Film, Media & TV2 mins ago
A Sensible Ruling From The Judge
http://
Its seems that the Judge has reached a sensible ruling in this case. She can be shielded from the public when giving evidence, but must be seen, veil-less
to the Judge, the Jury and lawyers.
But what I can't understand is why this woman, who is a defendant, on a serious charge, not a witness or a victim, can't be identified "for legal reasons"
Can anybody enlighten me here ?
Its seems that the Judge has reached a sensible ruling in this case. She can be shielded from the public when giving evidence, but must be seen, veil-less
to the Judge, the Jury and lawyers.
But what I can't understand is why this woman, who is a defendant, on a serious charge, not a witness or a victim, can't be identified "for legal reasons"
Can anybody enlighten me here ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mikey4444. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The usual “legal reason” is that either the defendant herself is under 18 (she’s not, she’s 22) or that revealing her identity may lead to the identity being deduced of somebody under 18 who is associated with the case. There may however be other reasons why the judge has made a ruling, particularly if revealing her identity may compromise the fairness of the trial.
But moving on, this is not a sensible decision. It is a capitulation. She only has to “bare all” whilst giving evidence should she choose to do so). In my view the defendant should be visible throughout the trial so that the jury may assess her reaction to other evidence as it materialises. With the possible exception of some extreme medical reason, there is no justification for anybody participating in court proceedings in the UK to appear with their face masked up.
But moving on, this is not a sensible decision. It is a capitulation. She only has to “bare all” whilst giving evidence should she choose to do so). In my view the defendant should be visible throughout the trial so that the jury may assess her reaction to other evidence as it materialises. With the possible exception of some extreme medical reason, there is no justification for anybody participating in court proceedings in the UK to appear with their face masked up.
"Britain's leading Muslim organisation warned tonight that a judge's landmark ruling that women should not give evidence in court whilst wearing the veil threatened to undermine the nation's long-standing tradition of religious tolerance."
our tolerance and your intolerance in a country you know and came to knowing is not a muslim country but expect to bow down and accomadate your every whim.
Please feel free to leave if you dont like our country and its culture
our tolerance and your intolerance in a country you know and came to knowing is not a muslim country but expect to bow down and accomadate your every whim.
Please feel free to leave if you dont like our country and its culture
Baz
// your intolerance in a country you know and came to knowing is not a muslim country //
It is more than likely they were born here, so your go home rant cannot apply.
Puzzled why from 18-22 this woman did not wear a full veil, but now having wore one for just 14 months it offends her and her religion not to wear it. If she had been covered all her life I could understand (but not agree) with her reluctance to uncover, but she hasn't, she has only covered 1 year of her 23 years. I do not agree with a ban in public, people should be allowed to wear what they want without the state interferring. But the only exception should be in court where a jury and a judge have to decide on someones guilt and being able to properly see someone helps in assessing the correct judgement.
// your intolerance in a country you know and came to knowing is not a muslim country //
It is more than likely they were born here, so your go home rant cannot apply.
Puzzled why from 18-22 this woman did not wear a full veil, but now having wore one for just 14 months it offends her and her religion not to wear it. If she had been covered all her life I could understand (but not agree) with her reluctance to uncover, but she hasn't, she has only covered 1 year of her 23 years. I do not agree with a ban in public, people should be allowed to wear what they want without the state interferring. But the only exception should be in court where a jury and a judge have to decide on someones guilt and being able to properly see someone helps in assessing the correct judgement.
I was just about to ask whether she had been wearing a veil all the time for years.
The fact that she has not does not help her case, although without knowing her life exactly it is hard to tell.
But if the judge, jury and lawyers can see her that does seem like a fair compromise. Compromise is often a good thing: not for the fundamentalists on either side though.
The fact that she has not does not help her case, although without knowing her life exactly it is hard to tell.
But if the judge, jury and lawyers can see her that does seem like a fair compromise. Compromise is often a good thing: not for the fundamentalists on either side though.
I would guess that the reason she’s worn the veil only for the past 14 months is because it is a highly visible and unmistakeable symbol of Islamic defiance against the west – and that’s precisely what she’s using it for – hence this continual nonsense. In an attempt to accommodate these people and their phony religious foibles we abandon our own principles and tie ourselves in knots – and they are succeeding in their aim of making fools of us. It’s time to say ‘no’ – and no arguments!
Why should there be a compromise, ichkeria?
We have long established processes and protocols in the UK which regulate court procedures. One of the fundamentals is that, unless it is in the interests of justice or of somebody’s personal safety to do otherwise, all participants in public legal proceedings can see all of the other participants.
There is no suggestion that either justice or safety will be compromised if this woman reveals her face. It is simply a whim she has asked (or more properly demanded) the court to indulge. She would not be allowed to sit in court chewing gum or listening to an iPod (both far less offensive activities) and no compromise would be allowed.
It’s about time this country stood up and imposed its standards on those who choose to live here. All this fannying around with “compromise” to accommodate odd and unusual behaviour in the name of religion is not making the world think we’re wonderfully liberal and tolerant. It’s making us a laughing stock.
We have long established processes and protocols in the UK which regulate court procedures. One of the fundamentals is that, unless it is in the interests of justice or of somebody’s personal safety to do otherwise, all participants in public legal proceedings can see all of the other participants.
There is no suggestion that either justice or safety will be compromised if this woman reveals her face. It is simply a whim she has asked (or more properly demanded) the court to indulge. She would not be allowed to sit in court chewing gum or listening to an iPod (both far less offensive activities) and no compromise would be allowed.
It’s about time this country stood up and imposed its standards on those who choose to live here. All this fannying around with “compromise” to accommodate odd and unusual behaviour in the name of religion is not making the world think we’re wonderfully liberal and tolerant. It’s making us a laughing stock.
Perhaps in the future a judge will be able to direct the jury that adverse inferences may be drawn.
'It's clear, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that in refusing to unveil the accused is showing nothing but mute contempt for this court and its proceedings. She is obviously out to create difficulty and generate publicity. Take from that what you will.'
'It's clear, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that in refusing to unveil the accused is showing nothing but mute contempt for this court and its proceedings. She is obviously out to create difficulty and generate publicity. Take from that what you will.'
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles14 mins ago
Horror As 'Man Doused In Bleach' In Busy...
News15 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles39 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles45 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles59 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.