The same would apply to any sort of metal. Check in would be far quicker if passengers were banned from taking anything made of metal on planes.

Would not be worth the effort, everybodies trousers would fall down without the belt buckle. However joking apart, there are loads of hard plastics available these days which could very easily be made into a weapon or detonator. Explosives are not made of metal either.

There are dozens of innocent looking domestic items which can easily disguise nasty bits of kit so where does that leave us. Sitting naked on the plane covered with a burka to hide our modesty perhaps.

I am assuming the above is aimed at my comments.

May be privately run, but the costs won't be swallowed up by the private companies, it will be passed onto the airlines and from there onto the passengers - that's why I wrote flying public ie those actually flying. I am not however convinced that no part of airport security is not partially met from the tax paying general public purse.

I said nothing about saving time and you are missing the point completely....All passengers had to take off their shoes, whether they are black, brown, white, English, Irish, French, male, female, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, gay, straight or whatever.

However, extra costs must go into providing separate rooms and female staff so that Female Muslims can be treated differently. Male Christians wouldn't need separate rooms and staff just for them. The additional costs are soley because of Muslim burka wearing women. That's unfair, unless they are paying something towards the extra service they require. That was the point.

Perhaps we should ban the Burka, the Hijab and all the other dress requirements of the Muslim faith.

They can then advertise their chosen religion by other, state-approved ways.

Does UKIP also plan to ban people dressing up as ghosts at Halloween too?

I certainly don't like people over the age of say 15 wearing haloween masks and trick or treating in a threatening manner. So in this case yes.

I think you live in la la land User23.

It should have been already banned by now. Its just a straight logic..women any where in the world needs to be independent and no restrictions needs to applied in form of religion or whatever..AND NEVER SHOULD BE TOLERATED IN BRITAIN. If any one are too religious they are always welcome to do so..in those religious type of country. If wanted to be a British..be BRITISH and follows its value and do not integrate some other lands value into BRITAIN.

If only the pagans had followed your advice, but the Italians were harder than us, back then!

Your logic doesn't work, you've advocated banning something then say everyone should be independent with no restrictions placed on them as to what they should wear.

Put yourself in the place of a woman who wants to make an independent choice to wear a Burka, would you place a restriction on her by banning her choice of clothing? Doesn't seem very British to me.

I think Burka its a religious rule and its not a choice made by a community. The woman who wears Burka is only because of the rule from her family and her community and she may express Burkha as a choice only to accept how addicted and supressed she is with her community.

I would have accepted this as a "choice" , if woman wears a Burkha today and tommorrow she could wear a dress whatever she likes and walk her around community freely.

My understanding is that there is disagreement even between Muslims authorities as to the requirement for either the Burqua or the Niquab. The Muslim faith only requires women to dress 'modestly'.

If it were a strict religious tenet, how could Muslim women working in uniformed jobs (eg Police) be excepted.

Banning by statute is the thin end of a very dangerous wedge. Outlawing by social acceptability and not threatening to prosecute everybody who objects to women wearing these items for some sort of discrimination offence would have a higher chance of success.

Not all Muslim women wear Burkas and those that do aren't all forced to do so.

Would you ban Christians from going to church on a Sunday because they're "forced" to do so by their religion?

There are many branches of Islam, and many different interpretations of how a "good" Muslim should behave. However, there is nothing in the Koran which states that a Muslim woman must be covered from head to foot, this is simply a very extreme interpretation/view/teaching of some Islamic clerics, in particular those who come from the Wahhabi Sunni sect of Islam. If we look at certain Islamic countries - Turkey, Morocco, Algeria, Indonesia and even Iran, there is a very relaxed dress code for Muslim women, no insistence on the Burka or Chador/Hejab. We have to move our attention to countries which have been seen as our friends, to observe the strictest Islamic dress codes, and attitudes to women's rights - Saudi Arabia, some parts of Pakistan, Yemen, Kuwait, and of course Afghanistan.
The only reason why Muslim women wear the Burka, is because they have been instructed in extreme Islamic views from an early age, and it is all to do with the chauvinistic control of women by Muslim men. Within certain Muslim communities/families, there is no opportunity for dissent, because of the rigid rules being applied to the women.
We are talking about fear of violence, and of fear of exclusion from the family or community, which makes some Muslim women observe these outdated practices. There is no place for this in 21st Century Britain.

Well put Alex. You sound like you know what you are talking about.

So who is the appropriate authority to decide what garment is acceptable for anyone to wear?

In my view, this is a topic that should be dealt with by the relevant religions, not by the state. The only law I would agree to is that there should be no law that requires one to wear a burka.

I would also advocate that it is taught that wearing a burka in this country is bad manners when in a face to face conversation with someone.

I believe Alex's interpetation to be accuarate. The Burka is an instrument of subdugation and any free thinking woman would choose not to wear it.
The Government should legislate against it now much as France and Australia have.
You even give reasons for it not being worn. If they want to wear it in the privacy of there own home then fine.

A cut-and-paste job from somewhere (without reference). It should be obvious from reading Alex's other posts.

Sorry Jeff, again I don't understand. What is the point you are trying to make?

I'm sorry Bloggo, but if you can't see that that the language of that post bears no resemblance to his other ones, then I despair. It is obviously not his original text.

HI Jeff, yes I understand.
Although I think the tone of the earlier post is not dissimilar to Alex's last one it looks like it has been written by someone else. ie, much better grammar.
Could be that Alex was not born here and in order to be clear she ( i think) has asked someone to write it for her.