Surely not the same Jack Straw who requested muslim women to remove their veil when speaking to him?
Magistrate Reprimanded
- Thread starter cashman
- Start date
Surely not the same Jack Straw who requested muslim women to remove their veil when speaking to him?
The hypocrisy of this government never ceases to amaze me. As Willow says, Jack Straw was the one who spoke out against his constituents wearing the veil when they visited him and now he has the sheer gall to reprimand this magistrate. Do as I say, not as I do... 
it surely was, as wyn says HYPOCRISY run amok.
Yea, I was being sarcastic Cashy.
i knew that willow,was just having another pop at the "invisible wanabees"Yea, I was being sarcastic Cashy.
I notice that the magistrate in question has been ‘re-trained’.
“When in Rome” springs to mind blazey.
The accused and any witnesses giving evidence must have their faces visible so that the emotion expressed in the face is visible to the bench when being cross examined. Hidden behind a veil the accused or witness could be lying in their teeth and no one would know. Juries would certainly want to see the face of the witness and accused.
Imagine if the magistrate was a Muslim women? Would she be allowed to wear a veil whilst on the bench? Would the council for defence or prosecution be allowed to wear a veil? Would any of the court officials be allowed to wear a veil? They might in a Muslim court but such a court has no legal standing in this country even if the Muslims are trying to establish their own courts.
It will be interesting to see what happens if a Muslim woman is called for jury service and turns up fully veiled.
cant believe this i agree with you for once lol
the last ones interesting,cos if such a woman was a veil wearer normally, how would they know if it was her that turned up for jury service?
I do wish people would stop making the erroneous connection between the veil and Islam rules/texts.
Simple question.
Would you like a witness in a veil giving evidence against you that could send you to jail?
Does a veil impair their intelligence and common sense?
shouldn,t think so, but facial expressions,mannerisms etc must surely be of some value to a jury/judge etc?
What’s that got to do with it?
Do you always answer a question by asking a question? Or is it possibly that to answer the question truthfully you would shoot yourself down in flames?
I think she was referring to the last comment about a veiled woman serving on a jury. In that instance I can't see that it would impair her judgement of the case.
If I had a choice of 12 veiled women on the jury or 12 chavs, I'd pick the veiled women. If I had to choose between veiled women or 12 people who didn't really want to be there because they felt they had better things to be doing I'd pick the 12 veiled women.
Why would anyone get the idea they wont be able to tell the difference from a guilty or innocent person just because their face isn't visible? They can still see and hear perfectly well, which is the same as any jury member.
The question of a person being tried in court wearing a veil is a different matter, facial expressions can be useful to the jury, but facial expression alone doesnt prove guilt, its what is said that matters most, and expression in the voice itself can be as revealing as facial expression.
I may be the only one who can find a solution to the problem rather than saying they shouldn't be allowed, but I found the way the other option was worded to be intentionally the one that should be seen as the right answer.
I am entitled to my opinion, and you dont need to argue your point to try and change my mind, the poll speaks for itself and I know you all disagree with me. No need to argue about it.
Why would anyone get the idea they wont be able to tell the difference from a guilty or innocent person just because their face isn't visible? They can still see and hear perfectly well, which is the same as any jury member.
The question of a person being tried in court wearing a veil is a different matter, facial expressions can be useful to the jury, but facial expression alone doesnt prove guilt, its what is said that matters most, and expression in the voice itself can be as revealing as facial expression.
I may be the only one who can find a solution to the problem rather than saying they shouldn't be allowed, but I found the way the other option was worded to be intentionally the one that should be seen as the right answer.
I am entitled to my opinion, and you dont need to argue your point to try and change my mind, the poll speaks for itself and I know you all disagree with me. No need to argue about it.
The point is that facial expressions can help, along with other factors, to build up a total picture and that's why veils should be removed in court. And, as your argument about veils being "important in the muslim faith" seems to have been disproved, there's really no reason for defendants not to remove them.
Still, at least, you've fought your corner, Blazey...funny, isn't it, how all the Nu Labour politicos have very carefully avoided this thread?
Last edited:
dont think so,thought she was responding to jambuttys question?
The point is that facial expressions can help, along with other factors, to build up a total picture and that's why veils should be removed in court. And, as your argument about veils being "important in the muslim faith" seems to have been disproved, there's really no reason for defendants not to remove them.
Still, at least, you've fought your corner, Blazey...funny, isn't it, how all the Nu Labour politicos have very carefully avoided this thread?
Buggered if I can see what a posters political persuasion has to do with any comments posted. Vote Labour myself and posted….maybe I’m the only Labourite to have posted or maybe it was an ill thought out theory