Forum Topic

I honestly believe it is an insecurity issue with Sue because as you say we have had many councillors both past and present on this forum and yet only she felt the need to re-register to remind us that she was elected recentlyI could suggest that rather then swooning over her new position in life she actually along with her two Isleworth colleagues started responding to casework issues from local residents as I am hearing complaint after complaint recently from dissatisfied voters who have already given up on them apart from their privileged little circle of courseThis dissatisfaction also extends to their non appearance at local events when invited without even the courtesy of an apology and even in the short time since being elected they have gained the reputation of being completely out of their depth among some LBH OfficersI will inevitably be accused of this being just sour grapes but at least I shook hands with the three victorious candidates on the election stage unlike in 2006 when Ms Sampson stomped off with her then two colleagues like a stroppy schoolgirl!Credit where it is due though as they did at least bother to actually go and hear the result in 2006 unlike Corrina Smart and the late Val Lamey who just swore and refused to stand with the winning Syon candidates and left the building before the result was official!!And speaking of the Syon Ward is there any reason why the new Syon councillors do not feel the need to hold surgeries since being elected?

Paul Fisher ● 5488d

My view is that we shouldn't go down the road of banning these items of clothing.. but I agree that they do,in certain places, look out of place. We'll just have to see how the French get on.Bernadette's concern about security in Banks or Jeweller shops is very valid..and motorists have raised the query about not being able to see an adjacent drivers face etc.No doubt our Security Services find such dress handy for their own covert activities.One is concerned too about Burka and Nijab clad women being subject to cruelty or unwelcomed restrictions by their menfolk..and perhaps mothers in law too!  I would rather they were less prevalent.  I have never in my life before spoken to (I presume) a lady wearing a Burka..let alone a Nijab..until today!!In Hounslow High Street,it was necessary for me to visit a Mobile Phone repair shop and to my surprise a nijab clad person was serving customers!The male manager was very helpful and personable and my camera was itching to get out of my pocket. I mentioned to both of them that I have never been served by someone in that dresscode before..and there was some jollity. The lady had white hands and spoke beautiful English.  I asked her if she was English, "Yes" she said.."Born Here" I asked. "Yes"I told her she looked stunning in her outfit and indeed (mentioning Claire's quote that eyes are the prime sexy thing) looked sexy!!! How did I get away with that?The eye slits were so narrow I couldn't tell you the colour of her eyes. But the event there was memorable.The customer service provided by the shop was excellent. They were most helpful. A photograph was allowed.

Jim Lawes ● 5489d

Robin I have no idea who or what you are except you appear to worship at the feet of Ann Keen and presumably are therefore some sort of labour supporter if not activist?  What could your roll possibly be other than to lose friends and alienate people?  Do you have a real job?  Do you have a wife or children?  You are so totally one dimensional in that you only appear to relate to immigrants to the detriment of anyone who is not an immigrant - frankly I don't get it. You spend your time trawling through ancient postings on various forums copying and pasting things that are supposed to confirm your allegations that every poster is a Nazi and, in my opinion, fail miserably.  You have just re-posted my comments re the school business.  I am not one bit ashamed of that posting and I couldn’t care a monkey’s arse whether you agree with it or not.I did and would again back up someone that did not want their "white child" to be the only "white child" in the school - particularly bearing in mind this is a school in Chiswick not Nigeria.  Paul McGrath (the Irish footballer) described as "child cruelty" being the only "black child" in a Dublin school - he was speaking from experience just that it was the other side of the coin - was he being racist as well?  I speak as a parent and I defy any parent to tell me I am wrong inasmuch as I would suggest almost all parents “profile” their childrens’ schooling possibly without even realising it.  Most parents want what they perceive to be the best for their children that would mean wanting them to go to the best school available and the one which most reflects their beliefs and aspirations.  You would not find many Muslims in a Catholic school or vice versa.  Although, not so many years ago I seem to remember exactly that, a muslim parent accusing Gumley House of racism because her daughter was refused a place at the school.  Why did she even want her daughter to go there in the first place?  I’ll tell you why, to make a bloody point and nothing more.  I can assure you in convent schools they definitely don’t stop everything and turn to Mecca at various times of the day.My comments about traffic wardens has been expanded on by Claire who has already pointed out that she has a working knowledge which would back up my statement. It was therefore a perfectly reasonable observation.

Bernadette Paul ● 5494d

Back to the actual subject, these things are degrading and have no place in Western society. There is nothing religious about them and is a strict interpretation forced upon women by weak minded men. The stupidity of it, is that the sexiest part of anyone (in my opinion) are eyes, which are the only things uncovered. In an extremist way to make a statement, more and more women appear to be wearing these things and the question that really needs to be asked but isn't, is what is going on behind closed doors that we don't know about to force this on women?These items of clothing are part of a 'culture' that stone women to death for 'udultery' when they've actually been raped but don't have the 8 (female) witnesses or 4 (male) witnesses required to prove innocence. The same 'culture' where fathers kill their own daughters and shove them in suitcases because they don't like their boyfriends and therefore have to defend their 'honour'. These are extreme examples because those that force their women to wear this item of clothing are extreme. If they can walk around in shorts and t-shirts why is it necessary for women to wear a sheet from head to toe?If this is their culture and they want the freedom to wear something that symbolises above all the oppression of women then feel free to do it in a Muslim country with Sharia law. I have recently had to go to Ankara for work on a number of occasions. Last time it was extremely hot, however, although not as extreme as some Muslim countries, I ensured that I respected their beliefs and did not go out in shorts or a bikini top etc. Now if I can respect a culture and beliefs whilst in a foreign country why can't people that CHOOSE TO LIVE in this country accept that oppression of females whether it be through fists or dress is not acceptable?Over to you Robin lol

Claire Peleschka ● 5495d

RobinIf Sue and the BNP chap were exchanging unpleasantries it was odd that they were smiling and laughing as they were doing so, but that is not the real point here.  I think the cause of our indignation was that I have received extensive and sustained criticism for a not dissimilar encounter with former BNP candidate Warren Glass at the 1994 local election count.  My first impression was simply "how hypocritical can you get?"Under the circumstances I was unable to stop myself making a comment as I passed the two of them in the counting area, whereupon the BNP candidate came after me and proceeded to threaten me.  I gave him two very short words of advice pertaining to sex and travel which I'm pleased to say he heeded (this whole incident was witnessed by the outgoing Chief Executive Mark Gilks), and a few minutes later he again approached me and offered me an apology which I accepted.  We had a brief conversation during which he explained that he had known Sue previously and we had a short conversation about the BNP, which was witnessed in its entirety by my agent Ian Speed.  All in all, although politically confused, he didn't seem a bad bloke.It is possible to know somebody, and even to like somebody on a personal level, whilst finding their politics distasteful.  I've not the slightest doubt that Sue finds the politics of the BNP repugnant.  I do not think the fact that she knows somebody who now happens to be in the BNP, or the fact that she has a Facebook friend who was a serial National Front local and parliamentary candidate during the 1970s and '80s (as do I), makes her a closet fascist.  Some people change, and even those who don't needn't be given up on.  Under the right circumstances they might be persuaded to rethink their positions, and ex-fascists sometimes turn out to be the most enthusiastic and useful anti-fascists (the zeal of the convert and all that).  This is why I believe that whilst on an organisational level "No Platform" is almost always the correct policy in dealing with fascist groups, on an individual level it usually isn't.My own anger over this encounter was incurred by the double standards involved, not by the incident itself.

Phil Andrews ● 5501d

"Andy Webb", who I have reason to believe spams the forum boards under multiple identities, has used this thread to criticise me for allegedly making racist remarks about Poles.Although it's off the original topic, I think I have the right to defend myself against this charge.Below I have reproduced the entire post that I made on the EalingW5 forum about this issue back in May. Please bear in mind that this came towards the end of a very long thread in which numerous people had chosen to slag off Poles on the basis of individual experiences that they had with them.In the context of this, I hope people will agree that my post was, at the very least, a reasonable attempt to add some balance (even if you don't agree with what I say)...--------------------It's a shame to see that the Poles are yet another immigrant group who are the subject of prejudice on the W5 forum.G Lord seems to think that it is relevant to highlight an alleged incident of a Polish woman parking across his or her driveway. Why mention this - are we supposed to think bad of all Polish people just because of what you claim one of them did?When I recently saw a young white youth (with a London accent) casually spitting all over the place at a bus stop, should I infer something about all English people from his behaviour?We have quite a lot of Poles in Southall. The ones I have encountered are always polite and conduct themselves with decorum. In fact, when I see a group of white people walking towards me it is invariably a relief to hear Polish accents - as they're generally better behaved than most of the so-called "indigs".I only mention this because others on this thread have also seen fit to make generalisations based purely on empirical evidence.P.S.:- I see that Marie Ann OConnell has used this thread as an excuse to have a good moan about the fact that the term "Paki" is no longer in common usage. Give me strength. @!!**!@!. Would she like it if I used the term "Thickie" to describe people with racist views? Thought not.--------------------You could argue that it was wrong of me to compare some indigs unfavourably with Poles, but I take the attitude that you cannot effectively counter anti-Polish progaganda with neutral propaganda. Sometimes it's useful to try and say something positive as a counterbalance. (I had, incidentally, thought of mentioning something about the Polish contribution to the Battle of Britain, but that would have left me open to charges of jingoism).

Robin Taylor ● 5501d

Personally I fail to see the comparison between the BNP and women covering themselves from head to toe.  I may come into contact with BNP supporters every day but if I do I don't know about it.  On the other hand I am on a daily basis confronted by what I would perceive to be more and more people (cos I don't know who or what is under them) wearing these coverall outfits.  That was the reason for the start of this thread not to highlight miscellaneous political parties and cranks.  If any group of people starting strutting about in Nazi uniforms I rather suspect they would be banned if not arrested - remember the fuss when Prince Harry donned one for a party.  It is impossible to successfully legislate for or against an individual's beliefs but we are frequently finding various things banned in today's society so why not the burka.  Crash helmeted men are not allowed in banks, people wearing baseball caps and/or hoodies are banned from various shops and shopping centres, someone was banned from entering Harrods a few months ago because they breached some dress code or other, yet we all have to be tolerant of a growing band of people wearing these veils for no religious reason whatsoever whether it be because they are forced to by some lunatic husband/father/whoever or simply because they are now in the business of drawing attention to themselves to score points.  I have seen enough tv discussions about this subject to have discovered that there is absolutely no religious requirement whatsoever for these outfits and they therefore have no place in this day and age in the UK.  If we were in many muslim countries we would have to abide by their dress codes but it seems that for anyone coming to the UK the PC brigade insist we have to accept the unacceptable to accommodate them. Why?

Bernadette Paul ● 5502d

Paul,In a post dated 27 May on the W4 forum you mentioned that an extra £100K had been made available for the Community Investment Fund.It may just be that July's funding decisions are an interim measure, but only £80,000 was given out. According to the minutes twelve groups applied and they were awarded between £0 and £15,000.On the other hand, at February's meeting (which you chaired) it appears - if I'm reading the minutes correctly - that a total of £1,093,790 was given out to a far wider range of groups.I may be completely wrong but I get the impression that possibly they are no longer using their full budget.Regarding Raj Bath, I will certainly email him about underspend but then I'll just leave it at that. (I don't want to overdo this because our previous lobbying may already have gone a bit overboard).I will also make enquiries about the Community Cohesion Fund over the next few days, and will let FAWG know my findings. However, I think I'll then leave them to it. Manria and I don't mind being advocates but ultimately we should let their own treasurer deal with these things as she deems appropriate.The only reason I've got involved this much is because I felt quite bad for FAWG over the way they were treated by the West Area Committee. I felt even worse when I read their application form and saw all the good work they do. I'm just glad that as a result of you prompting me and me prompting them just in time for the June deadline that they got £3k. (the next meeting was not until November).

Robin Taylor ● 5506d

Thanks, Paul.Just to clarify - I lobbied the various officers because I was given to understand that one of them would draw up a series of recommendations about which applicants would be successful. Sue, Manria and Alan just lobbied the panel's councillors (although I believe Alan also spoke to the council leader to get him to use any influence he could).Manria did not find out until late in the day that only Raj Bath made the ultimate decision (I believe she was told this by Matt Harmer) although our understanding was that other panel members could still offer an opinion.Regarding FAWG applying again to the West Area Committee, I think it is unlikely they would be successful. Mark Bowen singled out FAWG (together with the Feltham Somalian Women's Group) as organisations that should not receive a grant when they last applied in 2008: he and the other councillors then voted in favour of all of the other grant applicants. The West Area Committee is still Tory dominated, so it'll be the same result.As for the Community Cohesion Fund, I think I noticed this on the website when searching for an application form for the Community Investment Trust Fund - presumably that would be where I look? I'll check it out, but realistically I'm not sure they will qualify given that the Community Investment Fund saw fit not to give them all they were asking for.Still, it might be worth a try. Their costed application for £4,800 was very specific and was what they successfully applied for from "Grass Roots Grants" for the 2008-2009 year. (They cannot apply to GRG again until at least the end of 2011). Their costs are on-going, and even if they had £4,800 income on a yearly basis they would still be forking out money from their own pockets. I reckon it would cost social services a lot more to supply FAWG's dedicated service, and as one of their activities is English classes maybe that would fall under Community Cohesion.

Robin Taylor ● 5507d

Paul,Are you becoming obsessed with me?The reason I ask is because that is now the third time you have attempted to bait me.For your information, I do think that veiled women should be required to unveil themselves at airports (contrary to what you claimed my opinion is in your post of 19:11 last night).But despite this and other examples of you attempting to misrepresent me, I actually want to thank you and Phil Andrews for the advice you gave me on the Chiswick forum some weeks ago.You may remember that I was bemoaning the fact that Feltham Asian Women's Group had been turned down for a small grant by the West Area Committee. Well, the two of you suggested that FAWG might apply for funding through the Community Investment Trust.I duly downloaded the relevant application form from the LBH website and posted it to them with a covering letter urging them to apply before the deadline.This they did - within a couple of days in fact - and they sent me a copy of their detailed and carefully costed application. Both Manria Kaur and I (with a lot of help from Sue Sampson and Alan Keen) then lobbied the relevant officers and councillors.At last week's meeting FAWG were awarded £3,000 of the £4,800 they had asked for. This will go some way towards funding the excellent work they do for an elderly and vulnerable group of people.So, it's only fair that on this occasion I say: Thanks. You and Phil Andrews prompted me, I in turn prompted FAWG, and Sue & Alan did most of the rest. It's great to be able to make a difference isn't it? But the initial help you gave still does not excuse the way that you try to misrepresent me (and nor does it excuse Phil Andrews for calling me a "nutter" just because somebody else left an unfavourable comment on his blog).Finally, returning to the subject matter of this thread: I've said all I'm going to say about banning the burka - because it's not going to happen.The reason it's not going to happen is precisely because this IS Britain - and it's not the way we do things here. And thank god for that.

Robin Taylor ● 5507d

"...if you live in a country you should try and adopt its customs and accepted social behaviours."Oh sure, like when we colonised India we all went around in loincloths right?"...you should respect your host country's norms."What do you mean "host country"? Many of the women who wear the Burka were born here. They're BRITISH. They have as much right to choose their appearance as a bloke who covers his arms and face with tattoos."we do not know how many women are browbeaten into wearing the veil etc. or how many just want to make a point and stick two fingers up to the rest of us"What about the women who wear the veil because they choose to as a symbol of their identity? They are neither "browbeaten" nor "sticking two fingers up" - they are merely wearing what makes them feel comfortable. That is their right."We just seem frightened of sticking our heads over the parapet..."You're joking aren't you? There seems to be a lot of people on this thread who are "sticking their heads over the parapet" but typically having got it all of their chest they're now complaining that they're not allowed to offer an opinion."...has also covered up the disgraceful matter of female circumcision and forced marriages and even 'honour' killings."What on earth has that got to do with wearing the Burka? Wearing what you want is a human right - whereas female circumcision, forced marriages and 'honour' killings are a denial of human rights. You can't just lump them all in the same category."We live in the 21st Century and these things are not acceptable here."Agreed. But those outdated customs have got nothing to do with telling people what they're allowed to wear.  "If you really want to live 500 years behind the times then there are plenty of countries where you can do so."Good grief."Live in Saudi Arabia where women cannot go out without a male chaperone..."No thanks. I prefer Britain because people have the right to CHOOSE what they can wear. And to change that state of affairs would be highly UN-British. I cannot believe I'm having to explain this to you, Vanessa.And by the way, I regularly see women in Southall wearing the veil or burkha who are not accompanied by men. For many, it's a mere fashion accessory. I encounter them almost daily: they come in all shapes and sizes, some of them are always giggling among themselves whereas others are more reserved. But none of them have ever given me any problems, so why should I be offended?Once Mark Welland and Keith Iddiot have got their way with the Burka, what will they ban next? The Hijab, perpaps? Or maybe the Sikh turan? Or perhaps even brown skin? It's a slippery slope, Vanessa, let's not start the descent.

Robin Taylor ● 5508d