Neither our ares, that is why they get the plate after the car stops and they pull up behind him. Don't recall addressing high speed chases.AussieReaper wrote:
But you said a cop knows all about you ( or rather the person the car is registered to) before they get out of their car.lowing wrote:
Oh it is! We have these things on the backs of our cars called license plates, and with THAT information they are able to figure out all relevant information there is on the person the car belongs to, and oh, by the way, IF it turns outs the car does not belong to the driver, the cop will get his DRIVERS LICENSE and find out all there is to know based on that. IF it turns out the drivers does not have any ID. OUR cops are allowed to investigate even further to figure out who the person is. Pretty cool really. How do you do it down under?AussieReaper wrote:
Must be awesome to be able to do that when chasing a stolen vehicle.
Doesn't help when chasing a stolen vehicle now does it? You know, since the officer has to get out of the car and all to identify the driver.
Our police are not wizards, so maybe I am missing something special about your cops?
We check their ID which has their photo. If their face is concealed the police are being empowered to be able to remove the concealment.lowing wrote:
Oh it is! We have these things on the backs of our cars called license plates, and with THAT information they are able to figure out all relevant information there is on the person the car belongs to, and oh, by the way, IF it turns outs the car does not belong to the driver, the cop will get his DRIVERS LICENSE and find out all there is to know based on that. IF it turns out the drivers does not have any ID. OUR cops are allowed to investigate even further to figure out who the person is. Pretty cool really. How do you do it down under?AussieReaper wrote:
Must be awesome to be able to do that when chasing a stolen vehicle.lowing wrote:
Ya lost me, do you honestly think that the police do not "call in" the person they are encountering regardless of race sex religion etc...A cop knows all about you ( or rather the person the car is registered to) before they get out of their car.
Pretty cool, huh?
Sounds good, what is the problem? You support some law that forbids the cops from knowing who the fuck they are dealing with now?Jaekus wrote:
We check their ID which has their photo. If their face is concealed the police are being empowered to be able to remove the concealment.lowing wrote:
Oh it is! We have these things on the backs of our cars called license plates, and with THAT information they are able to figure out all relevant information there is on the person the car belongs to, and oh, by the way, IF it turns outs the car does not belong to the driver, the cop will get his DRIVERS LICENSE and find out all there is to know based on that. IF it turns out the drivers does not have any ID. OUR cops are allowed to investigate even further to figure out who the person is. Pretty cool really. How do you do it down under?AussieReaper wrote:
Must be awesome to be able to do that when chasing a stolen vehicle.
Pretty cool, huh?
Try reading the thread, you'll learn stuff. Not that I expect you to do either.lowing wrote:
Sounds good, what is the problem? You support some law that forbids the cops from knowing who the fuck they are dealing with now?Jaekus wrote:
We check their ID which has their photo. If their face is concealed the police are being empowered to be able to remove the concealment.lowing wrote:
Oh it is! We have these things on the backs of our cars called license plates, and with THAT information they are able to figure out all relevant information there is on the person the car belongs to, and oh, by the way, IF it turns outs the car does not belong to the driver, the cop will get his DRIVERS LICENSE and find out all there is to know based on that. IF it turns out the drivers does not have any ID. OUR cops are allowed to investigate even further to figure out who the person is. Pretty cool really. How do you do it down under?
Pretty cool, huh?
Why do I need to read the thread, I am not addressing what the thread says, I specifically addressed what YOU said, and I am all for the cops knowing exactly who they are dealing with. If that means removing veils, hoods, sunglasses, etc.. so be it.Jaekus wrote:
Try reading the thread, you'll learn stuff. Not that I expect you to do either.lowing wrote:
Sounds good, what is the problem? You support some law that forbids the cops from knowing who the fuck they are dealing with now?Jaekus wrote:
We check their ID which has their photo. If their face is concealed the police are being empowered to be able to remove the concealment.
Pretty cool, huh?
Yeah, like I said, read the thread before posting assumptive comments.lowing wrote:
Why do I need to read the thread, I am not addressing what the thread says, I specifically addressed what YOU said, and I am all for the cops knowing exactly who they are dealing with. If that means removing veils, hoods, sunglasses, etc.. so be it.Jaekus wrote:
Try reading the thread, you'll learn stuff. Not that I expect you to do either.lowing wrote:
Sounds good, what is the problem? You support some law that forbids the cops from knowing who the fuck they are dealing with now?
I addressed what you said,-------> "We check their ID which has their photo. If their face is concealed the police are being empowered to be able to remove the concealment."Jaekus wrote:
Yeah, like I said, read the thread before posting assumptive comments.lowing wrote:
Why do I need to read the thread, I am not addressing what the thread says, I specifically addressed what YOU said, and I am all for the cops knowing exactly who they are dealing with. If that means removing veils, hoods, sunglasses, etc.. so be it.Jaekus wrote:
Try reading the thread, you'll learn stuff. Not that I expect you to do either.
I got nothing more to add to it, if you do feel free.
Yeah you're kinda missing the point again. Move along please.
I found this recent article and it all looks pretty kosher:
I found this recent article and it all looks pretty kosher:
Islamic leaders say they are comfortable with the New South Wales Government's decision to give police the power to demand the removal of burkas and other face veils.
Cabinet approved the changes late yesterday to bolster police powers during routine car stops if they have reasonable grounds to suspect a crime has been committed.
The Western Australian Government is also considering the introduction of the laws that apply to all face coverings, including helmets.
The Islamic Council of New South Wales says it accepts the decision, while the Muslim Women's Association says it has no problem if the powers are handled sensitively.
Islamic council chairman Khaled Sukkarieh says "nobody wants to break the law".
"If you're asked to do something by a police officer and it's legitimate, then you do it," he said.
All pretty cut and dried really.Silma Ihran from the newly formed Muslim Women's Association says the laws come as no surprise.
Ms Ihran says the laws were inevitable because "identity is such a critical part of all of our interactions legally".
But she says it would be favourable if female officers were the ones present when head coverings are removed.
She says if female officers enact the removal "nobody could really complain".
"We have many situations where specialists are required by police to be called in and women police officers aren't that rare, so I can't see there would be too many situations where there would be a major issue," she said.
Jamila Hussain teaches a course in Shariah law at the University of Technology Sydney and says under Islamic law, a woman is required to remove her niqab to be identified if asked by a police officer.
"If you live outside an Islamic country, then you have to obey the law of the land. And if the law of the land says that you need to remove your face veil for identification, then you should do so. And you really have no excuse for not doing so," she said.
"It would be preferable if there was a female police officer there, but if it's a male police officer then it can't be helped in the circumstances."
So based on this, and what you told me , what exactly is your problem with it?Jaekus wrote:
Yeah you're kinda missing the point again. Move along please.
I found this recent article and it all looks pretty kosher:Islamic leaders say they are comfortable with the New South Wales Government's decision to give police the power to demand the removal of burkas and other face veils.
Cabinet approved the changes late yesterday to bolster police powers during routine car stops if they have reasonable grounds to suspect a crime has been committed.
The Western Australian Government is also considering the introduction of the laws that apply to all face coverings, including helmets.
The Islamic Council of New South Wales says it accepts the decision, while the Muslim Women's Association says it has no problem if the powers are handled sensitively.
Islamic council chairman Khaled Sukkarieh says "nobody wants to break the law".
"If you're asked to do something by a police officer and it's legitimate, then you do it," he said.All pretty cut and dried really.Silma Ihran from the newly formed Muslim Women's Association says the laws come as no surprise.
Ms Ihran says the laws were inevitable because "identity is such a critical part of all of our interactions legally".
But she says it would be favourable if female officers were the ones present when head coverings are removed.
She says if female officers enact the removal "nobody could really complain".
"We have many situations where specialists are required by police to be called in and women police officers aren't that rare, so I can't see there would be too many situations where there would be a major issue," she said.
Jamila Hussain teaches a course in Shariah law at the University of Technology Sydney and says under Islamic law, a woman is required to remove her niqab to be identified if asked by a police officer.
"If you live outside an Islamic country, then you have to obey the law of the land. And if the law of the land says that you need to remove your face veil for identification, then you should do so. And you really have no excuse for not doing so," she said.
"It would be preferable if there was a female police officer there, but if it's a male police officer then it can't be helped in the circumstances."
He doesn't have a problem with it.lowing wrote:
So based on this, and what you told me , what exactly is your problem with it?Jaekus wrote:
Yeah you're kinda missing the point again. Move along please.
I found this recent article and it all looks pretty kosher:Islamic leaders say they are comfortable with the New South Wales Government's decision to give police the power to demand the removal of burkas and other face veils.
Cabinet approved the changes late yesterday to bolster police powers during routine car stops if they have reasonable grounds to suspect a crime has been committed.
The Western Australian Government is also considering the introduction of the laws that apply to all face coverings, including helmets.
The Islamic Council of New South Wales says it accepts the decision, while the Muslim Women's Association says it has no problem if the powers are handled sensitively.
Islamic council chairman Khaled Sukkarieh says "nobody wants to break the law".
"If you're asked to do something by a police officer and it's legitimate, then you do it," he said.All pretty cut and dried really.Silma Ihran from the newly formed Muslim Women's Association says the laws come as no surprise.
Ms Ihran says the laws were inevitable because "identity is such a critical part of all of our interactions legally".
But she says it would be favourable if female officers were the ones present when head coverings are removed.
She says if female officers enact the removal "nobody could really complain".
"We have many situations where specialists are required by police to be called in and women police officers aren't that rare, so I can't see there would be too many situations where there would be a major issue," she said.
Jamila Hussain teaches a course in Shariah law at the University of Technology Sydney and says under Islamic law, a woman is required to remove her niqab to be identified if asked by a police officer.
"If you live outside an Islamic country, then you have to obey the law of the land. And if the law of the land says that you need to remove your face veil for identification, then you should do so. And you really have no excuse for not doing so," she said.
"It would be preferable if there was a female police officer there, but if it's a male police officer then it can't be helped in the circumstances."
Ok then, what point am I missing? -----> "Yeah you're kinda missing the point again."Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
He doesn't have a problem with it.lowing wrote:
So based on this, and what you told me , what exactly is your problem with it?Jaekus wrote:
Yeah you're kinda missing the point again. Move along please.
I found this recent article and it all looks pretty kosher:All pretty cut and dried really.Islamic leaders say they are comfortable with the New South Wales Government's decision to give police the power to demand the removal of burkas and other face veils.
Cabinet approved the changes late yesterday to bolster police powers during routine car stops if they have reasonable grounds to suspect a crime has been committed.
The Western Australian Government is also considering the introduction of the laws that apply to all face coverings, including helmets.
The Islamic Council of New South Wales says it accepts the decision, while the Muslim Women's Association says it has no problem if the powers are handled sensitively.
Islamic council chairman Khaled Sukkarieh says "nobody wants to break the law".
"If you're asked to do something by a police officer and it's legitimate, then you do it," he said.
lowing wrote:
Ok then, what point am I missing? -----> "Yeah you're kinda missing the point again."
Exactly.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
He doesn't have a problem with it.
Like I said, read the thread next time, noob.
and like I said, I was not addressing the thread, I addressed YOU, you addressed me as if, you had a problem with the veils coming off, if you don't, and agree with what I said on the topic to Aussie, what the fuck are you even talking to me for?Jaekus wrote:
lowing wrote:
Ok then, what point am I missing? -----> "Yeah you're kinda missing the point again."Exactly.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
He doesn't have a problem with it.
Like I said, read the thread next time, noob.
Last edited by lowing (2011-07-12 19:47:49)
I think a person needs to adapt to the laws of a country or get out. So if Australia passes this, I see no problem with women being required to remove their veils for identification purposes.
I don't see what there is to talk about here.
I don't see what there is to talk about here.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
It's part of their religion. This law sounds extremely disrespectful.-Sh1fty- wrote:
I think a person needs to adapt to the laws of a country or get out. So if Australia passes this, I see no problem with women being required to remove their veils for identification purposes.
I don't see what there is to talk about here.
It would be like imposing a law against wearing rosary beads or a cross necklace because it's a choking hazard.
Last edited by UnkleRukus (2011-07-12 20:13:16)
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
Is anyone actually saying they don't like the law? Jaekus likes it. Lowing likes it.
No it isn't like rosary beads or a cross neckless, those things do not hide anyones identity.UnkleRukus wrote:
It's part of their religion. This law sounds extremely disrespectful.-Sh1fty- wrote:
I think a person needs to adapt to the laws of a country or get out. So if Australia passes this, I see no problem with women being required to remove their veils for identification purposes.
I don't see what there is to talk about here.
It would be like imposing a law against wearing rosary beads or a cross necklace because it's a choking hazard.
muslims are happy with it so... huh?UnkleRukus wrote:
It's part of their religion. This law sounds extremely disrespectful.-Sh1fty- wrote:
I think a person needs to adapt to the laws of a country or get out. So if Australia passes this, I see no problem with women being required to remove their veils for identification purposes.
I don't see what there is to talk about here.
It would be like imposing a law against wearing rosary beads or a cross necklace because it's a choking hazard.
Muslim groups agree with it, as I posted above.DesertFox- wrote:
Is anyone actually saying they don't like the law? Jaekus likes it. Lowing likes it.
Umm dude, police checks aren't exclusive to the US. Wake up to yourself.lowing wrote:
and like I said, I was not addressing the thread, I addressed YOU, you addressed me as if, you had a problem with the veils coming off, if you don't, and agree with what I said on the topic to Aussie, what the fuck are you even talking to me for?Jaekus wrote:
lowing wrote:
Ok then, what point am I missing? -----> "Yeah you're kinda missing the point again."Exactly.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
He doesn't have a problem with it.
Like I said, read the thread next time, noob.
ya know what, maybe it should be YOU to go back and read the exchange between Aussie and myself. Or better yet, stay out of it, since neither of us was addressing you.Jaekus wrote:
Umm dude, police checks aren't exclusive to the US. Wake up to yourself.lowing wrote:
and like I said, I was not addressing the thread, I addressed YOU, you addressed me as if, you had a problem with the veils coming off, if you don't, and agree with what I said on the topic to Aussie, what the fuck are you even talking to me for?Jaekus wrote:
Exactly.lowing wrote:
Ok then, what point am I missing? -----> "Yeah you're kinda missing the point again."
Like I said, read the thread next time, noob.
WAH WAH QQlowing wrote:
ya know what, maybe it should be YOU to go back and read the exchange between Aussie and myself. Or better yet, stay out of it, since neither of us was addressing you.Jaekus wrote:
Umm dude, police checks aren't exclusive to the US. Wake up to yourself.lowing wrote:
and like I said, I was not addressing the thread, I addressed YOU, you addressed me as if, you had a problem with the veils coming off, if you don't, and agree with what I said on the topic to Aussie, what the fuck are you even talking to me for?
Well, for those who feel this law is inappropriate, I wonder how they want us to I.D. them.UnkleRukus wrote:
It's part of their religion. This law sounds extremely disrespectful.-Sh1fty- wrote:
I think a person needs to adapt to the laws of a country or get out. So if Australia passes this, I see no problem with women being required to remove their veils for identification purposes.
I don't see what there is to talk about here.
It would be like imposing a law against wearing rosary beads or a cross necklace because it's a choking hazard.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
Not sure if srs... but if so, how is making people temporarily identify themselves at al like telling someone what accessoires to wear for safteys sake.UnkleRukus wrote:
It's part of their religion. This law sounds extremely disrespectful.-Sh1fty- wrote:
I think a person needs to adapt to the laws of a country or get out. So if Australia passes this, I see no problem with women being required to remove their veils for identification purposes.
I don't see what there is to talk about here.
It would be like imposing a law against wearing rosary beads or a cross necklace because it's a choking hazard.
No.UnkleRukus wrote:
It's part of their religion. This law sounds extremely disrespectful.-Sh1fty- wrote:
I think a person needs to adapt to the laws of a country or get out. So if Australia passes this, I see no problem with women being required to remove their veils for identification purposes.
I don't see what there is to talk about here.
It would be like imposing a law against wearing rosary beads or a cross necklace because it's a choking hazard.
There is some group that want to "band the burqa" but that is different.
This law is simply means of identity to police. It would be no different than removing rosary beads to identify someone (though I couldn't see how that would be applicable in reality).