No it doesn't, that doesn't stop communities practising it though. Ofcourse all in favour of the men!
It should be stopped imo!
Syl said
Nov 24 5:39 PM, 2025
It's a horrendous form of mutilation performed on children and young women, and the authorities here turn a blind eye it seems.
"FGM is practiced in the UK among members of migrant communities, particularly those from countries such as Kenya, Somali, Sudanese, Sierra Leonean, Egyptian, Nigerian, and Eritrean. It is also found in non-African communities, including Yemeni, Afghani, Kurdish, Indonesian, and Pakistani communities. The practice is illegal in the UK and is considered a grave violation of the rights of girls and women."
Anonymous said
Nov 24 6:40 PM, 2025
Syl wrote:
It's a horrendous form of mutilation performed on children and young women, and the authorities here turn a blind eye it seems.
"FGM is practiced in the UK among members of migrant communities, particularly those from countries such as Kenya, Somali, Sudanese, Sierra Leonean, Egyptian, Nigerian, and Eritrean. It is also found in non-African communities, including Yemeni, Afghani, Kurdish, Indonesian, and Pakistani communities. The practice is illegal in the UK and is considered a grave violation of the rights of girls and women."
” The message needs to be clear that while recognising the cultural sensitivities and engaging proactively with communities…”
Absolutely disgusting. No matter where it’s carried out and by whom the parents need to be given heavy prison sentences.
And feck off with the “cultural sensitivities“ shite.
Syl said
Nov 24 6:50 PM, 2025
People who's job it is to protect, be they social workers, teachers, carers, NHS staff, and obviously the police, seem to be reluctant to investigate when it's a none white person.
The same with little Sara Sharif, social workers were afraid to look under her hijab, even though she had not worn one previously, and none of the women in her family wore them. Her father and stepmother made her wear the garment to cover her bruises.
The same with families of girls who are mutilated by FGM...they wait till the girls are not in school for six weeks.
A person doesn't have to be a genius to work out these girls are being abused in the worst way.
Digger said
Nov 26 8:11 AM, 2025
The below written by journalist Khadija Khan, a Parkistani woman.
This week, howls of Left-wing outrage met Australian senator Pauline Hanson, who wore a burqa in parliament in protest at the senate rejecting her bill to ban the garment. She was swiftly suspended from parliament for a week and labelled a ‘racist’ by opponents. Similar accusations have been levelled at politicians in this country who dare to challenge the religious dogma that forces women to cover up.
The problem here is not Hanson’s stunt, nor calls to ban the burqa – the most concealing of Islamic veils that covers the entire face and body, often leaving just a mesh screen to see through.
The problem is this: in refusing to countenance any criticism surrounding the burqa, the Left is tolerating the abuse of women. And what else can you call it but abuse, when men tell their wives, sisters and daughters to cover themselves from head to foot because to show one scrap of flesh risks inflaming male passions?
The burqa exists to force women into hiding. It proclaims that their very existence is sinful and that any woman who does not conceal herself entirely in a bag is sexually immoral – a ‘wh***’ and a ‘harlot’ bringing shame upon all the men in her family.
Not only does the burqa degrade and humiliate women who wear it, it encourages Muslim men to assume that women from other cultures are sexually available.
When I was growing up in Pakistan, I was told innumerable times that white women in Europe were all essentially prostitutes, in part because they dressed ‘without modesty’.
One sickening consequence of such prejudices is the systematic abuse of young white girls in British towns and cities such as Rotherham and Bradford, as well as predatory attacks on young women by male migrants who have sometimes been in the UK for just a few days.
The banning of the burqa needs to be done for the protection of all women. My mother and grandmother were among the first wave of feminists in Pakistan. But my father was a religious conservative and a traditionalist, who thought he should be lord and master over all the women in our family.
When I was 15, he presented my sister and me with the most beautiful, colourful hijabs, or headscarves. This was quite cunning of him, because although we had never worn them before, both of us loved pretty clothes.
He was full of praise as he showed us how to put them on. For the next couple of days, as we wore our hijabs to school, we basked in our father’s admiration.
But on the third day, when I chose to wear something else, he erupted in a rage.
I was shocked. Surely he knew that I never wore the same outfit more than two days in a row.
‘This is not like your other clothes,’ he yelled. ‘You cannot take it off just because you don’t feel like wearing it. Put it on now! Now you’ve started, you must always wear it. You have no choice!’
I’ve always remembered that. ‘You have no choice.’ Even 30 years later, the memory makes my blood run cold.
But what happened next was far worse. Scared and feeling powerless, I wore the hijab to school next day.
It no longer felt like a pretty headscarf but an oppressive uniform, something imposed to make me feel ashamed of myself. When my sister and I came home that day, my mother and father were at each other’s throats, literally fighting – a row of a kind we had never witnessed before.
It was terrifying. I stood in front of my sister to shield her and my mother came running towards us.
She seized the hijab and tore it off my head. ‘I did not give birth to slaves,’ she shouted. ‘My girls will never wear the hijab or the burqa, or whatever else it is you want them to wear.’
That should have been the end of it. But we watched, horrified and afraid to move, as our father began to beat our mother, slapping and punching her as a punishment for defying him. When the fight was over, she refused to be cowed. ‘You will never wear the hijab,’ she told us. And we never did.
But our mother continued to bear the brunt of his anger. When he realised that beating her would not work, he began to withhold money, so she could not buy herself clothes and other basic necessities.
He had a paying job and she didn’t. The message was chilling: as his housewife, she had to obey him or suffer the consequences.
Whenever I see a woman in a burqa, I know I am looking at coercion in the raw.
Digger said
Nov 26 8:11 AM, 2025
We are a country of weak stupid politicians.
Syl said
Nov 26 11:34 AM, 2025
I still say, from when I have seen women talk, if they choose to wear the burka for their own reasons, it shouldn't be banned. It should be removed for security reasons and when driving, and an employer should be allowed to not employ a burka wearer if that is their stance.
No woman should be forced to wear anything, there are organisations to help. If, in this country, a husband or father is forcing a girl or women to wear clothes to cover her, the abuse will be going far deeper than that. That should be addressed more than the clothes, imo.
The journalist talks of her parents. Male domination was rife, even here, in our parents or grandparents generation. I remember my own dad refusing my mum money to buy necessities, even sanitary products...and it had nothing to do with whether her children wore the burka or not.
Digger said
Nov 26 6:15 PM, 2025
Syl wrote:
I still say, from when I have seen women talk, if they choose to wear the burka for their own reasons, it shouldn't be banned. It should be removed for security reasons and when driving, and an employer should be allowed to not employ a burka wearer if that is their stance. No woman should be forced to wear anything, there are organisations to help. If, in this country, a husband or father is forcing a girl or women to wear clothes to cover her, the abuse will be going far deeper than that. That should be addressed more than the clothes, imo.
The journalist talks of her parents. Male domination was rife, even here, in our parents or grandparents generation. I remember my own dad refusing my mum money to buy necessities, even sanitary products...and it had nothing to do with whether her children wore the burka or not.
It's claimed as a choice as a psychological coping mechanism.
Syl said
Nov 26 6:20 PM, 2025
Digger wrote:
Syl wrote:
I still say, from when I have seen women talk, if they choose to wear the burka for their own reasons, it shouldn't be banned. It should be removed for security reasons and when driving, and an employer should be allowed to not employ a burka wearer if that is their stance. No woman should be forced to wear anything, there are organisations to help. If, in this country, a husband or father is forcing a girl or women to wear clothes to cover her, the abuse will be going far deeper than that. That should be addressed more than the clothes, imo.
The journalist talks of her parents. Male domination was rife, even here, in our parents or grandparents generation. I remember my own dad refusing my mum money to buy necessities, even sanitary products...and it had nothing to do with whether her children wore the burka or not.
It's claimed as a choice as a psychological coping mechanism.
Not for every woman Digger, I have seen programmes where strong vocal women insist they want to wear it, it's their own choice.
And for the women who are forced to wear it by controlling males, can you imagine how much more their freedom would be curtailed if they were not allowed out?
Syl said
Nov 26 6:45 PM, 2025
The horrendous Rachel Reeves has delivered her budget. As expected, there is not much good in it for working people on average incomes.
She may be horrendous, but this is a hole that most western countries have dug for themselves.
And the reaction to this budget will likely show why these problems can't be fixed. Average people are the vast majority and therefore pay the way for everyone else..
Syl said
Nov 26 7:12 PM, 2025
Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
The horrendous Rachel Reeves has delivered her budget. As expected, there is not much good in it for working people on average incomes.
She may be horrendous, but this is a hole that most western countries have dug for themselves.
And the reaction to this budget will likely show why these problems can't be fixed. Average people are the vast majority and therefore pay the way for everyone else..
True, the rich get richer, the poor get taken care of, and Mr and Mrs Average props up everyone.
She has scrapped the two child benefit, so the unemployed or newly arrived can have as many kids as they like...they will be getting paid, not only with child allowance but with all the other perks that people can claim.
Magica said
Nov 26 7:13 PM, 2025
Syl wrote:
The horrendous Rachel Reeves has delivered her budget. As expected, there is not much good in it for working people on average incomes.
She may be horrendous, but this is a hole that most western countries have dug for themselves.
And the reaction to this budget will likely show why these problems can't be fixed. Average people are the vast majority and therefore pay the way for everyone else..
True, the rich get richer, the poor get taken care of, and Mr and Mrs Average props up everyone.
She has scrapped the two child benefit, so the unemployed or newly arrived can have as many kids as they like...they will be getting paid, not only with child allowance but with all the other perks that people can claim.
I think many Europeans and Americans want a system that spends like the Scandinavians.
They just don't want to personally have to pay for it.
You end up with countries running up debt trying to please everyone..
Magica said
Nov 26 8:41 PM, 2025
Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
The horrendous Rachel Reeves has delivered her budget. As expected, there is not much good in it for working people on average incomes.
She may be horrendous, but this is a hole that most western countries have dug for themselves.
And the reaction to this budget will likely show why these problems can't be fixed. Average people are the vast majority and therefore pay the way for everyone else..
True, the rich get richer, the poor get taken care of, and Mr and Mrs Average props up everyone.
She has scrapped the two child benefit, so the unemployed or newly arrived can have as many kids as they like...they will be getting paid, not only with child allowance but with all the other perks that people can claim.
That's the worst. All bloody illegals, immigrants, will have lots of kids, those on benefits and we will pay!I
You should only have kids YOU can afford, all muslims will be celebrating, they have lots of kids as do those coming from India, and other countries.
Syl said
Nov 27 12:15 AM, 2025
It'll cost three billion £, maybe she can take something else off the pensioners and hard working families who plan for the kids they can afford, to pay the increase.
Magica said
Nov 27 1:47 AM, 2025
Syl wrote:
It'll cost three billion £, maybe she can take something else off the pensioners and hard working families who plan for the kids they can afford, to pay the increase.
Oh don't worry Syl, she will. We don't count as people anymore, just a nuscience.
Syl said
Nov 27 12:55 PM, 2025
Magica wrote:
Syl wrote:
It'll cost three billion £, maybe she can take something else off the pensioners and hard working families who plan for the kids they can afford, to pay the increase.
Oh don't worry Syl, she will. We don't count as people anymore, just a nuscience.
She has generously allowed people over 65 to keep their 20 grand ISA yearly top up.
Now I don't know about you, but I don't know any OAP'S who have a spare 20 grand a year to top up existing savings.
Red Okktober said
Nov 27 3:35 PM, 2025
It was a budget to appease the Labour backbenchers, and an attempt by Reeves to save her own skin, along with Starmers. She has taken money from workers, savers, and pensioners - and made a song and dance about 'child poverty', but we all know the money will mainly go to layabouts and immigrants, and encourage them to have even more kids.
Mastermind David Lammy has put forward a proposal to end trial by jury except in very serious cases like murder and rape. Trial by jury goes back over 800 years, but Lammy, the man who thought Henry 8th was born before Henry 7th, and that a man can grow a cervix, wants to end it.
Having an individual judge decide on guilt rather than 12 members of the public, will lead to far more miscarriages of justice, with the guilty going free and the innocent sent to jail.
Will we see yet another Starmer U-turn, as he has previously been all for trial by jury, and has said this: “The right to trial by jury is an important factor in the delicate balance between the power of the state and the freedom of the individual"
The state of him - he has the vacant look of a cocker spaniel waiting for his owner to throw him a stick, rather than the head of the judiciary.
No it doesn't, that doesn't stop communities practising it though. Ofcourse all in favour of the men!
It should be stopped imo!
It's a horrendous form of mutilation performed on children and young women, and the authorities here turn a blind eye it seems.
"FGM is practiced in the UK among members of migrant communities, particularly those from countries such as Kenya, Somali, Sudanese, Sierra Leonean, Egyptian, Nigerian, and Eritrean.
It is also found in non-African communities, including Yemeni, Afghani, Kurdish, Indonesian, and Pakistani communities.
The practice is illegal in the UK and is considered a grave violation of the rights of girls and women."
” The message needs to be clear that while recognising the cultural sensitivities and engaging proactively with communities…”
“ There have only been three convictions for FGM offences in England and Wales to date. “ https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/328/women-and-equalities-committee/news/209243/more-action-needed-to-tackle-fgm-in-the-uk-and-support-its-victims-wec-finds/
Absolutely disgusting. No matter where it’s carried out and by whom the parents need to be given heavy prison sentences.
And feck off with the “cultural sensitivities“ shite.
The same with little Sara Sharif, social workers were afraid to look under her hijab, even though she had not worn one previously, and none of the women in her family wore them. Her father and stepmother made her wear the garment to cover her bruises.
The same with families of girls who are mutilated by FGM...they wait till the girls are not in school for six weeks.
A person doesn't have to be a genius to work out these girls are being abused in the worst way.
The below written by journalist Khadija Khan, a Parkistani woman.
This week, howls of Left-wing outrage met Australian senator Pauline Hanson, who wore a burqa in parliament in protest at the senate rejecting her bill to ban the garment. She was swiftly suspended from parliament for a week and labelled a ‘racist’ by opponents. Similar accusations have been levelled at politicians in this country who dare to challenge the religious dogma that forces women to cover up.
The problem here is not Hanson’s stunt, nor calls to ban the burqa – the most concealing of Islamic veils that covers the entire face and body, often leaving just a mesh screen to see through.
The problem is this: in refusing to countenance any criticism surrounding the burqa, the Left is tolerating the abuse of women. And what else can you call it but abuse, when men tell their wives, sisters and daughters to cover themselves from head to foot because to show one scrap of flesh risks inflaming male passions?
The burqa exists to force women into hiding. It proclaims that their very existence is sinful and that any woman who does not conceal herself entirely in a bag is sexually immoral – a ‘wh***’ and a ‘harlot’ bringing shame upon all the men in her family.
Not only does the burqa degrade and humiliate women who wear it, it encourages Muslim men to assume that women from other cultures are sexually available.
When I was growing up in Pakistan, I was told innumerable times that white women in Europe were all essentially prostitutes, in part because they dressed ‘without modesty’.
One sickening consequence of such prejudices is the systematic abuse of young white girls in British towns and cities such as Rotherham and Bradford, as well as predatory attacks on young women by male migrants who have sometimes been in the UK for just a few days.
The banning of the burqa needs to be done for the protection of all women. My mother and grandmother were among the first wave of feminists in Pakistan. But my father was a religious conservative and a traditionalist, who thought he should be lord and master over all the women in our family.
When I was 15, he presented my sister and me with the most beautiful, colourful hijabs, or headscarves. This was quite cunning of him, because although we had never worn them before, both of us loved pretty clothes.
He was full of praise as he showed us how to put them on. For the next couple of days, as we wore our hijabs to school, we basked in our father’s admiration.
But on the third day, when I chose to wear something else, he erupted in a rage.
I was shocked. Surely he knew that I never wore the same outfit more than two days in a row.
‘This is not like your other clothes,’ he yelled. ‘You cannot take it off just because you don’t feel like wearing it. Put it on now! Now you’ve started, you must always wear it. You have no choice!’
I’ve always remembered that. ‘You have no choice.’ Even 30 years later, the memory makes my blood run cold.
But what happened next was far worse. Scared and feeling powerless, I wore the hijab to school next day.
It no longer felt like a pretty headscarf but an oppressive uniform, something imposed to make me feel ashamed of myself. When my sister and I came home that day, my mother and father were at each other’s throats, literally fighting – a row of a kind we had never witnessed before.
It was terrifying. I stood in front of my sister to shield her and my mother came running towards us.
She seized the hijab and tore it off my head. ‘I did not give birth to slaves,’ she shouted. ‘My girls will never wear the hijab or the burqa, or whatever else it is you want them to wear.’
That should have been the end of it. But we watched, horrified and afraid to move, as our father began to beat our mother, slapping and punching her as a punishment for defying him. When the fight was over, she refused to be cowed. ‘You will never wear the hijab,’ she told us. And we never did.
But our mother continued to bear the brunt of his anger. When he realised that beating her would not work, he began to withhold money, so she could not buy herself clothes and other basic necessities.
He had a paying job and she didn’t. The message was chilling: as his housewife, she had to obey him or suffer the consequences.
Whenever I see a woman in a burqa, I know I am looking at coercion in the raw.
No woman should be forced to wear anything, there are organisations to help. If, in this country, a husband or father is forcing a girl or women to wear clothes to cover her, the abuse will be going far deeper than that. That should be addressed more than the clothes, imo.
The journalist talks of her parents. Male domination was rife, even here, in our parents or grandparents generation. I remember my own dad refusing my mum money to buy necessities, even sanitary products...and it had nothing to do with whether her children wore the burka or not.
It's claimed as a choice as a psychological coping mechanism.
Not for every woman Digger, I have seen programmes where strong vocal women insist they want to wear it, it's their own choice.
And for the women who are forced to wear it by controlling males, can you imagine how much more their freedom would be curtailed if they were not allowed out?
The horrendous Rachel Reeves has delivered her budget.
As expected, there is not much good in it for working people on average incomes.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cy8vz032qgpt
She may be horrendous, but this is a hole that most western countries have dug for themselves.
And the reaction to this budget will likely show why these problems can't be fixed. Average people are the vast majority and therefore pay the way for everyone else..
True, the rich get richer, the poor get taken care of, and Mr and Mrs Average props up everyone.
She has scrapped the two child benefit, so the unemployed or newly arrived can have as many kids as they like...they will be getting paid, not only with child allowance but with all the other perks that people can claim.
Hope she goes, and Starmer follows.
We can't have 4 more years of Liebour. I despair!
I think many Europeans and Americans want a system that spends like the Scandinavians.
They just don't want to personally have to pay for it.
You end up with countries running up debt trying to please everyone..
That's the worst. All bloody illegals, immigrants, will have lots of kids, those on benefits and we will pay!I
You should only have kids YOU can afford, all muslims will be celebrating, they have lots of kids as do those coming from India, and other countries.
Oh don't worry Syl, she will. We don't count as people anymore, just a nuscience.
She has generously allowed people over 65 to keep their 20 grand ISA yearly top up.
Now I don't know about you, but I don't know any OAP'S who have a spare 20 grand a year to top up existing savings.
It was a budget to appease the Labour backbenchers, and an attempt by Reeves to save her own skin, along with Starmers. She has taken money from workers, savers, and pensioners - and made a song and dance about 'child poverty', but we all know the money will mainly go to layabouts and immigrants, and encourage them to have even more kids.
Mastermind David Lammy has put forward a proposal to end trial by jury except in very serious cases like murder and rape. Trial by jury goes back over 800 years, but Lammy, the man who thought Henry 8th was born before Henry 7th, and that a man can grow a cervix, wants to end it.
Having an individual judge decide on guilt rather than 12 members of the public, will lead to far more miscarriages of justice, with the guilty going free and the innocent sent to jail.
Will we see yet another Starmer U-turn, as he has previously been all for trial by jury, and has said this: “The right to trial by jury is an important factor in the delicate balance between the power of the state and the freedom of the individual"
The state of him - he has the vacant look of a cocker spaniel waiting for his owner to throw him a stick, rather than the head of the judiciary.