116 thoughts on “BAN THE BURQA: because somehow this will prevent bank robberies

  1. I have never seen a news report saying “suspects were wearing burqas!”. Are these people completely mental? As if the first group of people that the police are interested in questioning after a bank robbery are Muslim women. It must cause massive headaches to be that damn stupid!

  2. Oops didn’t realize sight was you TAB! Trying to look through all of this on my phone and sometimes I get confused between sights! My sentiment is right though when it comes to these Ban the Burqa Morons!

  3. the burqa thing is a total non-issue. customs and banks already know how to deal with it respectfully. to say that we should ban it because it MAY be used in crime is idiocy becasue then we would logically be forced to ban everything that MAY be used in crime. which is everything.

    • Indeed. I remember pointing out to one of this anti-burqa protesters that while there has not been a robbery undertaken by a man wearing a burqa, there has been a robbery undertaken by a man concealing his face with toilet paper-and asked if under that justification, would they want to ban toilet paper?

      I have yet to hear a response.

  4. This is a dumb fucking Thread, Burqa’s are out of date religious statements, there is no Islamic State in Australia, so there is no need for bedsheets in the form of colourful condoms.

  5. The whole idea of banning the burqa is so that it won’t be used as a get out of jail free card. Take Carnita Mathews. Because of her burqa, she was able to call a cop racist and get away with it.

    • But Luke, that will only happen once. I assure you that the Police will not be taking any more statements from a person in a Burqa without verifying their identity.

      In the mean time, Cory Bernadi will resume his attempts to ban the Burqa, hoodies, trucker’s caps, oversized sun glasses and womens stockings. Ski masks will be exempt.

      • And while we are at it…(tongue-in-cheek list developing here)

        1. Motor bike riders! Complete criminals in the making! Ban motor bike riding now!
        2. Fencing. Those masks (and swords) could be used to rob a bank. Ban fencing now!
        3. Kendo. Those masks (and swords) could be used to rob a bank. Ban kendo now!
        4. Cricket batting helmets. Our national sport? Those bastards could rob a bank with that bat. Ban cricket now!
        5. Grid Iron. Freakin’ yank game-so it should be banned on that basis alone. Complete (yank) bank robbers as well. Ban Grid Iron
        6. Racing car drivers – see 1.
        7. Clowns. Those guys just look plain creepy. I’m sure they could store Glock pistols in their enlarged boots. Ban clown outfits now!

        …any more?

        • BRIDAL VEILS!!!!! who knows what you could be marrying + the bank robbing potential, those bouquets could take out a room with one swing! BAN marriage now!

        • ZOMFG you’re right!!!1!! We must ban weddings!!!!1!! Everyone panic!!!! A bridal veil is like a burqa and a burqa has been used in a bank robbery among the hundreds of bank robberies that occurs each year!!!! We must now panic over this insignificant and overhyped threat that no one in the security industry gives a flying fuck about!!1!!1 we must also write overlong sentences!!!!

        • Oh, don’t forget FACINATORS! Because it might not just be a boozy princess hiding underneath that flock of feathers!

        • I will continue to panic over much about anything a woman places on her head as potential bank robbery paraphernalia, what about sun hats? THOSE LARGE SUN HATS!!! who can see under those shaded large brims? they are clearly designed to stop security personnel and security cameras from ascertaining the individual lurking underneath them, the whole ‘oh i am stopping my skin from becoming burnt’ ‘preventing cancer’ ‘slowing aging’ is clearly a front for bank robbery i also hope that i have managed to write a large enough sentence to convey the horror and alarm i feel, we need serious real action and less pandering to women who cause and plan millions of bank robberies every day in Australia while wearing their sun hats!!!

        • Was that supposed to be sarcasticly funny. Major fail like you do in life. Typical over educated, no life experience bum with no hope for the future. And what is with the 1’s in with the exclamation point?? Is that your number one exclamation or just failed, AGAIN, at holding down the shift key. Retard.

        • Men with the middle name Raymond? I’f you ever hear “John Raymond Smith” mentioned on the news then you can be sure it’s in relation to a criminal matter, usually a bank robbery.

        • Ban Panty-Hose. Used in many thousands of robberies.
          Sorry Ladies, people who need them for pressure socks, and gardeners – Panty-Hose has been used in too many robberies to be considered safe for use by the public.

      • The law is adeqately defined, however in this case a police offcier simply didn’t adequately identify the complainant. The publicity surrounding this case should ensure that coppers don’t make the same mistake again.

        Carnita Matthews, your unabated crime spree is coming to an end!

        • Righto then blame the cop for backing down in the face of threats and calls of “racist” on part of the neanderthal men that escorted her to and from court.

        • He’s talking about what happened at the time the crime was committed, not what happened at court. Or are you saying the threats part happened at the scene of the crime? (I’m not familiar with the case.)

        • Both. Calling a cop racist is warrent enough for an arrest and yet she walks of scot free. Injustice is ripe there, because were i to do the same with a bike helmet on i’d be sittin in a gaol cell with a large man tryin to dominate my anus. Point is, people can and will take advantage of the taboo surrounding the burqas to get away with most anything.

        • The mistake is that of the policeman as he allowed Carnita to escape the scene of the altercation without being identified. The crime wasn’t that she wore a burqa, it was that she falsely accused the officer of trying to remove her burqa. If she was refusing to comply with police requests to be identified, she could have been arrested. It’s that simple.

        • I don’t think that’s an indictment on the burqa though, I think it’s an indictment on the silly bitch that was wearing it at the time. It’s a shame that the cop didn’t dot his i’s and cross his t’s and get her charged as she deserves. 😐

        • It was not the cop who took the abuse that made the error, but the guy who took her statement when she walked into a Police station hours later to make the complaint. The first trial found her guilty of making a false claim at that time, however the appeal found that the cop who took the statement had not verified her identity at the time of the complaint. She contended that it was not her who made the “false” complaint and the Police could not refute this.

          A simple error which should never be repeated. The “free pass” for muslim women has been revoked.

      • As distinct from the extremist xenophobes who object to anything that doesn’t match “Straya” as defined by their myths?

      • And what’s your point cumguzzler?? Posting a IP address. haha. What you gonna do you fuckstain?? pfffffttttt, you have nothing you internet warrior. How about we meet for a little chat??

        • What a cute little pooch!

          Don’t you just love these little creatures? All talk and no substance – and soooo charming!

          He’d sit nicely in my handbag …

        • hahahaha, we’ll see who’s laughing soon. I do believe you have posted members of the Rebels on here. hahaha, Mathew will be shitting his pants when they turn up for a chat. Then come for the rest of you one by one. Say hi to Golan for me. 🙂

        • Pointing the finger does you no good, nor does making threats. I’m sure that if there are pictures of Rebels up here they will stand by what they said, and if not then they can ask to have their comments removed!
          But of course – go ahead and link them to violence and threatening activity. I doubt they’d want that kind of tag, given the current anti-bikie laws.

        • Excuse me shitlips, can you point out where the threats are?? You seriously need help. Does me no good?? Does me no harm either…….hahaha It’s ok , I sent him a message and a link to this vomit site. Can you show me where I “link them to violence and threatening activity.” I wish you all the best in your future endeavours, no matter how short that future might be. Enjoy that chat. A chat is a chat………….:-)

        • Shitlips? What are you, 10?
          You said: “Mathew will be shitting his pants when they turn up for a chat. Then come for the rest of you one by one.”
          I don’t know who you think Mathew is but them’s fightin’ words boy-o!
          Funny how you champions who are so anti-Islam are so pro-violence and antagonism… The playground is calling you!

        • And I’m pretty sure they will be removed with or without your cooperation. All the best. 🙂
          Anti Bikie laws??? hahahaha. We are just a group of boys sharing the same passion for our cycles.

        • pfffffffffttttttt please. Good luck with that. Keep watching over your shoulder. And when you hear that rumble, don’t bother locking the door. Darp, Gollan and the likes. 🙂

        • 58.169.167.2

          I see you’re in Brisbane. I’m in Melbourne. If you want to have a chat, then let’s just hope it’s a chat. Our database says that you have a son, and I doubt he wants his daddy getting mixed up with macho shit like you’re trying.

          If you want to talk about Islam here then go ahead. We haven’t blocked you. Yet!

        • “Bogan Aussie” has form with lame threats I’m told. They usually end with “Eat a dick”. Some sort of fantasy fetish going on there…maybe he dreams of tough bikers and their leather.

          Hows’s JM-J these days Shanners?

          Who the hell is “Darp”?

        • Thanks for the info sent to theantibogan@gmail.com Josh. It was most substantive. Perhaps Faulkner has dealt with this guy before! And ‘Eat a dick’? No kidding! A person who hates Muslims and non-whites exhibiting homophobic behaviour?? Who woulda thunk it?

        • hahahaha, fail again gronks and sluts of AARD. Brisbane you say, FAIL. hahaha Melbourne you say……fail. Our database says otherwise……..hahahaha Who the fuck do you cunts think you are?? The CIA, FBI?? Faulkner, Josh, Melissa. Great alias, but fail again. And everyone who is anyone knows who Darp is ya fuckstain. Eh Henderson?? Do you know the funny thing?? Not for much longer………..Shannners??? Funny. Fail again. Oh, and I have 2 kids, and they both can’t stand muslims either, but they’re old enough to make up their own mind, since they both have better jobs than the lot of you uni students.

  6. A MAN who holds up travel agents with a knife while dressed as a woman in a burqa has been caught on CCTV.

    Dressed head-to-toe in the Muslim women’s outfit, the bandit travels from shop to shop taking ‘substantial’ amounts of money.

    He was captured on CCTV footage in Dunstable, Bedfordshire in the UK.

    He was also seen carrying an umbrella but it is unknown if this was another form of disguise or if he used it to threaten his victims.

    He forced them into a back room where he demanded cash from the safe.

    The first incident happened in July 2009 and the second in May last year but these images were released last week as part of the Crimewatch Roadshow which is currently touring the country.

    The second robbery happened at a branch of Thompsons where he threatened a member of staff and a customer, again with a knife.

    As with the first robbery, which took place just around the corner from the second, he took the women into a back office and escaped with cash from a safe.

    Detective Sergeant Terry David from Bedfordshire police said: ‘Witnesses are sure [it was a man] because of the voice, build and mannerisms.’

    He added it was difficult for police because officers can’t go around lifting people’s burqas.

    ‘It is a very concentious issue,’ he said. ‘A contentious disguise and we think he is deliberately choosing that disguise because of that.

    ‘He could quite possibly strike again.’

      • 1. This is a UK story, not an Australian news piece;

        o What gave that away? The part where is says. “Bedfordshire in the UK” I certainly never purported that it was an Australian Story.

        2. This story could have happened with or without a burqa ban;

        o . You’re all over this stuff like a fat kid on a smartie. Are none of the intelligent TAB members working at the moment?

        3. A burqa ban removes freedom of choice for women, and ignores the fact that the people who misuse the burqa are men;

        o I don’t believe I mentioned a Burqa ban. Nope, re read this article three times and couldn’t find a reference to a ban. (I certainly do have issues with people’s automatic acceptance to religious belief as an acceptable excuse for not providing proof of identity. But that is an issue I will discuss in a separate response)

        4. Fuck you

        o Did you leave out a question mark? I am currently in a relationship but if things change I will give you a call.

        http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1269272256

        Not sure what the purpose was of linking to my Facebook page. I am a little disappointed that you would use peoples Email address, (that they are required to give prior to replying to a post.) to access and post links to their Facebook pages.
        Was there a valid reason for this?

        • * I certainly never purported that it was an Australian Story.

          Yet your grief with the burqa directly relates to legislation in regards to preferential treatment for people who subscribe to religion in AUSTRALIA.

          https://theantibogan.wordpress.com/2011/06/27/ban-the-burqa-because-somehow-this-will-prevent-bank-robberies/#comment-13996

          * You’re all over this stuff like a fat kid on a smartie. Are none of the intelligent TAB members working at the moment?

          You have issue with people being allowed to wear a burqa as it is somehow preferential treatment. Yet whether or not it was lawful to wear a burqa was irrelevant in this story, so therefore your use of this story has voided your argument.

          * (I certainly do have issues with people’s automatic acceptance to religious belief as an acceptable excuse for not providing proof of identity. But that is an issue I will discuss in a separate response)

          If your issue lies within identification legislation/policy/procedure/protocol then you could really have provided any other news story where a person has escaped prosecution via a legal loophole. Yet you chose a burqa-related story in the midst of a discussion about banning it no less.

          * Not sure what the purpose was of linking to my Facebook page. I am a little disappointed that you would use peoples Email address, (that they are required to give prior to replying to a post.) to access and post links to their Facebook pages.
          Was there a valid reason for this?

          I don’t know, Paul, perhaps because you decided to post your burqa ‘news’ item under the name ‘Jeff’. Was there a valid reason for this?

        • “I don’t know, Paul, perhaps because you decided to post your burqa ‘news’ item under the name ‘Jeff’. Was there a valid reason for this?”

          *Yes there was a valid reason for it. Jeff Posted it.
          Suprisingly i have not seen you do the same with the multitude of other posters not posting under their own names. I have posted on this site on other occasions using my real name. I have nothing to hide.

          “Yet your grief with the burqa directly relates to legislation in regards to preferential treatment for people who subscribe to religion in AUSTRALIA.”

          *My grief is with people who subcribe to religion anywhere actually.

          “If your issue lies within identification legislation/policy/procedure/protocol then you could really have provided any other news story where a person has escaped prosecution via a legal loophole. Yet you chose a burqa-related story in the midst of a discussion about banning it no less”

          *Seems rather relevant to me.

        • Funny how ‘Jeff’ posted using your email and IP addresses. Why else was it necessary to enter ‘Jeff’s’ email address into Facebook to ascertain your profile link?

          * *My grief is with people who subcribe to religion anywhere actually.

          So are you advocating for a burqa ban or not? You’ve chosen this website and this particular post to publish the ‘news’ story, so what’s your ideal result?

          * *Seems rather relevant to me.

          It would do, if you were advocating a burqa ban. With the burqa as lawful attire, you are proposing that they have some form of ‘preferential treatment’ and/or ‘concessions’. With a burqa ban, you no longer have such a complaint.

        • “Funny how ‘Jeff’ posted using your email and IP addresses. Why else was it necessary to enter ‘Jeff’s’ email address into Facebook to ascertain your profile link?”

          *Probably should have explained it a little better. Jeff and myself were sucking down tinnies and reading this website. I told him to post up the article that i had read on a 4×4 forum earlier in the day. No conspiracy here i am afraid.

          “So are you advocating for a burqa ban or not? You’ve chosen this website and this particular post to publish the ‘news’ story, so what’s your ideal result?”

          *I am advocating that everyone be treatred equally. There’s a novel idea for you.
          Whether you be christian, muslim, or a Jedi. I have wrongly assumed that this site was in favour of equallity.

          * **Seems rather relevant to me.

          “It would do, if you were advocating a burqa ban. With the burqa as lawful attire, you are proposing that they have some form of ‘preferential treatment’ and/or ‘concessions’. With a burqa ban, you no longer have such a complaint.”

          *I am unsure of how you would consider this anything but relevant. In this thread alone there is at least one person stating that they have never heard of a robbery being committed by someone wearing a Burqua. TAB has used that same example on numerous occasions.

          Relevance. It has it in spades.

          Perhaps you should post guidelines regarding what can be posted here.

          Eg. Only the sycophant ramblings of our followers will be tolerated in posts. All posts that do not conform to our ideals will be dealt with in a juvenille and simplistic manner.

        • *Probably should have explained it a little better. Jeff and myself were sucking down tinnies and reading this website. I told him to post up the article that i had read on a 4×4 forum earlier in the day. No conspiracy here i am afraid.

          1. You’re an accepted forum member which means that your name, website and email are auto-filled when you go to make a comment.
          2. Why did you need to instruct your mate to post the link you were reading? Weren’t you both at the computer?
          3. Regardless of one and two, why did Jeff need to erase your name and write his in when you were sitting next to him instructing him to post articles?

          I smell bullshit but it’s irrelevant. It just means that I believe you felt the link may have been antagonistic given the context of the post you attached it to.

          *I am advocating that everyone be treatred equally. There’s a novel idea for you.
          Whether you be christian, muslim, or a Jedi. I have wrongly assumed that this site was in favour of equallity.

          You’re welcome to wear the burqa if you wish, Paul. Now your inequality has been addressed, what other outcomes were you advocating for while posting your ‘news’?

          *I am unsure of how you would consider this anything but relevant. In this thread alone there is at least one person stating that they have never heard of a robbery being committed by someone wearing a Burqua. TAB has used that same example on numerous occasions.

          Because usually when people post random pieces of evidence of burqas behaving badly, it is to imply that burqas need to be banned. You’ve said that you don’t want it banned, but that it’s unfair that people can lawfully wear them. Your article was irrelevant because it doesn’t give reason as to why the burqa should be banned, nor does it give an example of a person wearing it lawfully and as a result being granted concessions or preferential treatment.

          Perhaps you should post guidelines regarding what can be posted here.

          Eg. Only the sycophant ramblings of our followers will be tolerated in posts. All posts that do not conform to our ideals will be dealt with in a juvenille and simplistic manner

          Cry me a river darling. Perhaps when you get your mate who is sitting right next to you to copy paste evidence of criminals dressing in burqas to achieve criminal results you should also get him to type up some kind of reasoning for doing so. You haven’t yet identified how Muslims are granted preferential treatment/concessions.

    • I am nodding in fevered agreement to this suggestion, and I can not believe we have not banned tights or scarves or masks of any kind, OMFG I just realised we teach children to fashion masks out of paper plates at primary school!!!!!!!! ban paper plates and for the love of all things holy BAN SCHOOL AND CHILDREN!!!!! its a hotbed of criminal behaviour and indoctrination!!!

    • And so it begins. If you’re going to ban burqas because they obscure the face and may be used in crime then you would logically have to do that for everything. That said I’ve never been robbed by someone wearing a burqa but I have been by people in trackies and hoodies

  7. Since I was rudely responded to by the caring and sharing members of the TAB community for sharing a piece of what I thought was relevant information (without further comment by myself) to the ongoing debate about the burqua I thought I should respond in a more detailed manner and address some of TABS issues.

    My stance on the Burqua.
    I don’t really give a flying fuck wether people wear a burqa or not. It is of no consequence to me. People could wear a Bulls ball sack stretched over their melon and it would not bother me in the least.

    I do give a flying fuck when people are offered concessions or preferential treatment because they believe in a mythical being.

    People who wear motorcycle helmets are expected to remove their helmet when entering certain establishments; they are also required to remove their helmets for the purpose of identification when asked by the police. As are people who wear dark glasses and hoodies.

    The wearing of the Burqa or niqab is, as far as I am aware, (and I am happy to be corrected on this, is not mandatory in the Islamic faith). Asking people to remove their niqab for the purposes of identification does not in any way interfere with their right to practice their religion , or their right to freedom of choice.

    Hopefully the law will be changed ASAP to rectify this selective PC, discriminatory garbage.

    So in short, can someone explain to me why we should have differing rules for identification purposes based solely on a person’s belief in a mythical being, I would love to hear it?

    • “I do give a flying fuck when people are offered concessions or preferential treatment because they believe in a mythical being.”

      Preferential treatment? Concessions? Do you have any examples there Paul? Or is the wearing of the burqa the only one? Because you’re free to wear the burqa too, if you so desire.

      “People who wear motorcycle helmets are expected to remove their helmet when entering certain establishments; they are also required to remove their helmets for the purpose of identification when asked by the police. As are people who wear dark glasses and hoodies.”

      Are you feeling hot and bothered about being identified, Paul? Have you made any life-changing image adjustments according to what you believe to be adherence to a certain way you wish to live your life? Do you feel that you need to walk around in shopping centres and in banks wearing your motorcycle helmet because you wish to avoid the image-based judgments people may make about you without it?
      Your issue is with the identification process. Banks and airports clearly have no issues with identifying people wearing burqas when necessary – they have set policies and procedures that are of minimal disruption. The ugly issue has arisen because the police officer speaking to that mangled wreck Carnita Matthews didn’t verify in any way that it was her underneath the burqa, when he had every legislative right to do so. The legislation already exists, and if he had followed correct protocol, he would have ensured that he had identified his suspect correctly at the scene of the crime. There were many ways he could have done this.

      • My other post appears to run out of reply buttons. So i shall post it here.

        1. You’re an accepted forum member which means that your name, website and email are auto-filled when you go to make a comment.

        2. Why did you need to instruct your mate to post the link you were reading? Weren’t you both at the computer?

        3. Regardless of one and two, why did Jeff need to erase your name and write his in when you were sitting next to him instructing him to post articles?

        (2) Yes we were both sitting at or near the computer. Jeff was sitting at the keyboard. Rather than sit on his lap I told him to post it up.

        (3) How the hell would I know, perhaps he saw the space where it said name and decided to do the sensible thing and write his name.

        I smell bullshit but it’s irrelevant. It just means that I believe you felt the link may have been antagonistic given the context of the post you attached it to.

        (4)The bullshit you are smelling is either your cologne or you are getting paranoid.

        *I am advocating that everyone be treated equally. There’s a novel idea for you.
        Whether you be christian, muslim, or a Jedi. I have wrongly assumed that this site was in favor of equality.

        You’re welcome to wear the burqa if you wish, Paul. Now your inequality has been addressed, what other outcomes were you advocating for while posting your ‘news’?

        (5) You as well as every person reading this recognises this as a bullshit response. If you don’t have a reasonable explanation don’t embarrass yourself by posting this type of garbage.
        *I am unsure of how you would consider this anything but relevant. In this thread alone there is at least one person stating that they have never heard of a robbery being committed by someone wearing a Burqa. TAB has used that same example on numerous occasions.
        Because usually when people post random pieces of evidence of burqas behaving badly, it is to imply that burqas need to be banned. You’ve said that you don’t want it banned, but that it’s unfair that people can lawfully wear them. Your article was irrelevant because it doesn’t give reason as to why the burqa should be banned, nor does it give an example of a person wearing it lawfully and as a result being granted concessions or preferential treatment.

        (6) See response 5.

        Perhaps you should post guidelines regarding what can be posted here.
        E.g. Only the sycophant ramblings of our followers will be tolerated in posts. All posts that do not conform to our ideals will be dealt with in a juvenile and simplistic manner
        Cry me a river darling. Perhaps when you get your mate who is sitting right next to you to copy paste evidence of criminals dressing in burqas to achieve criminal results you should also get him to type up some kind of reasoning for doing so. You haven’t yet identified how Muslims are granted preferential treatment/concessions.

        (7) My reasoning was mentioned in my last post. Thanks to selective Quoting on your behalf it does not appear in your response.
        Several posters, Tab included have indicated that they were not aware of anyone wearing a burqa to commit a crime.
        The article gives an example where such a crime has taken place. Had you not come riding in on you holier than thou horse and told me to get fucked it would have remained there purely as a piece of information to be either read or ignored.

        Muslims expect and frequently receive deference to their religious ways.(for examples read up about their protest at RMIT and there refusal to use multi faith prayer rooms)
        The Burqa is not required to be worn so why not remove it when entering any
        establishment that asks for helmets and or face coverings to be removed. Common courtesy really.
        Don’t bother replying to this because at the end of the day I really just do not give a fuck.

        • Although I think that you make some very valid points Paul, I don’t think that one reported case worldwide of a man using a Burqa as disguise warrants the hysteria that surrounds this issue. I do agree with you in regards to banks and airports, no person should be excluded from revealing their face in these places, what applies to any one person should apply to all.

        • “You as well as every person reading this recognises this as a bullshit response. If you don’t have a reasonable explanation don’t embarrass yourself by posting this type of garbage.”

          You’ve stated your position on the burqa, and that is one of opposition, as you believe that Muslims are given preferential treatment/concessions. Despite saying this, you STILL haven’t outlined exactly what preferential treatment/concessions you believe those to be. So far, I can only see that Muslims are allowed to wear burqas – something that you are not forbidden from doing. So again I ask – where is the inequality? You claim that everyone should be treated equally – yet won’t clarify just how unfair things are for non-Muslims. Your refusal to address this part of the discussion is about as shit as your cologne comment.

          “Several posters, Tab included have indicated that they were not aware of anyone wearing a burqa to commit a crime.”

          No Paul/Jeff, not true. They were using language to suggest that after looking into it, they were not aware of any burqa related crimes in Australia.

          Bogan: We should ban burqas in Australia! People could use them to rob banks!
          Antibogan: Oh! I wasn’t aware that there were any banks that had been robbed by people wearing burqas in Australia, the place you wish the ban to be imposed.

          “The article gives an example where such a crime has taken place. Had you not come riding in on you holier than thou horse and told me to get fucked it would have remained there purely as a piece of information to be either read or ignored.”

          No Paul/Jeff, not true. You’ve since stated that you posted the piece because you believe that Muslims get preferential treatment/concessions and you find this unfair. Despite feeling completely hard done by the fact that burqas are lawful clothing choices, you have also claimed that you don’t care whether or not burqas are banned, but that by allowing them to be worn, people who choose not to wear them are unfairly discriminated against. If you’re struggling to follow the thought pattern here, this is the same feeling I’m experiencing. NOW you’re saying you just posted the article to inform people that men have used the burqa to conceal their identity while committing crime in other countries? Well thanks for the news flash baby, we weren’t aware of this. *smacks forehead*

          Then you finish your rant with ‘Common courtesy really.’ Ha! What a laugh! Cultural insensitivity and discussions of ban legislation for no reason other than a desire for ‘common courtesy’. And you call us hypocrites…

          P.S – ‘holier than thou’? Have you been reading through our racist word bank? Interesting..

        • .
           “You’ve stated your position on the burqa, and that is one of opposition,”

          1. Here is my position as first stated in my post. I certainly don’t see a position of opposition there.

          My stance on the Burqa.
          I don’t really give a flying fuck whether people wear a burqa or not. It is of no consequence to me. People could wear a Bulls ball sack stretched over their melon and it would not bother me in the least.

          • “as you believe that Muslims are given preferential treatment/concessions”

          2.Quote from my post. “I do give a flying fuck when people are offered concessions or preferential treatment because they believe in a mythical being”

          You seem transfixed on this statement so I will concede to you that my choice of words was not ideal.

          • Despite saying this, you STILL haven’t outlined exactly what preferential treatment/concessions you believe those to be. So far, I can only see that Muslims are allowed to wear burqas – something that you are not forbidden from doing. So again I ask – where is the inequality? You claim that everyone should be treated equally – yet won’t clarify just how unfair things are for non-Muslims. Your refusal to address this part of the discussion is about as shit as your cologne comment.

          3. I am not saying that life is unfair for Non-muslims. It is very fair to be asked to remove your face covering when entering certain places of places of business.

          The Question I am asking, and have been asking for quite some time now is why are some people exempt from removing a face covering and others are not?

          • “No Paul/Jeff, not true. You’ve since stated that you posted the piece because you believe that Muslims get preferential treatment/concessions and you find this unfair. Despite feeling completely hard done by the fact that burqas are lawful clothing choices, you have also claimed that you don’t care whether or not burqas are banned, but that by allowing them to be worn, people who choose not to wear them are unfairly discriminated against. If you’re struggling to follow the thought pattern here, this is the same feeling I’m experiencing. NOW you’re saying you just posted the article to inform people that men have used the burqa to conceal their identity while committing crime in other countries? Well thanks for the news flash baby, we weren’t aware of this. *smacks forehead*”

          4. Quote from my reply after TAB had a jolly little rant.
          • “Since I was rudely responded to by the caring and sharing members of the TAB community for sharing a piece of what I thought was relevant information (without further comment by myself) to the ongoing debate about the burqa I thought I should respond in a more detailed manner and address some of TABS issues.”

          Nowhere did I state that I posted the article because of my belief that religious groups get deferential treatment. I was quite happy for the article to stand alone, hence no comment from myself.

          No where do I say that I feel hard done by.

          No where do I state that I don’t care if they are banned or not.

          Unfortunately I am unaware of what you and your readers are and are not aware of.

          You should probably stop smacking yourself in the forehead. It has obviously damaged you comprehension skills.
          And in your case may be construed as some form of masturbation.

          • “Then you finish your rant with ‘Common courtesy really.’ Ha! What a laugh! Cultural insensitivity and discussions of ban legislation for no reason other than a desire for ‘common courtesy’. And you call us hypocrites…”

          5.Cultural insensitivity? People choose to believe in their god of choice. Why do you feel the need to show some form of sensitivity towards that choice. Do you tip toe through discussions on politics because you don’t want to upset the Liberal/ labor /greens voter. A person’s decision to believe in a deity should be given no more respect or weight than their choice of political party or football team.
          Common courtesy is not a bad thing to aim for I believe. I know I am sorely lacking in it. And the members of TAB most certainly are.

          P.S – ‘holier than thou’? Have you been reading through our racist word bank? Interesting..
          Not sure what word bank you are referring to but give me a link and I will check some out for future reference.

        • “I do give a flying fuck when people are offered concessions or preferential treatment because they believe in a mythical being.”

          Seeing as though the article you posted was in regards to a burqa, one must assume that you’re referring to burqas when you make your references to ‘preferential treatment’.

          “Hopefully the law will be changed ASAP to rectify this selective PC, discriminatory garbage.”

          Allowing Muslim women to wear the burqa is in your own words ‘selective PC, discriminatory garbage’.

          (I certainly don’t see a position of opposition there.) Don’t you?

          “It is very fair to be asked to remove your face covering when entering certain places of places of business.”

          Which places are you referring to? You do realise that businesses have the right to refuse entry to patrons who don’t comply with specified dress codes, right? Why can’t I walk into my local bar wearing a bikini? Now Paul/Jeff/Peter/Mary, if you really really really have issue with revealing your identity when walking into certain places of business, then you have the choice of wearing a burqa. Personally, I don’t mind people in public looking at me and making judgments about my appearance. If these feelings change, I’ll be able to wear a burqa. Are there any people in particular who actually feel wrongly done by when they have to show their faces walking into businesses?

          “The Question I am asking, and have been asking for quite some time now is why are some people exempt from removing a face covering and others are not?”

          In regards to cultural sensitivity, and because there is no precedence of people misusing the burqa, our legislation supports the wearing of one. Anyone can wear one, so nobody is exempt from this ‘exemption’.

          “I was quite happy for the article to stand alone, hence no comment from myself.”

          It didn’t occur to you that perhaps your spammed ‘news’ story may appear to be a piece of supporting material to the ‘let’s ban the burqa because banks are being robbed’ argument?

          “Cultural insensitivity? People choose to believe in their god of choice. Why do you feel the need to show some form of sensitivity towards that choice. Do you tip toe through discussions on politics because you don’t want to upset the Liberal/ labor /greens voter. A person’s decision to believe in a deity should be given no more respect or weight than their choice of political party or football team.”

          You’ve got to be kidding… Criticising a person’s culture or religious beliefs is on the same level as criticising a person’s choice in clothing or hairstyle, and not far off criticising a person’s sexuality. None of these things affect a single other person. Politics are issues that divide the nation as they affect everyone, and thus should be debated.

        • I was going to type out another reply until i remembered a post i had read on here. called “our disscussion”
          So on that note.

          This is not a disscussion
          I will not talk to you about this topic.

        • I’ve addressed your concerns about certain people in society having preferential treatment and concessions, and that seems to be what this ‘discussion’ (note the spelling) is mainly about. Rather than elaborating on the points you raised, your tears merely flowed harder at being criticised for posting a random ‘news’ item without any commentary and then later detailing your hidden opposition to those who practice their right to freedom of religion.

          So I bid you farewell, and look forward to seeing which alias you use next to push your non-debatable views.

  8.  I’ve addressed your concerns about certain people in society having preferential treatment and concessions, and that seems to be what this ‘discussion’ (note the spelling) is mainly about. Rather than elaborating on the points you raised, your tears merely flowed harder at being criticised for posting a random ‘news’ item without any commentary and then later detailing your hidden opposition to those who practice their right to freedom of religion.
    So I bid you farewell, and look forward to seeing which alias you use next to push your non-debatable views.

    I am not going to re hash this story but I do feel the need to address your lack of comprehension skills.

    All I want is some honest YES or NO answers. Is that possible for you? Just answer YES or NO honestly to the below questions.

    1. Did I concede that my choice of wording in this post was not ideal.

    .Quote from my post.
    “I do give a flying fuck when people are offered concessions or preferential treatment because they believe in a mythical being”

    “You seem transfixed on this statement I will concede to you that my choice of words was not ideal.”

    2 Did I become upset or “my tears flow harder” when you asked me to explain the reason or relevance of my original post.

    Quote from my post.
    “I am unsure of how you would consider this anything but relevant. In this thread alone there is at least one person stating that they have never heard of a robbery being committed by someone wearing a Burqua. TAB has used that same example on numerous occasions.”

    2. Did I at any time state that I oppose people exercising their right to religion.

    Quote from my posts.

    ”The wearing of the Burqa or niqab is, as far as I am aware, (and I am happy to be corrected on this, is not mandatory in the Islamic faith). Asking people to remove their niqab for the purposes of identification does not in any way interfere with their right to practice their religion , or their right to freedom of choice.”

    I eagerly await you long and convoluted response because I am quite sure you are incapable of being honest with yourself or the people who read this site.

    • “All I want is some honest YES or NO answers. Is that possible for you? Just answer YES or NO honestly to the below questions.

      1. Did I concede that my choice of wording in this post was not ideal.”

      Firstly, a question generally has a question mark at the end of it. But the answer to that question is YES. Your wording was poor.

      Now for a related response question:
      Do you believe that the freedom to wear a burqa grants people preferential treatment and concessions, and in turn creates an imbalance in society in terms of what is fair and what is not?
      “2 Did I become upset or “my tears flow harder” when you asked me to explain the reason or relevance of my original post.”

      I am unaware as to whether or not you have shed tears over this discussion, as it is a figure of speech and not an observation. Perhaps you should brush up on your comprehension skills too. The insults you’ve thrown around since this argument began have suggested that you’ve been upset. Personally, and speaking for the other TAB admin, we are beyond upset when it comes to various issues surrounding the various freedoms in Australia that have recently been threatened by fuckwits with agendas. We do not shed tears, we just rip into the keyboard.

      “2. Did I at any time state that I oppose people exercising their right to religion.”

      I was under the impression that 3 came after 2, but nonetheless I’ll address the question. While you have carefully avoided committing to a vocal opposition to being free to practice various aspects of your religion, you have both said and implied that granting Muslim females the right to wear burqas (and anyone else who slips into one for that matter), we are somehow creating a level of unfairness and abandoning the concept of ‘common courtesy’ where we all have to ‘live by the same rules’. So, by identifying an issue within society that you believe causes you concern, you have displayed an opposition to a legal right in our society.

      “I eagerly await you long and convoluted response because I am quite sure you are incapable of being honest with yourself or the people who read this site.”

      I hope that was to your satisfaction. Please attend to my question above, because I am quite sure that once you answer it you will realise that you have not been that honest with yourself or the people who read this site.

      • I will show you the way that the simple yes and no answer system works. Preschoolers have grasped the concept. Why can’t you?

        Q. Do you believe that the freedom to wear a burqa grants people preferential treatment and concessions, and in turn creates an imbalance in society in terms of what is fair and what is not?

        A. No.

        • Of course, leaving questions answered with one word answers makes things nice and simple for you, and I apologise that you had to try and comprehend the answers that were given.

          As you’ve answered my question with a simple ‘no’, I will need to ask another question:

          Q: If you don’t believe that the burqa grants people additional rights, then why would you require those that choose to wear it to remove it?

        • finnally finsished reading this entire thread. Some pure gold and some pure tripe. Got to say though, TAB you have had your arse handed to you on this one.

        • Talbot, opinions are like arseholes. Everyone has them. Some fart more than others.

          You have amply demonstrated that today.

        • Josh
          Perhaps you should run and ask you mummy if you are allowed to play with the grownups before posting.

          After reading a myriad of you posts I can only assume that TAB must cringe whenever they see your name pop up as having made a comment.

    • On the subject of wearing the burqa not being mandatory, it depends on the sect of Islam you follow. As with Christianity, Islam isn’t homogenous. For some sects, yes, it is required that a woman wear a burqa. And for others it isn’t *required* per se, but it certainly is expected.

      Here is a translated excerpt from the Qar’an:

      “And say to the faithful women to lower their gazes, and to guard their private parts, and not to display their beauty except what is apparent of it, and to extend their headcoverings (khimars) to cover their bosoms (jaybs), and not to display their beauty except to their husbands, or their fathers, or their husband’s fathers, or their sons, or their husband’s sons, or their brothers, or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their womenfolk, or what their right hands rule (slaves), or the followers from the men who do not feel sexual desire, or the small children to whom the nakedness of women is not apparent, and not to strike their feet (on the ground) so as to make known what they hide of their adornments. And turn in repentance to Allah together, O you the faithful, in order that you are successful”

      As you can see, it can be read in a number of ways, but certainly modest dress is part of Islam. And there are women who believe that in order to maintain their honour, they must cover up.

      Now, I have a question for you. (I bet you’re excited!) By linking the question about whether you said anything about opposing a person’s right to practice their religion with your previous quote about how Islam doesn’t require women to wear burqas, are you suggesting that because it’s not a clear part of all Islamic sects’ doctrines that we should be able to ask people to remove it?

      • o Now, I have a question for you. (I bet you’re excited!) By linking the question about whether you said anything about opposing a person’s right to practice their religion with your previous quote about how Islam doesn’t require women to wear burqas, are you suggesting that because it’s not a clear part of all Islamic sects’ doctrines that we should be able to ask people to remove it?

        Only in the same way we would ask someone to remove their helmet or sunglasses as they enter a service station or certain other establishments. And for reasons of identification.

        As I stated in one of my first posts.

        I do not really care what people wear on their heads. It is of no consequence to me

        • EXACTLY!

          Handguns are banned in Australia but has that stopped people owning them and using them to shoot at people?

          No fucking way.

        •  Handguns are banned in Australia but has that stopped people owning them and using them to shoot at people?
          No fucking way.

          Wait. What?

          Whose side are you on?

          By your reasoning Banning the Burqa would have no impact at all.

        • “No fucking way.
          Wait. What?
          Whose side are you on?
          By your reasoning Banning the Burqa would have no impact at all.”

          When people use handguns, it is to aid their crime. But when Muslim women wear them, it is because of a cultural adherence to a religion, which does not aid any crime that they intend on committing. So when the burqa is banned, Paul, the only person who will still be using it is the criminal. Let me know if you’re still with me at this point. And with no precedence of that kind of thing ever happening in Australia despite 200 years of Muslims living in Australia, will we really feel proud of ourselves by removing another societal freedom?

  9.  Talbot, Paul has altered the definition and the intent of his original posts all the way through to make himself sound like the reasonable one. All that has been proven is that he can talk his way out of posting stupid shite.
    Perhaps more commendable than most people who come here for an argument, since it shows a higher level of intelligence and cunning… but make no mistake, if you come onto this thread and post news stories about burqas being used in bank robberies, you are not here to champion understanding, no matter how much you weasel your way out of it later on.

    Say what now?

    At no point have I altered the intent of my original post
    .
    I did post another reply that asked why we have a differing set of rules for people who believe in deities. And why we feel it necessary to defer to peoples beliefs in mythical creatures. (This belief is not restricted to the Muslim faith)

    I did indeed concede that my choice of the words preferential treatment and concessions were not an ideal choice in trying to get my point across

    At no point did I say or even infer that I was here to champion understanding. It has become patently clear that TAB and yourself read, or rather read into my replies only the points you want to

    As I stated, I first posted the Article in the obviously misguided assumption that adding a few facts to an ongoing debate may have been of use to some people. Did I care who used the facts.
    Not in the least.

    From the TAB about us blurb.
    All believe in EDUCATION and interaction as forms of breaking down the barriers of racism and discrimination.

    Education definition, the act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge,

    TAB did not like the message and so posted mostly pertinent facts in their reply they then
    decided to take a swipe at the messenger with their last response
    “Fuck You” and posting my Facebook page. This must be the interaction phase for breaking down barriers.

    I take umbrage at the use of the word cunning in your description of myself.
    I fail to see where I have used deception or deceit in my responses.

    I have certainly not attempted to weasel my way out of anything.
    My stance and unanswered questions remain the same as they were originally posted.

    Talbot. You would do well to steer clear of posting further on here, it appears that the natives get restless if they feel the figure of their idolatry has been taken to task.

    • 1. At no point have I altered the intent of my original post

      Ah yes, to educate wasn’t it? To add information to the debate, right? And the fact that you didn’t think that it was okay for people to use their deity to assume certain privileges in society was irrelevant, yeah? And ‘I’ altered the intent of ‘my’ original post? Didn’t your mate ‘Jeff’ post it?

      2. I first posted the Article in the obviously misguided assumption that adding a few facts to an ongoing debate may have been of use to some people.

      ‘I’ posted the article (no capital letter)? And you thought that in a discussion about banning the burqa in Australia that a ‘news’ example of one burqa related crime on the other side of the world was a ‘fact’ and that nobody knew about such instances?

      The ‘fuck you’ stands.

      • Here we go again. And to think i was being called a pedant.

        You are talking about two separate posts. One entered with no comment from myself and the other a post detailing my thoughts and opinions.
        It has become evident that you are easily confused. Perhaps you should just try and do things one step at a time. Baby steps TAB, baby steps.

        Yes, Jeff physically pushed the buttons to complete the post. As i said earlier it was done at my behest.

        Ah pure Gold TAB, The tried and very tiring attempt to belittle someone or insinuate stupidity due to their inability to correctly capitalise.

        Well played TAB, Well played indeed.

        Followed closely by the return to profanity. Truly the last bastion of a person devoid of anything worthwhile to say.

        • “You are talking about two separate posts. One entered with no comment from myself and the other a post detailing my thoughts and opinions.”

          The sheer irrelevancy of your first post (a meaningless ‘news’ item) prompted us to probe you as to why you felt the need to post it. Rather than saying at the time that you were trying to educate people (I am still laughing at that), you decided to illustrate your opposition to concessions and preferential treatment for those who are religious, which of course, is a complete crock of shit.

  10. Now we would like the comment of the Four Pauline Horsemen on this article. Do you think Jewish religious dress should be banned? If not why not? Can you see also that it would be possible for a Buddhist monk or nun (not uncommon in Australian cities) to wear their garments in such a way as to conceal their identity?

    Or are we right in assuming that your philosophical and legal concerns are directed solely at the customs practised by a mere handful of Muslims as a way of attacking Islam? Did you know Jews were likewise attacked for their dress and customs as part of this process, and we all know where that led to?

      • Don’t worry about Paul. He’s just upset that he’s been called out on his mindless attempt at joining a conversation about the burqa.

      • Since you asked so nicely Melissa.

        • Now we would like the comment of the Four Pauline Horsemen on this article. Do you think Jewish religious dress should be banned?
        No.

        If not why not?

        For the same reason I don’t want to ban T shirts and pants. Naked people cruising the streets are not my idea of a fun time.

        • Can you see also that it would be possible for a Buddhist monk or nun (not uncommon in Australian cities) to wear their garments in such a way as to conceal their identity?

        Yes I can.

        • Or are we right in assuming that your philosophical and legal concerns are directed solely at the customs practiced by a mere handful of Muslims as a way of attacking Islam?

        That would be an incorrect assumption.

        • Did you know Jews were likewise attacked for their dress and customs as part of this process, and we all know where that led to?

        Not sure what process you are referring to.

        • • Stupidest response of all time. That logic could equally be applied to banning burqas.

          I will say this one more time for those who are a bit slow on uptake or for those who can’t be arsed reading my posts.

          I do not want to Ban the Burqa or any other form of attire.
          I am sick to death of Governments dictating to us and banning things.

          • Not buying it.
          I would expect nothing less.

          • Wow. Pick out the one word that you can claim ambiguity over as a means of avoiding answering a pretty straightforward question.

          It may have been straight forward to you. But to me it was a ridiculous and stupid question.

          The Nazis did not annihilate millions of Jews because of their dress and customs.

          A word I hear a lot at home kept popping into my head when I read your latest post. Milo. It’s a chocolate based powder that you mix with milk. It fits your perfectly Melissa. Because you are not Quik.

  11. You seem to be a person of some intelligence, so I can only assume that you aware of what a fact is.
    In light of this assumption I will ignore the rest of the drivel in this post because, well because it truly is drivel

    When you get to the bottom of a hole it is commonly accepted that you can not dig yourself out of it.

  12. All this talk of banning the burqas is ridiculous. If Islamic woman wish to wear one, so what? Really, it does no harm to anyone, it is just a religious/ cultural garment. Much like the Roman Catholic nun’s habit (sp?).

    However, unlike the Roman Catholic example, the push for banning the burqa is embraced by upstanding citizens such as the neo Nazi’s, white power groups and other such filth groups.

    Banning the burqa will be seen as some sort of ‘victory’ by the above shitheads, a victory I would like seen denied.

    FFS, the burqa is not a pressing issue in Australia! There are many other issues that need urgent attention, the Health system for example. What a pity people cannot become so passionate about the real issues. Insted of thinly veiled racism.

  13. I thought we said BYE Paul.

    We did. I was not responding to your post.
    You will have to stop following me around like this.
    People will talk.

    You’ve transitioned from posting something ridiculous, to railing stubbornly against being called out on it, to making excuses, to pedantry and attempted condescention…. and now you’re just trolling.

    I thought my condescension was quite successful.

    Do you have anything valid to contribute?

    Not really. After reading this site I assumed validity was not required.

    Any on-topic points of discussion?

    This hasn’t been a discussion for quite some time.

    If not, it’s trolling. And it’s fucking tired.

    Have a nap. It works for me.

    Bye Mellisa.
    .

  14. Just saw Folkes, Hodges on the news outside some Islamic conference

    Sometimes I think they only do it for attention

      • This time I am CORRECT, mindmadeup!

        Carnita Matthews was in the wrong regardless of whether she were wearing a burqua or not. Even if she were in the nude: She was stopped – in her car – under the suspicion of being drunk (?). [muslims are not supposed to drink, but tell that to the thousands of rich, muslim, arabs who flock to countries like India simply to get drunk out of sharia sight]. Carnita Matthews only had to produce her driver’s licence, blow into the breath test gadget and the truth would be known. Drunk/just a little/or had not even had a smell of alcohol!

        Instead of obeying Australian Law, Carnita Matthews decided to use the muslim card and accuse the Police Officer of trying to remove her burqua. Ha, ha, ha! Smile you are on candid camera!!! Carnita Matthews could hardly deny that the Police Officer had not even attempted to remove her burqua when it was on video, could she???

        Oh, yes!!! The Police Officer actually tried to put the breath gadget into her mouth, WHICH THEY DO TO EVERY DRIVER REGARDLESS OF being a man, woman or a pig. Please excuse my mistake!!!

        Why stay in a country that refuses to treat you with the respect THE WAY YOU CONSIDER CORRECT???When I was a tourist in Egypt I visited a mosque and was politely asked to remove my shoes. No problem!!! I was quite happy to oblige. That was the Law, I was a visitor, visitors must respect other countries’ Laws.

        Get it, mindmadeup???

        Surely it is not the better quality of life.

        Nor the fact her family are/or were receiving seven Centrelink child welfare cheques each fortnight. Genuinely-deserving Australian pensioners who worked in Australia and paid Australian tax are expected to live on just ONE cheque. Why give Australian taxpayers’ money to unappreciative foreigners?

        It could not be because there is no warfare being fought with the risk anyone could be killed.

        If you are not a genuine Aussie and don’t want to be, mindmadeup, why don’t you and your family return to your paradise in whatever country you came from???

        Lots of Christian love, Wassup.doc2014.

        • Centrelink does not give out cheques, then send direct payments, so you’re wrong there. Do you mean Matthews was receiving payments for seven children (which would make your “pensioners have to live on only one payment” ridiculous, as a payment for seven people should be larger than a payment for one person), or do you mean Matthews was receiving seven different types of payment (in which case, which payments? Name them).

          Just want to make sure your facts are straight.

        • (sigh) OK JM, another minor slip-up on my part. I must be still living in the dark past. YES, Centrelink DOES pay its bounty though Direct Debit into recipients Bank Accounts.
          How ridiculous of you to even suggest I meant seven baby bonuses could be mistaken as being LESS THAN a single old age pension. You surely got the “point”!!!! Pity it wasn’t a quote from a book you might have read – “Living by the Point of my Spear!” written by possibly an ex-member of YOUR MOB, Zaki Armeen. :-)) Trouble (for you) is he realised what rubbish he was preaching and began to question it and finally changed teams!!! Ha, ha, ha.

        • “How ridiculous of you to even suggest I meant seven baby bonuses could be mistaken as being LESS THAN a single old age pension.”

          No, that’s not right either. you said she receives seven different centrelink cheques every fortnight. The baby bonus is a one off payment, which doesn’t even exist anymore. Unless you’re saying she produces seven babies every fortnight, you’re completely inaccurate.

          Do you mean the family tax benefit, which is adjusted according to how many children are in a family (Though not a strict multiplication-a person with two children does not receive twice the amount as a person with one child)? If so, again, this is a ridiculous comparison. A family of seven in need should receive more than an individual pensioner-the needs of seven people will outweigh the need of an individual. Guess what, a couple on an old age pension receive more from Centrelink than a single person on an old age pension. However, if you break it down on a per person basis, you’ll find the pensioners receive more.

          And now begins the rambling:

          ” You surely got the “point”!!!! Pity it wasn’t a quote from a book you might have read – “Living by the Point of my Spear!” written by possibly an ex-member of YOUR MOB, ”

          I have a mob now? Who is it this week? Doctor Who fan club of Victoria. People’s front of Judea, or the Judean people’s front?

          “Trouble (for you) is he realised what rubbish he was preaching and began to question it and finally changed teams!!! Ha, ha, ha.”

          Are you okay, whatupdoc? Seriously, have a lie down, talk to someone. I think you’re confused.

What do YOU think about this?

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s