Non aviation content. Play nice – No religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
User avatar
By romille
#1771441
I know there is no religion allowed but this is not about religion, it is about people trying to circumvent the lock down measures that are designed to protect us all by using custom, traditional and the human rights act.
There are a great number of people that are not allowed to follow their religious, ethnic and other traditions at the moment, if this action succeeds I can see a queue forming at the high court to apply for exemptions or dispensation.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-52767583

Mods, please donk this if you deem it to be about religion.
Rob P liked this
User avatar
By PeteSpencer
#1771444
Shades of the Sikhs/Turbans/Crashhelmets hoo-har when compulsory crash helmets were introduced for motor bikes in the 60s.

And the Kirpan dilemma

Oops typo

Peter
Last edited by PeteSpencer on Fri May 22, 2020 1:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By romille
#1771447
PeteSpencer wrote:Shades of the Sikhs/Turbans/Crashhelmets hoo-har when compulsory crash helmets were introduced for motor bikes in the 60s.

And the Dirpan dilemma.

Peter


I agree, but at least they were only putting their own lives at risk, this could in theory cause a local hotspot that could kill people that have nothing to do with this mosque.
Rob P, Charles Hunt liked this
By Bill Haddow
#1771450
In this modern PC obsessed virtue-signalling atmosphere, people have realised that they just need to scream while stamping their feet and playing the religion / ethnicity / sexual assignment or orientation / any other minority card to get their own way.

Bill H
Rob P, Trent772 liked this
User avatar
By Propwash
#1771454
I would say this is more about Human Rights legislation, and the continued pushing of the envelope about its scope, intent and application, than it is about religion, specific or otherwise.

I have always regarded that particular legislation as a very good example of the saying: "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions". It often seems that courts have great difficulty in balancing one person/group/communities rights against those of others, and too often to my mind make the wrong choice. That is the hallmark of badly written legislation. The Victorians tended to be much better at writing concise and tightly constructed legislation than their modern counterparts.

PW
Flyingfemme liked this
By johnm
#1771456
The balance of rights and responsibilities across diverse cultures is not easy to deal with. This is a relatively mild and well managed scenario compared to some of the completely bonkers stuff going on in the USA.
kanga liked this
By avtur3
#1771460
Propwash wrote: ... I would say this is more about Human Rights legislation, and the continued pushing of the envelope about its scope, intent and application, than it is about religion, specific or otherwise. ...


My hope would be that this acts as a test case in respect of justifying the restrictions in the context of dealing with the virus. Hopefully the restriction can be seen to be justified in a public health context which may deter others from trying anything similar.
User avatar
By PeteSpencer
#1771461
Bill Haddow wrote:
PeteSpencer wrote: compulsory crash helmets were introduced for motor bikes in the 60s.
Peter


The 70s Pete, IIRC

Bill Haddow]

Yep you’re right I bought my Vespa in 1961(18 July to be precise I still have the receipt) but was wearing a crash helmet by mid 60s.

I was a bit of a bolshie teenager and thought I couldn’t have taken that decision voluntarily .

Interestingly the Army specified helmets when riding on duty from 1941, indeed T E Lawrence died 1935 from motorbike accident head injuries .

An attempt to bring in the law in UK was withdrawn in 1958

Peter
User avatar
By Jim Jones
#1771486
I guess that if the 50 people involved in the event then interacted only with those present for the following 14 days; so no work with others, or shopping, etc, that would be fine.
User avatar
By romille
#1771497
Jim Jones wrote:I guess that if the 50 people involved in the event then interacted only with those present for the following 14 days; so no work with others, or shopping, etc, that would be fine.

The authorities are having enough problems getting folk to stick to a simple set of lock down rules, without complicating them with dispensations and exceptions for minority groups.
User avatar
By Jim Jones
#1771498
Miscellaneous wrote:@Jim Jones to ensure equality the whole population would have to be given the same concession. :D



Of course.
It’s actually a possible way forward for families/ friends to form “bubbles” within which they can freely mix. Workplaces similar .