How Often does this happen?

What i say is have more women customs officers and so if someone does go through wearing a veil then the women customs officers would then ask them to step into a separate room and ask them to unveil themselves so they can then check their passports. If they refuse even then to unveil themselves then they dont fly or sail or whatever. That way then they are checked. By the way have cctv in the room and a male customs officer standing outside and instead of letting them go back out the way they came in there would be another door leading onto the concourse so they cant then go back into the normal side and so swap identities with a bloke. In otherwords what they used to do when i was flying to ireland. Theyve already got the stuff they need to do it with - just may have to move it from a different terminal.


By the wynonie - i will admit it - i am a branch secretary of the Labour Party and i havent been quiet have i?

No, you haven't been quiet, Shillelagh, and respect to you for that. However, why should customs have to go through all the rigmarole you describe above? Anyone wearing a veil should have to remove it at any security checkpoint as a matter of course, whether there's a male present or not. If they don't like it, they don't fly, it's as simple as that. And if you think that sounds draconian, it's nothing compared to a country like Holland where it is against the law to wear a face covering in a public place.

However, the other point which this whole affair has highlighted is the fact that asylum seekers can commit any crime including murder, yet cannot be deported at the end of their sentence, if their country of origin is deemed too "dangerous". Now, I'm sure that the vast majority of people in this country will, like me, be thinking along the lines of "they should have thought of that before they committed the crime". But not this government. According to John Denham, the government lacky I was referring to, it enables us to be a member "of the club of civilised countries" and "hold our heads up". So there you are, you can be assaulted, shot or murdered by someone who has sought out this country as a place of refuge and has then abused our hospitality in the most appalling way. But you can hold your head up, secure in the knowledge that this hospitality will go on being extended indefinitely.

Shillelagh, if this post comes across as being racist, I apologise. In 20 years of marriage to a non-white person, I have seen firsthand the effects of racism and I despise it. However, I actually think that situations like the above are playing right into the hands of the racists and that's not good for any of us of whatever race, creed or colour!
 
it wont be the first time its happened bet it happens all the time and they get away with it like they get away with everything
 
I actually think that situations like the above are playing right into the hands of the racists and that's not good for any of us of whatever race, creed or colour!


I totally agree with you Wynonie. Along with other PC nonsense these sort of things just turn people against each other.

When someone commits a crime their plea of "my human rights" should go out the window.
 
"they should have thought of that before they committed the crime".


never has a truer word been spoken

if they abuse the laws of this land then they should be sent back from whence they came regardless

the time for pussyfooting around has long gone
the government needs to shape up and harden up they are too quick to punish us brits for the slightest little thing but if you're from an ethnic minority background feel free to do as you wish

i say that us british are now the ethnic minority in our own country


I am British and this is Britain - I want my country back!
 
I'm sorry if you feel that I've been ignoring this thread but you'll be able to see from the rest of the site that I haven't been on line for a few weeks. So, not intentionally ignoring you all.

However, I would also like to state that I am not a 'political' member as keeps being pointed out. I stood for council in May because I want to do something for the local area (primarily Oswaldtwistle but beyond that Hyndburn) that does not mean that I have views on all things political. Ask me about the potholes in Union Road and I have plenty of things to say but wider national politics then I'm afraid I'm just with you guys. Sometimes my views are in line with national government, sometimes they aren't.

As for my opinion on this subject (and remember it is only my opinion - not a party line or political statement), I think that people in authority i.e. passport control or police should be allowed to ask a woman to raise their veil - this should be done by a female and the woman could also be accompanied by a male member of her family to ensure that everyone was safe and happy. If the woman or her husband objects then they should not be allowed to fly.
 
However, I would also like to state that I am not a 'political' member as keeps being pointed out. I stood for council in May because I want to do something for the local area (primarily Oswaldtwistle but beyond that Hyndburn) that does not mean that I have views on all things political. Ask me about the potholes in Union Road and I have plenty of things to say but wider national politics then I'm afraid I'm just with you guys. Sometimes my views are in line with national government, sometimes they aren't.

In that case why didn't you stand as an independent? Surely the fact that you are a member of the Labour party and stood as a Labour candidate must mean something. Obviously even the most committed party member can't agree with their party hierarchy on every subject. But to say that sometimes you agree with your government and sometimes you don't is a bit of a cop out. If that's the case, what's the point of being in the Labour party at all?
 
In that case why didn't you stand as an independent? Surely the fact that you are a member of the Labour party and stood as a Labour candidate must mean something. Obviously even the most committed party member can't agree with their party hierarchy on every subject. But to say that sometimes you agree with your government and sometimes you don't is a bit of a cop out. If that's the case, what's the point of being in the Labour party at all?


Because I believe in the Labour party in Hyndburn, I believe that they are they are the party that could do something positive for this area, as opposed to the Conservative party who have been in power for the last six years! Local politics is completely different from national politics. So I don't blindly support the government and I don't have to - in fact, I'd be more worried about people who do blindly support the governmental without question.
 
in fact, I'd be more worried about people who do blindly support the governmental without question.

So would I. That's why I said that you couldn't be expected to support your party hierarchy on every subject. However, to infer that the local Labour party is some sort of completely separate entity from the national Labour party seems a bit wide of the mark to me. They are part of the same organisation, after all.

The thing is, when we're all knocking this present government, one after another, on anything and everything from law and order to the NHS, I'd just like someone to come on here and fight their corner, because it would make the discussion more interesting!
 
I think that people in authority i.e. passport control or police should be allowed to ask a woman to raise their veil - this should be done by a female and the woman could also be accompanied by a male member of her family to ensure that everyone was safe and happy. If the woman or her husband objects then they should not be allowed to fly.

I'm amazed that this doesn't automatically happen already.

Are these women veiled in their passport photos?
 
if they were made to lift veils to female staff gayle,surely that would mean the airports having to employ more staff,the air companies having higher charges imposed,the price of flights rising etc etc so all the travelling public have to pay the price,why the hell should we? its simple a passport demands a photo,so passport control SHOULD see a face. not racist just COMMON SENSE.
 
It doesn't say anywhere in the Quaran that women have to wear the hijab, just that both men and women should dress modestly. It's all down to interpretation.

Then again it doesn't say in the Bible that priests have to be celibate, or indeed even male, and nothing at all about going to live in same sex cloisters, and taking a vow of silence.

Religion.

Strange and mystical by it's very nature.
 
The other thing is, Gayle, that this is a two-part question and I see you've carefully avoided answering the other issue. Should an asylum seeker who has committed a serious crime be deported back to his own country at the end of his sentence, even if it is thought that this country is dangerous?
 
Passport photographs are now being rejected if you smile, yet you can swan through passport, immigration and all security points wearing a veil.

Renewed mine in September, and yes, can't smile anymore,straight at the camera, no glasses, no baseball caps, lots, lots, lots more and definitely no veils !

Even the size of the photograph has to be correct, a millimetre out will definitely cause rejection, and you in a certain postition in the photo .. took mine at the General PO in Accy and counter clerk stated "Well, yes .. should be OK !!" Well, hope so, did it in their official booth. (Twice.. don't ask) Luckily was, just in time for me hols. You should see the photo when it comes back officially .. that cannot be me. :(

Of course, nobody should get through control without showing the officials their face ... utter nonesense. Do they ? Do we know for sure ?

Sad thing here is that these Somalians were let into this country in the first place despite having a string of known offences.
 
Of course, nobody should get through control without showing the officials their face ... utter nonesense. Do they ? Do we know for sure ? ----- seems to be the case Katex as thats how the somalian guy was alleged to have returned home.
 
Of course, nobody should get through control without showing the officials their face ... utter nonesense. Do they ? Do we know for sure ? ----- seems to be the case Katex as thats how the somalian guy was alleged to have returned home.

Thought it was all speculation cashman .. has it been confirmed then ?

How did they know it was 'he' if he was veiled .... :confused:
 
Thought it was all speculation cashman .. has it been confirmed then ?

How did they know it was 'he' if he was veiled .... :confused:
thats irrelevant cos wether he did or not its the fact that he could! thats what really razzes me off.
 
thats irrelevant cos wether he did or not its the fact that he could! thats what really razzes me off.

Well, I will not argue with that one Cashman .. just seems incredible though, doesn't it that veiled persons are let through without facial checks ? .. can't quite believe it somehow.:confused:
 
Back
Top