think wyn is refering too the people IN politics not the ordinary voters, who say everything to me by their absence in the thread.
Magistrate Reprimanded
- Thread starter cashman
- Start date
think wyn is refering too the people IN politics not the ordinary voters, who say everything to me by their absence in the thread.
Oh right cashy...did not realise that you were invovlved with the Council stuff
I'm a Labourite too, and have posted my views.
I don't blame this woman, even if the cheeky cow, sorry unemployed mother of five, was found guilty of vandalising her council house, and had the gall to complain about the magistrate.
I do blame the namby pamby, bend over backwards culture that we live in, not only in politcs, which is so frightened of appearing bigotted that it allows things like this to happen.
Parties like the B.N.P must be rubbing their hands at the savings they're making from their advertising budgets, as more and more stories like this appear in the press all the time.
now thats exactly what happens n the cretins are too dumb to see it.
think wyn is refering too the people IN politics not the ordinary voters, who say everything to me by their absence in the thread.
I dont know cant make my mind up. Hows that for an answer cashy. Thats why i havent replied in this thread before.
I can see both sides - he wanted to be able to see her face and so to see her expressions etc when she replied to questions being asked her, she wanted to wear the full face veil.
Maybe an idea might have been video conferencing.. she would have been in a separate room and so then could have removed her veil, seeing as she wouldnt be in the same room as a male - female in charge of the camera.
Dont shout at me please ive just been in a labour party meeting!!!
Just a thought.
Even though I think a woman shouldn't wear a full veil in a court of law, because we can't see her face, where does that leave blind people?
Are they to be exempt from sitting on judgement of others, because they can't 'read' a person's face?
Even though I think a woman shouldn't wear a full veil in a court of law, because we can't see her face, where does that leave blind people?
Are they to be exempt from sitting on judgement of others, because they can't 'read' a person's face?
as has been established there is no religious reason to wear, plus the charge was for a magistrates court which many aint got either extra room of facilities,who would pay for such a thing? the taxpayer- when theres no bloody need. therefore not a credible option to me.I dont know cant make my mind up. Hows that for an answer cashy. Thats why i havent replied in this thread before.
I can see both sides - he wanted to be able to see her face and so to see her expressions etc when she replied to questions being asked her, she wanted to wear the full face veil.
Maybe an idea might have been video conferencing.. she would have been in a separate room and so then could have removed her veil, seeing as she wouldnt be in the same room as a male - female in charge of the camera.
Dont shout at me please ive just been in a labour party meeting!!!
That is a really good point. Blindness is a disability though the wearing of a veil would appear to be a matter of choice. If either a veil wearer or blind person were to be a juror, it should not be an issue , if in the dock, the veil should be removed ( veil wearing seems to be generally thought of as being latently deceptive, going off this thread at least)
This is just silly really..there's no way an accused person can be tried with any veil/mask in court.
I suppose it could cause major problems if, for example, Batman or Spiderman had to appear in court unmasked..I mean it would totally blow their cover and hamper their efforts to uphold the law!
I suppose it could cause major problems if, for example, Batman or Spiderman had to appear in court unmasked..I mean it would totally blow their cover and hamper their efforts to uphold the law!
well they do say Justice is supposed to be blind (that statue thing on top of the Old Bailey) so I dont see why not , .......but deaf , dumb and blind .........theres a song there somewhere .......
ok I'll go stand in the corner
I'm not having a go at ordinary Labour voters. What I am saying is that this present government are responsible for this particular situation. After all, it was Jack Straw who reprimanded the magistrate, despite his previous pronouncements on veil wearing. I would, therefore, like to know what real live politicians like Greg Pope and Graham Jones think about it - do they support their government on this, or do they oppose it?
The most worrying part of the "namby pamby, bend over backwards culture" that Gary describes is contained in the last part of his post. This attitude is the most effective recruiting sergeant the likes of the BNP could have and will ultimately lead to more resentment and racial discord and, believe me, I have more reason than most to find that an alarming prospect.
That's a good question about blind people and jury service. I wonder if deaf people can too? They could probably have a sign language interpreter. (If they read sign language that is) I'm really curious about this now.
It would appear blind people can do jury service.
Support and assistance dogs
If you have a support or assistance dog it will be allowed into the courtroom. Going to court, particularly as a jury member, can mean long days. If required, it should be possible for your dog to be looked after while you are in the courtroom.
If a court session is long and your dog needs a break, you may need to arrange this with the judge via courtroom staff.
Someone may also be able to take your dog for a walk.
If you require any of these services, contact a member of court staff and they will be able to discuss your requirements and make any necessary arrangements.
The Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) and blind people
In certain circumstances, the DDA allows public bodies to justify less favourable treatment to ensure that a fair balance is struck between the rights of disabled people and wider concerns.
For example, a decision not to call a blind person for jury service in a particular case where it is considered vital that the jury can consider a good deal of the evidence visually is likely to be justified.
I had a debate with Jack Straw about this personally as he came into the college I attended for a debate with us, the students, about it, and tried to say we sat in order of colour which in my opinion is highly offending.
I told him I found my friends who wore veils spoke much clearer and with much more sense than himself, who stumbled and stuttered over his words throughout his entire speech. He suggested we sat with certain people dependant on our skin colour and me being me had to stand up and say that was absolute nonsense. Thankfully he didn't have the same security at his labour conference in 2005 or I fear I woul've been dragged out of the room like poor walter wolfgang.
Labour are ridiculous and I dont know why people vote for them. I know working class cant afford the expensive education that most upper class tory voters can afford but they dont do the working class any justice by making us look like bumbling idiots. Who's behalf do they speak on exactly?
I told him I found my friends who wore veils spoke much clearer and with much more sense than himself, who stumbled and stuttered over his words throughout his entire speech. He suggested we sat with certain people dependant on our skin colour and me being me had to stand up and say that was absolute nonsense. Thankfully he didn't have the same security at his labour conference in 2005 or I fear I woul've been dragged out of the room like poor walter wolfgang.
Labour are ridiculous and I dont know why people vote for them. I know working class cant afford the expensive education that most upper class tory voters can afford but they dont do the working class any justice by making us look like bumbling idiots. Who's behalf do they speak on exactly?
For me, the issue of veils is actually quite simple. If a person wishes to live their life according to the strictures of seventh century religious traditions then perhaps a twenty-first century secular society is not the best place to do it. This whole argument smacks not so much of individual piety but of wilful separatism and the desire to prove one's own moral superiority.
Did he provide any logical explanation why he wanted people to sit 'in order of colour'? How was he defining this? Did hair colour count? Did all the bue eyed blonds have to sit together? What about the green eyed red heads? Do they sit with the blue eyed blonds or the brown eyed brunettes? Oh but hang on a minute what about the blue eyed brunettes? Would it have meant my two daughters would have been segregated?
Yes I know I'm exaggerating the issue but it seems a pointless request unless there was some purpose for it.
I would love to respond to the last paragraph but I'm completely lost for words at the moment. Perhaps I'm just tired. It's been a tiring day.
HE didn't put us in that seating plan, he said we sat that way by our own choice. Obviously I was a bit annoyed as my group of friends at college had 2 asians girls amongst us who were sat with us at the time, so he'd chosen to completely ignore that and focus on the girls who stuck to their own groups. I think the main problem is that they fail to see that ethnic groups would choose to sit together would sit together for more obvious reasons than by colour choice, such as they'd share similar music/film tastes, dress sense, all sorts of things normal girls talk about but are completely different across different cultures.
I hate Jack Straw and that is one man i wont tolerate
Ah so it wasn't a suggestion, it was an observation. Perhaps he has observed that by and large people do tend to congregate in groups with those of a similar ilk. He defined it as colour from personal observation whereas you define it as people having similar interests from personal experience. I would probably congregate with people I had shared interests with too. It is equally likely to work with age-groups. This afternoon at church us old fogies were having a chat at one end of the corridor and a group of teenagers were having a chat at the other end of the same corridor. Neither group actively excluding the other but simply homing in on people we had something to say to due to similar interests/situations etc.