Niqab Lady Anonymity

[Ric.ror]

Has a reason been given why this lady has not been named yet and will she be named after the trial
Also would she have had 'mug' shots taken? If so with or without the niqab on

[askyourgran]

There is another thread on this Ric. Usually they only allow them anonimity when underage but this is a 22 year old. Maybe it's to avoid a backlash from her community. I doubt anyone will get a mug shot of her.

[New Judge]

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question1276149.html

[Ric.ror]

Thank you
Just read the other threads
Answered all my questions except mug shot one

[emmie]

is it to do with her age, she is 17 ?

[emmie]

so not 17, got that wrong, so must be someone else.
hopefully the judge will ban the wearing of the veil in court, not sensible certainly, another example of supposed rights of the minority over a well established judicial system.

[jake-the-peg]

The judge ruled that she had to remove the veil when giving evidence but could be shielded from the public gallery.

It seems a good ruling to me but will no doubt be contested.

Most interesting legal cases occur when you're balancing contradictory rights as here.

The judge has clearly taken some trouble to get to the minimum required whilst still balancing the needs of the court

I think it's a very good ruling but no doubt one which will still be attacked by those with a rabid hatred of anything to do with Islam in any guise

[emmie]

rabid hatred of Islam - give us a break why don't you. No other person would be allowed a face covering in a court room, not in the dock, unless you know different. Pandering of the worse kind, it's a nonsense to suggest otherwise. If it goes in her favour that she simply shows a woman court official her face before entering the dock, then what is to stop other defendants doing the same.

[meglet]

From today's Mail: "The Metropolitan police constable, who was present when the defendant was photographed after her arrest in June, then swore on oath that it was the same woman in the dock".

[meglet]

Sorry, scratch that, its in The Guardian.

[emmie]

but the jury will be sworn in and then what?

[ludwig]

// I think it's a very good ruling but no doubt one which will still be attacked by those with a rabid hatred of anything to do with Islam in any guise //

translation : anyone who disagrees with me is a racist.

[naomi24]

^^Got it in one.

[emmie]

it's the elephant in the room, don't mention she is wearing a veil, incase it's offensive to her/them, they would if a bloke was wearing a hoodie in court, that would be off his head before you can say jack robinson. Patent nonsense, time this county stopped bending over backwards,

[emmie]

sorry typo, country, and it would seem not just on AB that if you don't agree with the wearing of a veil, burkha, it's somehow racist, or that you say the Muslim men who groomed not just white girls but those from their own communities including the sikh girls, is somehow racist to mention their backgrounds, Pakistani men mostly.

[johnny37]

Would it be possible to find an unbiased jury?

[emmie]

make them all Muslim if you like, besides juries are supposed to be unbiased, aren't they?

[anotheoldgit]

Interesting to note that the BBC were interviewing persons outside the collage that reversed it's ban on the Niqab.

Who did they interview? Muslim students who all seemed to agree the ban should be lifted.

I wonder why the BBC chose not to interview the white students? Perhaps their sentiments might have been quite the opposite.

[Ric.ror]

Could anyone tell me if there were any photographs taken by the police?

[Orderlimit]

She would have had to have a facial photograph taken after being charged Ric.ror.

[Hypognosis]

I can't speak for others but, to me, this is about fair and equal treatment -among people in the process of being prosecuted-.

For me, there is no underlying hatred of Islam. If it were any other religion yet still involved the wearing of a veil, I would still have the same problem of one set of people having to show their faces throughout trial and another set of people receiving 'special treatment'.

Differential treatment is how discrimination manifests itself. We can sidestep the racial element by simply discussing how we would feel if it was a white, female, witness-intimidator who insisted on veil-wearing, in this manner and then every other ethnic minority in turn. By rights, the answer would be the same each time.

By the way, one bad thing to come out of all of this is that every scrote out there has suddenly become aware that their facial expressions in court are being 'read' by their jury and will all be practicing their 'poker face' from now on.