Sunday Politics Show


See my appearance on The Sunday Politics Show East Midlands – click here – 45 minutes in.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Sunday Politics Show

  1. R I HICKS says:

    Excellent performance Roger. Peter Whittle was also very good on Sky News a moment ago on the burqa, FGM and Sharia issues.

  2. Jane Davies says:

    That’s a bummer, this will only play in the UK!

  3. Kevan Chippindall-Higgin says:

    The only laws in the UK are those passed by Parliament. Sharia Law has no standing whatsoever and is not binding in any way whatsoever. Anybody practicing it should be viewed as perverting the course of justice.

    FGM is just hideous and those practicing it should be locked up for a very long time and then deported. This is child abuse of the worst sort because there is not hope of treatment or a cure.

    The burka is a different matter. It is dress choice. To ban it is draconian and likely to cause a lot of ill feeling. I do not feel it is a function of government to decide what can and cannot be worn providing it is decent and the burka is certainly decent. All you can see are finger tips and toes!

    However, protocols should be in place whereby companies and officials can decide on local dress codes. Wearing a crash helmet in a bank is not on and bikers (I am one) accept that. If banks decree on security grounds that burkas are not acceptable, that is fine.

    Actually, this is largely academic because I do not recall seeing anybody in a burka doing anything more than wandering around or perhaps doing a bit of shopping. I have never seen a burka clad woman in a bank, suggesting perhaps that this is not a woman’s job.

    • catweazle666 says:

      “The burka is a different matter. It is dress choice.”
      By the same token, so are Ku Klux Klan robes.
      Both are indicators that the wearer subscribes to an extremist belief.

      • MIKE MAUNDER says:

        Thankfully we don’t seem to have people in KKK kit, here in UK/GB. Any weird apparel is just laughed at, but I am concerned at the wearing of the Burka. No wish to make this garb illegal, but I take the point of view that women who wear the Burka, do not have any wish to integrate and be part of our society. So why are they here ?

      • Jane Davies says:

        Ban them, they have no place in a civilized society, especially in a non Muslim country. They are not a religious requirement.

      • catweazle666 says:

        “Any weird apparel is just laughed at”
        If you were to laugh at a woman in a burka, I strongly suspect you would end up in court charged with an Islamophobic “hate crime”.

  4. KennieD says:

    Ban the burka, is the new call, just like in France and discussed in other eu countries. Well, I live in France and I’ve seen a lot of them now without their veils.
    Conclusion: the burka should be compulsory for them. And for the men, pink ones.

    • Jane Davies says:

      Kennie D I’m sure your British humour goes down a bomb in France, as mine does here in Canada, lots of blank faces!! Be careful though I’m sure someone can find your implication regarding the now exposed faces as being a racist ,sexist and Islamophobic comments in this crazily PC world we live in.

      • KennieD says:

        Hello Jane,
        Yes it was just my sense of humour taking the p*** out of unworkable (at least difficult) policies. However, in my area of France, such a view would be considered mild by the majority of the French.

  5. Ex-expat Colin says:

    The Saudi’s at the UN will assure integration..NOT. You can dress how you like and at your own risk I suggest….just don’t make life riskier for others! If you are unfortunately real ugly…well, you know?

    Tucker at 24 Apr 2017:

    • Jane Davies says:

      That’s a bit rich coming from a man who’s own government has just had an all male panel sign a law to remove womens health care rights. Irony? You bet.

      • Ex-expat Colin says:

        Not clear what all this means but is the fundamental provision below impacted? (the linked piece has a “could have” in it…unknown effect?)

        “Title X helps ensure that every person, regardless of where they live, how much money they make, or whether or not they have health insurance, has access to basic, preventive reproductive health care”.

        Preventative means the expensive/extended bad bit doesn’t happen…to me anyway.

        The last I understood on the subject was the argument about state funded abortions…costs to the tax payer etc. We have similar problems with the International NHS! And then there is the persistent missing/non paying fathers problem. Obama was to fix that…apparently?

        Don’t think its any kind of comparison with Saudi’s..they (the worst) are into screwing the world largely.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s