cont'd ...

Oops, sorry for my typo.

Of course I meant - duct-tape.

My apologies to ducks.

Christopher Pyne and Bronwyn Bishop could use
some duck-tape and this time I do mean the bird!

Sorta like this?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bq3MJ23CUAAviJY.jpg

SM: Sorta - like this.

Good one son. I'da used a lot more than that & on the other end as well.

Foxy: I'm sure that many other posters could come up with paper bags for quite a few of our pollies.

My missus prefers a Bucket, Err... 'ang on, no, that's me.

All very droll, however out of respect for the OP maybe a return to the subject of the thread?

I am interested to know for instance, how many here would find it acceptable and reasonable to be required to deal with front line government service staff wearing a mask that conceals the face? As it is, public service staff have with Union support been able to remove their surnames from their badges and desks. They are permitted to conceal their surnames in electronic communication too. That is a practice many of the public already find unacceptable, but it is the case, regardless of public feelings on the matter, or so it appears. Their privacy is paramount whereas your private details and business are discussed in front of other employees and members of the public.

Speaking for myself, I would object most strongly to being served by a Town Planner who was masked, or whose name was being withheld. Government is already anonymous and impossible to hold to account. All of my details relevant (and some would say irrelevant) to my development proposal are laid bare and made available online to the public and through additional copies of documents I must supply.

Should members of a jury be allowed to conceal their faces? What about the accused and witnesses? Maybe the judge might prefer anonymity?

What about Naturalisation ceremonies, should masks be allowed there? What are the priorities?

Come now FOXY that's not like you ! :-) LOL

Still, as SHADOW MINISTER has quite rightly opined, there would be quite a good argument, for the likes of Ms S. HANSON-YOUNG, Ms C. MILNE, together with a few other politicians, representing all three genders, who could make good use of the traditional Burqa ? I suppose I'm being somewhat facetious, still the idea has some merit I would've thought ?

There again speaking of 'meritorious argument' perhaps there are many others herein, who might well suggest the services of some mechanical contrivance could be engaged to indelibly curb my big mouth as well ?

A question without levity if I may...Is the Burqa considered the most formal and compliant of all Islamic female attire, given that not even the eyes may be seen ? Surely it must be, I couldn't for a moment conceive of anything else being more self-deprecating or demeaning for any Islamic woman, unlucky enough to reside in of those fundamentalist Muslim countries ? What a miserable, restrictive, and ignominious existence they must have. Why in God's name is it allowed. Surely, indentured slavery and marital captivity was outlawed over a century and a half ago ! Those poor, poor, women.

Hey!
Leave Sarah alone she's my own true love and I have a plan to lure her to the dark side, I'd have her in ermine and cloth of gold I would.

Paul 1405,
I have several pairs of those dacks, I pull them up over my belly so they're a perfect match with a polo shirt tucked in, brown socks and masseur sandals for the off duty Turkish cabbie look.
We should get dressed up in our Lowes trackies and go to the dogs one night.