of privacy and 2) invasion of the body without permission issues, that would work only in technologically advanced countries where most babies are born in hospitals.
In most places in the world, babies are still born in homes in private- making "chipping" as I'll call it, virtually impossible. If you're born in some hut in Pakistan, you can't be chipped.

If you want to live under Sharia Law, live in a Muslim country. I have no problem with any race or religion living in my country so long as they are prepared to adapt to our culture. The burka is not a part of the English (Or in this case, French) culture so if you want to wear one go home. I would support a ban in England too for that reason. My friendship circle encompasses pretty much every race and religion in the UK so I would not consider myself racist or anti semitic, that is just my opinion on the values my country, and the people coming to live here should have. If you visit the Middle East, you can't drink, you can't kiss a random woman in public....I respect that, that is their culture...If I wanted to visit, I would abide by their cultural beliefs.




At that point, I would hope France told the European Court where to stick their ruling.



Drug related crime is far from something I would associate with Muslims. I presume you lost sight of the topic when writing that...

Whether they fly a plane into a building is irrelevant. You're not fingerprinting them as they fly for future use, you would give your prints when you get the passport. You are doing it at the airport to determine whether they are the person who is on the ticket. A terrorist can get onto a plane now with a passport...Fingerprinting isn't there to end terrorism, in this topic it is being used to avoid Muslims removing their burkas at airports. In the wider context, it is to replace or sit alongside the current photo system. There is no system that will totally eliminate the chance of you being a terrorist available to us.



That is one of the stupidest ideas I have ever heard Michael! The sad thing is, it could well be a reality in our lifetime.
Passports certainly need an overhaul but there are far better ways of doing it. A combined fingerprint/retinal scan coupled with the current photo system is a much more appropriate step.
Had to trim your quote to avoid going over the miniscule character limit in place...Sorry

Wearing a burka is not part of our culture yes, but it's not against it. Britain is supposed to be multicultural and a place with more freedom. We can't be multi-cultural then ban freedom. There's no causation between the burka and crime. You can be English and muslim, so you suggest people should leave their home in a supposedly free land to a land where they can have this forced upon them. Our culture in England is liberal, and a large proportion of atheists / non-practicing christians. So our culture is that people should be allowed to freely practice their religion without judgement or prejudice.

This "intimidation" it supposedly causes is down to the way the media portrays them, thinking about it. A burka is something that draws attention to ones self in area's of high security. Surely a terrorist would want to avoid that?

Completely agree with zante here.

Also, there are many other items of clothing which are not part of the British/French culture.
Would you ban Eskimo coats or whatever they're called? Those are certainly not part of your culture.
Would you ban Lederhosen because they're not part of English culture?

Clearly, banning a burka would have other reasons than "not being part of the culture". No item of clothing should be banned in a liberal Western society unless it violates the decency laws.

I didn't suggest there was a link between the burka and crime. Where did you read that?
My personal belief is that the burka is not a part of our culture and if the government wanted to ban it, I would support that...But I see no need to call for it either. If it becomes a problem it will be banned...France considered that it was a problem and then banned it. Fair play to them.

It's France who decides the rules in France and if I want to go to France, I respect that. And if someone who wants to wear a burka goes to France they should respect it too...Or not visit. France's loss.
I would support the same stance in Britain if that was what the government wished to do....Just my take on things, everyone will have their own viewpoint

If Eskimo coats or Lederhosen were causing an issue for my country, I would support a ban on them too. I don't see any way for that to happen so I don't foresee it being a great issue anytime soon.

Fair enough.

However, you would be singling out a specific cultural group by preventing them from exercising their right to practice their religion in your country. You're saying either stop your religious practices or leave.
That is fundamentally unbritish or unamerican or unfrench or wherever in Western society you are from.