MarkM
Member
Registered: 11th Apr 01
Location: Liverpool
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robin
quote:
Originally posted by MarkM
quote:
Originally posted by Robin
maybe WE should show them some respect, instead of picking up on every little pointless thing we can just because its 'odd' 
Pointless?
So childrens education is pointless...? Answer me this...why did she go for the interview without her veil on?
yes, its a pointless issue. the real issue isnt what the teachers are wearing, its what the teachers are teaching. spelling is more of an issue than dress code, but its ignored, because religion is a problem in the eyes of the media.
Your talking bollocks...
The issue is she cant provide a good a level of teaching by covering her face than if it was not covered...she is teaching in a primary school...kids at that age use facial expressions etc to interact..communication skills are in the early stages...
She is letting her religion get in the way of her childrens education...
|
Robin
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Jan 04
Location: Northants Drives: Clio 182 Cup
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Nath
The fact this person doesnt have to wear the veil says everything. If she had to wear it and got told not to then fair enough, but she doesnt. Shes being a nuisance on purpose!
but its no different to you going to work in a purple velvet suit, and when your boss says "change into something more suitable" you telling him/her to fuck off.
its just some clothing, its not the end of the world 
|
Robin
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Jan 04
Location: Northants Drives: Clio 182 Cup
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by MarkM
Your talking bollocks...
The issue is she cant provide a good a level of teaching by covering her face than if it was not covered...she is teaching in a primary school...kids at that age use facial expressions etc to interact..communication skills are in the early stages...
She is letting her religion get in the way of her childrens education...
She probably spends 3 minutes a day with each child, like most schools. the kids get more education from social interaction than teacher input at a primary school level.
|
MarkM
Member
Registered: 11th Apr 01
Location: Liverpool
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robin
Yes.
They can talk to her, thats basic.
She can probably spell better than the her English counterparts.
Still, so far, no-one has shown me how it has DIRECTLY affected them
Not affecting you directly doesnt make your opinion on the matter less valid...
[Edited on 15-10-2006 by MarkM]
|
MarkM
Member
Registered: 11th Apr 01
Location: Liverpool
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robin
quote:
Originally posted by MarkM
Your talking bollocks...
The issue is she cant provide a good a level of teaching by covering her face than if it was not covered...she is teaching in a primary school...kids at that age use facial expressions etc to interact..communication skills are in the early stages...
She is letting her religion get in the way of her childrens education...
She probably spends 3 minutes a day with each child, like most schools. the kids get more education from social interaction than teacher input at a primary school level.
You have still failed to answer the question of why did she go to the interview without it on? If it meant that much to her...
She is throwing the race card in to be awkward..simple...
|
J da Silva
Member
Registered: 10th Apr 03
Location: The FACTory
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robin
Yes.
They can talk to her, thats basic.
She can probably spell better than the her English counterparts.
Still, so far, no-one has shown me how it has DIRECTLY affected them
I think the white British population feel insulted, as it is being made to look like the muslim slut is dictating to their country, that's how I feel people see it.
|
Nath
Member
Registered: 3rd Apr 02
Location: MK
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robin
quote:
Originally posted by Nath
The fact this person doesnt have to wear the veil says everything. If she had to wear it and got told not to then fair enough, but she doesnt. Shes being a nuisance on purpose!
but its no different to you going to work in a purple velvet suit, and when your boss says "change into something more suitable" you telling him/her to fuck off.
its just some clothing, its not the end of the world
I wouldnt have a problem in changing though, why should she have a problem in removing a small piece of cloth?
[Edited on 15-10-2006 by Nath]
|
Robin
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Jan 04
Location: Northants Drives: Clio 182 Cup
User status: Offline
|
Is there proof of that, or is it speculation by the papers?
|
MarkM
Member
Registered: 11th Apr 01
Location: Liverpool
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robin
Is there proof of that, or is it speculation by the papers?
We can only go on the information we are given...SO...taking that information as correct what would your answer be?
|
Adam_B
Member
Registered: 13th Dec 00
Location: Lancashire
User status: Offline
|
the whole thing is propbably speculation by the papers. Everyone loves a good bit of shit stirring
|
Robin
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Jan 04
Location: Northants Drives: Clio 182 Cup
User status: Offline
|
Obviously I have no answer.
The only explaination I can think of, is she was asked to remove it, and did what 90% fo people would do, she became stubborn.
Then for the interview, she didnt wear it, because she wasn't asked to remove it.
|
ssj_kakarot
Member
Registered: 29th Apr 03
Location: hartlepool
User status: Offline
|
people adapt and change for there jobs, not the other way around.
Simple as that, she teaches young children, its a proven fact young children learn from whaching facial expressions ect, she knows this.
she doesnt have to wear the beil in front of children and she didnt wear the veil in the interview.
shes just either being awkward for the sake of it, or because she knew it would go to tribunal and she could get money out of the system if she won.
|
MarkM
Member
Registered: 11th Apr 01
Location: Liverpool
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robin
Then for the interview, she didnt wear it, because she wasn't asked to remove it.
This makes no sense....
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
im going to walk into a bank wearing a balaclava, wielding a supersoaker filled with holy water 
|
Robin
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Jan 04
Location: Northants Drives: Clio 182 Cup
User status: Offline
|
yes it does.
she wasn't told not to, so she didnt. if she had been asked not to wear it, she would have.
|
ssj_kakarot
Member
Registered: 29th Apr 03
Location: hartlepool
User status: Offline
|
its not speculation its going to tribunal, she had been dismissed the school has made a publicity statment.
They have also quoted the women on the fact she never wore the veil for the interview.
Say what you want about media propaganda, but its in the decent newspapers aswell not just the tabloids.
Its also caught the attention of the politisions, e.g jack straws comments on the fact the veil is creating a self imposed aparthite (sp)
|
Robin
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Jan 04
Location: Northants Drives: Clio 182 Cup
User status: Offline
|
ALL of the newspapers are told what they can and can't print. Its not 100% free speech.
|
ssj_kakarot
Member
Registered: 29th Apr 03
Location: hartlepool
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robin
yes it does.
she wasn't told not to, so she didnt. if she had been asked not to wear it, she would have.
What that makes no sense, she obviously didnt wear it as she knew it would be an issue working in the school, the fact she was interviewed by a man, did not hinder her from removing the veil to appear better.
so she obviously knows it would have looked bad, its not a question of her being asked to wear it or not, she didnt as she knew it would go against her in one way or another.
|
Adam_B
Member
Registered: 13th Dec 00
Location: Lancashire
User status: Offline
|
decent newspapers  they the ones that use colour pics or the ones on big paper? All the papers and media in this country fill there products with 90% bullshit, it sells better.
|
Robin
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Jan 04
Location: Northants Drives: Clio 182 Cup
User status: Offline
|
explain to me how it doesnt make sense?
she was being stubborn, like most people are.
|
ssj_kakarot
Member
Registered: 29th Apr 03
Location: hartlepool
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robin
ALL of the newspapers are told what they can and can't print. Its not 100% free speech.
Yes but there legal teams are very clever most of the time, they wont quote or put for definate facts if they are not true, as they end up getting sued.
|
MarkM
Member
Registered: 11th Apr 01
Location: Liverpool
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robin
yes it does.
she wasn't told not to, so she didnt. if she had been asked not to wear it, she would have.
She never wore it for the interview as wearing it would be detrimental to the childrens education therefore putting her in a position were she may not be successful in getting the job...
|
Robin
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Jan 04
Location: Northants Drives: Clio 182 Cup
User status: Offline
|
no, but they wouldnt be allowed to print an article going against the current thinking in the country.
|
Robin
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Jan 04
Location: Northants Drives: Clio 182 Cup
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by MarkM
quote:
Originally posted by Robin
yes it does.
she wasn't told not to, so she didnt. if she had been asked not to wear it, she would have.
She never wore it for the interview as wearing it would be detrimental to the childrens education therefore putting her in a position were she may not be successful in getting the job...
aaah, the interview for the job. i thought you meant the newspaper interview. my mistake 
|
ssj_kakarot
Member
Registered: 29th Apr 03
Location: hartlepool
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robin
no, but they wouldnt be allowed to print an article going against the current thinking in the country.
Lol yes they would we live in a country of free media, whether they would actually print a story against the masses is another matter.
[Edited on 15-10-2006 by ssj_kakarot]
|
