Magistrate Reprimanded

[WillowTheWhisp]

Originally Posted by cashman

shouldn,t think so, but facial expressions,mannerisms etc must surely be of some value to a jury/judge etc?

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.

[blazey]

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.

[Wynonie Harris]

Originally Posted by blazey

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.

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?

[cashman]

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

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.

dont think so,thought she was responding to jambuttys question?

[Bonnyboy]

Originally Posted by Wynonie Harris

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

[cashman]

Originally Posted by Bonnyboy

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

think wyn is refering too the people IN politics not the ordinary voters, who say everything to me by their absence in the thread.

[Bonnyboy]

Originally Posted by cashman

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

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Bonnyboy

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

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.

[cashman]

Originally Posted by garinda

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.

[shillelagh]

Originally Posted by cashman

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!!!

[garinda]

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?

[cashman]

Originally Posted by shillelagh

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!!!

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.

[Bonnyboy]

Originally Posted by garinda

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?

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)

[cashman]

agree on the jury it would maybe look odd,but so what, a witness or accused is a completely differant thing to me. and just a question - do they call blind folk for jury service? i do not know.

[Mancie]

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!