Canny lass

Thanks Mercuryg. I'll get on to it right away and let you know how I get on.

Calling all computer competent members: I am having problems with my computer (an Acer aspire 6 yo) and have now reached the Point where I feel like smashing it a gainst the wall in sheer frustration. It started a couple of Days ago. Every command to the computer takes at least 2 minutes to produce any result - even typing a letter of the alphabet.Something called "Java Web Start Launcher" starts up. I now have it installed on the computer several thousand times!Hubby Thinks this is causing the slow response problem as the "processor (CPU) is going at 100%Hubby doesn't know what triggers all these Java whotsits so he's uninstalled Java (and even Google Chrome). This hasn't helped.Any ideas?

Sorry to hear that Christine.

Warning: long post ...... First a clarification regarding my question to threegee, post #5 about threegee's statement "Definite case for banning the burka in public places there!", in post #2. My question arose from a genuine difficulty in the interpretation of the content of the statement in relation to the content of the photograph. For me it was ambiguous: 1. The face is visible, easy to find the person. The burka would make that impossible. 2. The face is barely visible, difficult to find the person. Same problem would arise with the burka. Well aware of the response I might arouse with my question and equally aware that there might just be people of a muslim persuasion reading, I deliberated at length before posting it. However, as a humanist I find myself fascinated by the question of just why the burka should evoke the response it does among the public, not just in the UK but in Europe as a whole. Nobody, as yet, has been able to give me any satisfactory answer. Vic suggested that it may have something to do with it's "link to terrorism". I personally neither know of nor can see any link to terrorism in a piece of women's clothing. Bombs - yes, guns - yes, suicide bombers, yes - four yards of plain-coloured synthetic material - no. Surely, if we are afraid of a simple woman's garment then terrorism has already won and If it is just a symbol then banning it will not remove the terrorism. Over the years I've read and listened to countless reports of bombings. Only once have I heard that a burka-covered woman was involved (that's not to say there haven't been others but they would appear to be a minority). So, why has just this garment been chosen to symbolize terrorism? Why not a pair of trousers, a jacket or a shirt - the more common clothing attributes of terrorist bombers? I'm well aware that many link terrorism to Islam. Can it be that the burka has been singled out to represent Islam and therefore came to represent the terrorism now assosciated with the religion? If that be the case then it is blatant misrepresentation. The burka, as I described earlier in this thread - and despite what we might think about any lack of fashion - is an article of clothing deemed by the wearer to be comfortable and practical in those countries from which it originates, often having a warm climate, a lot of dust and a raised moral awareness. That it also can be used to cover those parts of the body deemed by the Islamic religion to be private is merely a bonus for the Islamic follower. The wearer can, unless dictated to by a male,choose from several degrees of privacy for her body ranging from the minimal 'hijab' to the maximal burka. In terms of 'coverage' that's pretty much the same choice that other European women have for covering that which they deem to be private. Compare the range bikini to dress for covering the female breast. Having said that, lets not forget that the female neck and a flowing head of hair are thought to be very erotic in the muslim countries so obviously the styles must differ. Speaking purely as an immigrant - and let's not either forget that several among us enjoy that status - I can agree with you, Vic, that immigrants should be good citizens in their host country. For me that's a question of 'following' the law and 'respecting' customs and traditions. With "respecting" I mean that although I have no duty to adopt or even like any of their customs and traditions (they are not statutory), I never the less do have a responsibility to accept their existence and the individual's right to have them. I don't live two lifestyles. I am what I am, an English woman living in Sweden. I follow the law of the land and I enjoy traditions and customs from both countries. They don't force their customs on me and I don't force mine on them (except for the annual pea and pie supper in aid of the Red Cross and that's not really forcing. They are queuing for a seat). I fail to see how wearing a burka is in any way showing a lack of respect for British custom or tradition and it's certainly not breaking any law - even if we stretch the imagination to give the burka the religious significance that many already give to it. As recently as October 2000 the Human Rights Act (1998) came into force in the UK thereby incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law. Article 9 of that Convention gives humanity the right to "freedom of thought, conscience and religion" and the freedom to 'manifest' that religion is limited only by prescribed law.. But, Is there any UK law prohibiting the wearing of four yards of plain-coloured synthetic fabric? The basic right to 'adequate' clothing is recognized under article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. "Adequate" surely must relate not only to protection from the elements but even to protection of ones privacy. Those individuals wishing to wear clothing which is representative of their culture, their homeland or society are further protected by article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which says: "In those states in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in Community with the other members of their Group to enjoy their own Culture, to profess and practice their own religion and their own language". Maybe, Vic, there are immigrants in the minority DEMANDING more than equality but in light of the above I'm obliged to ask what we are doing in DEMANDING the banning of the burka? Aren't we then doing the same thing? Banning the burka is not the way forward. The way forward, as you so rightly say, Vic, is education and understanding and, I would like to add, that it should encompass both parties. To sum it all up, these women are not breaking any laws or violating any of our traditions by wearing a burka. Given the choice between meeting a burka-covered woman or a motorcyclist dressed from head to foot in black leather and wearing a crash helmet half way down a dark Alley, I know who I would choose (sorry HPW)! And, you know what - I could describe both equally well to the police should I need to. It's not the burka we need to be afraid of, it's the big girl's blouse who is afraid of the burka.

Pilgrim I see wild boar almost on a Daily basis in my garden and I've seen Lynx on a couple of occasions in the same place. You don't need to worry about them - except when they have Young. You do, on the other hand, need to be afraid of the idiots in the Woods who are hunting them. Be warned! Of course they can be a problem to farm animals.

Eggy, I Think I might know Lynne. Quite a tall girl for her age if she's who I Think she may be. I certainly remember her grandparents.

Spot on Vic!

I personally Think the reason is much bigger than that Vic. I wonder if the same shenanagans would apply to us if the burka should become popular among White europeans? In the late fifties the 'in thing' for us Girls was to wear a head scarf 'a la Sophia Loren' and huge polo neck sweaters that covered half the face. Nobody ever complained. You are right when you say that the burka is not a religious requirement. However, there is, as in most countries, a dress code and for muslims this code is laid down in the Koran. The aurat specifies just which body parts should be seen as private and therefore covered. The rule applies not only to women but to men and children as well. For men the dress code is 'everything covered between knee and navel'. That rule applies to women as well but only in restricted and well specified company The purpose of the rules is to 'protect women from sexual harrassment' and there are even rules on how to walk so as not to 'arouse the desires of the opposite sex*. The burka does a good job there. There are, however, no rules which state just how the covering up should be done. That was also the case for English women, before the topless craze, when it was still taboo to show a bare breast. You could be arrested for daring to show that part of your body but nobody told you just how it should be covered: bra, bikini, t-shirt, blouse or dress - all were acceptable. Some covered only the breast while others covered Everything down to the knee. Some thought that a bikini was shocking and sat in their riviera deck chairs fully clothed. Everyone chose their own degree of modesty just as muslim women do - with the exception of those who are forced by men to choose a certain fashion. Those women I've talked to have no problems with removing their burka for purposes of identification providing it's done in front of another woman. That's not unreasonable. We european women are patted down by another female at airports and that's not because we have demanded it. Nor is it anyhing to do with religion. It's a matter of common courtesy and respect for our feelings about sexuality Of course facial identity is important but it's not the be all and end all of the identification process. As you quite rightly say, if it's needed then it can be done with discretion.

Not just the tartan, Maggie, but Highland dress in all it's glory!

Saw this show on Swedish TV last night (and they don't buy any old rubbish on their low budget)! Loved it!!!!

Now that's what I call a decent snaps glass Maggie!

The burka, for most of those wearers I've encountered, is a bit like Christmas - it's long since lost its religious meaning. To them it's simply a comfortable, practical garment. I can understand that they like it. I like jeans. They think my jeans are uncomfortable and far from practical. I, on the other hand, think otherwise and woe betide anyone who tries to ban a piece of clothing I've grown up with and wear on a daily basis. On the question of identification, I've already said that I have no problem with the burka. I prefer to 'see' the person rather than their clothing. We are all unik and every person will have some permanent, distinguishing features, unlike clothing which can be changed 50 times a day, if wished, and is mass produced in numerous identical examples. I can see that identification on a still photograph may be made difficult by the burka but it's also made difficult by hoodies, balaclavas, good old fashioned 'mufflers', turned up coat collars, make-up, masks and stockings over the head. Should we ban all of these as well? The kirpan is interesting. On a recent visit to India I saw thousands of sikhs but not one kirpan. Nowadays it's mostly a symbolic ornament in the form of a small brooch. However, that's not because it's been banned. The sikh population over time has simply discovered that the real thing is cumbersome and no longer serves its purpose. Give it a generation or so and I'm sure the burka will go the same way.

After careful consideration I must ask you 3g just how does the picture posted above give any reason for banning the burka? It appears to be a person, gender unidentifiable, fully clothed from top to toe with very little facial exposure. Why does this justify banning the burka and not, för example, trousers, hoodies (especially those with pockets which can hide the hands), shoes or even socks? Not to mention Halloween outfits, tights and nylon stockings. The majority of people who wear these are not up to any mischief. They are simply dressing as they wish to - just as you and I do. It's not so very difficult to identify a woman in a burka. Without it she would still wear clothes - maybe even a hoodie and trousers. I've had the pleasure of helping several burka covered women with their language problems. I still bump into some of them on the street and can identify any of them from 50 paces even from a rear view. How? Because they are all different in some ways if we only take the time to look beyond the burka. They have different heights. They have different widths. They have different bodily proportions - well visible even under a burka. A large busted woman will have a burka that appears shorter at the front. A large backside gives the opposite appearance. Some are pear-shaped giving the burka an a-line appearance. Some are downright skinny which makes the burka hang straight. They all walk differently. They all sound different, not only in tone and texture of voice but also in accent. They have different ways of carrying their burka in wet weather or when running. They hold their arms in different ways when talking to you. A burka doesn't prevent identification any more than the clothes in the Picture. Aren't we going just a bit too far when we start dictating what people should wear? Of course, if a woman is wearing a burka because a man is forcing her to wear it that's a different matter. However, I don't think banning it would be the answer to the problem. A ban would only serve to make the majority of burka wearers unhappy. Most see it as a comfortable outer garment, handy to throw over your clothes when popping to the shops, keeping them clean and covering their modesty (let's not forget that they see modesty in a different way to most europeans but even so they manage to accept semi nudity among european visitors to their countries).

No cause for worry Pilgrim. Your senility hasn't advanced too much. There was indeed a small shop just as you describe. However I can't remember newspapers being sold there - but just about Everything else! It wasn't large (I've owned bigger garden sheds since those Days).It was at the bottom of our garden and can be seen on Eggy's photo at the bend in the road between G and M. It was owned by Bob and Esther Rochester from Netherton village. Bob worked at the pit "on bank". They were a wonderful couple. They had no Children of their own and used to spoil the colliery Children something rotten. They took over the 'new' store building, opposite the institute when the coop moved to West Lea.

Good work, Eggy!

I Think Brett should change his Picture. Just joking Brett!

Having thought about it I realize that the long building at "I" can't be the new houses I mentioned earlier as they were on the same side of the road as the store. The building must be the pit baths built in the early fifties and next to it the pit canteen. I Think the baths were opened at the time of the queen's Coronation but the canteen was there long before.

Nice photo eggy. May I take a copy for personal use? A - First Street B - Second Street C - Plessey Street D - Third Street All house numbers running from 1 left to 25 right in the picture E . Netherton Institute F - The Chapel (Methodist, I think but not 100% sure). Not in use during my time. It was ownwd by Bill Mullen (Redhouse farm area) and used for his Haulage Contraction Business The area behind it is the football field. G - Netherton Infant's School H - Blue House Farm - better known as Fail's farm (owner Geordie Fail) I - Depends when the photo was taken. The long building could be a row of new houses built in the ?50s but the "store" (Cooperative Wholesale Society) was here as well. J - Netherton Pit K - Netherton Working Men's Club L - A Chapel (denomination not known), unused as such in my lifetime. Was owned by the Bell family of Third Street who used it as a pig "farm". (Discussed somewhere else on this site). M - Waste ground. There were rumours that there had been Another row of houses here and there was a lot of rubble under the grass. Strangely, it was skirted by a pavement on it's left-hand side, so possibly there had been houses. There was one more Chapel in Netherton - the Weslyan Chapel. It was still in use. It's the larger building seen to the left of A and in a direct line NW of L. Hope this helps.

If I remember correctly I stared going there a couple of years Before I left school in 1n 1962. It was quite new then.

You mean there are more than one Pete?

Thanks Maggie. I had no idea what the man was doing! It looks nothing like the flame thrower I had för the garden paths - a small hand held thing. It didn't go too well with the house being built of Wood so I had to get rid of it - Before it got rid of the house!

I'm afraid you've got me beat there, Maggie. Is there a clue in the Picture?

Who's not counting! I Think he's 21 with 47 years of experience - just like me!

There must be a couple of very proud parents in Bedlington today!

Well you certainly kept that quiet!! Happy birthday from me too.