Well done magistrates

[Dedworth]

Pregnant Muslim ordered to remove her veil in court because magistrates can't see her face

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1318838/Pregnant-Muslim-ordered-remove-veil-court-magistrates-face.html#ixzz11niJLj5f

A pregnant Muslim woman was ordered by magistrates to remove her veil while she gave evidence against her violent ex-partner yesterday.

Georgina Richards, 36, initially refused for religious reasons but reluctantly agreed when magistrates said they might not accept her evidence if they could not see her 'facial expressions'.

The case at Leicester Magistrates Court was held up for over an hour while magistrates agreed to hear her evidence from behind a screen.

Chairman of the bench Lawrence Faulkner told her: 'We need to see a person’s facial expressions to assess the evidence they are giving.

'If you refuse to remove your veil, we may not be able to accept your evidence.'

Miss Richards, who is heavily pregnant, gave evidence against her ex-partner Ismail Mangera, 30, from behind a screen in the courtroom.

Mr Mangera was found guilty of punching Miss Richards in the face and scrawling abuse on her front door.

But after the hearing, Miss Richards hit out at the magistrates for forcing her to remove her veil.

She said: 'I was a bit unhappy that he told me to take my veil off.

'They put screens up next to me but I didn’t really want to do it.

'But I thought the case would be dropped if I didn’t take it off.

'It just made me feel uncomfortable. They wanted to see the expression on my face but I don’t think it really matters, I think I could have done it with my veil on.'

'Now I just feel relieved that I’ve said what I’ve got to say.'

Miss Richards told the court her religion states she should not remove her veil in front of men in public.

Magistrates heard that Mr Mangera attacked Miss Richards, mother to three of the couple’s children and eight months pregnant with their fourth, between April 1 and April 30.

The magistrates warned Mangera he was facing jail.

Sentencing was deferred until October 20 to allow a probation report to be produced.

[les_taxi]

"Miss Richards told the court her religion states she should not remove her veil in front of men in public."

And our laws overide you ridiculous religion so do as your ...... told.:censored:

[Dedworth]

"Miss Richards told the court her religion states she should not remove her veil in front of men in public."

And our laws overide you ridiculous religion so do as your ...... told.:censored:

She's got some front - if she was in one of the toilet states it wouldn't be the "ex partner" convicted but her going to chop square or a stoning

[les_taxi]

I get so sick of hearing this muslim crap and I make no excuse for my views,it's just getting worse and worse with what we have to do for them to keep them happy and so much of it is bullshit.

Don't like our laws well leave, we are not asking you to stay,if you want islamic law go and live in an islamic country and stop trying to turn ours into one,you will NEVER succeed!

[Dedworth]

Spot on Les "Fit in or Fcuk Off"

[Pete/London]

You two bored with football:D

[les_taxi]

I remember a fellow taxi driver telling me this,He used to work in a factory in Bradford years ago and the muslims who worked there keep pushing the management to be allowed to have a "prayer break"

This was eventually allowed,The non-muslims in the factory complained and asked for a "break" too to make it fair,the management refused.

The non muslims contacted their union who took up the case,The outcome was the muslims were allowed to have their prayer break but had to "clock out" when doing so!

This of course meant they earnt 50p less per day.Any guesses for what happened next???

They Muslims decided they would rather have the money,sod the prayer break:NoNo:

Religious when it suites eh:xxgrinning--00xx3:

[bornatbirth]

You two bored with football:D

looks like it, its international week :icon_lol:

[les_taxi]

looks like it, its international week :icon_lol:

Yep you got us on that :icon_lol:

[joebloggs]

[B]
Mr Mangera was found guilty of punching Miss Richards in the face and scrawling abuse on her front door.


:NoNo:
he should have followed the rules on beating his partner :doh

that he should avoid hitting her face :cwm3:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp3Eam5FX58


:doh:NoNo::crazy::crazy::crazy:

[tomboo]

Would really love to comment, but the net is heavily censored and what we say and can be checked on. So best all i say is,,,, i love living in saudi,ermmmm ..... but its ok here

only 65% of women are obese
you hardly ever have to suffer seeing a womans face
the religious police do an amazing job..... of ensuring no1 has fun
no cinema in riyadh
no nothingggggggggggggggggg


but look on the bright side, we have great coffee shops lol

[sars_notd_virus]

She said: 'I was a bit unhappy that he told me to take my veil off.



:Erm::doh

[joebloggs]

i saw this news story on the beeb the other day..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-11486542

his wife was crying her eyes out saying this
"He's never going to be the same now, he went in with a six-year sentence, he's coming out with a life sentence."

i thought good, if he's got 6yrs in this country hes done something really serious, like manslaughter,GBh, drug dealing :angry:

but then i saw this

http://menmedia.co.uk/asiannews/news/s/1241113_men_who_defrauded_virgin_media_locked_up

6yrs for that :yikes:, is this because of corporate power ?

now i'm hoping the guy makes a full recovery :rolleyes:

virign media ripped me off and tried to many times, they should be in prison :angry:

[grahamw48]

http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/243/talibansingles6726359.gif

[joebloggs]

:hubbahubba:
i'm having a hard time making a choice :Erm:
it's like trying to decide which digital camera or notebook to buy :doh:Cuckoo:

[keithAngel]

In the interest of accuracy (and contraversy) It is not against the law to have your face covered in the magistrates court:Cuckoo:

[Pete/London]

In the interest of accuracy (and contraversy) It is not against the law to have your face covered in the magistrates court:Cuckoo:

You sure about that, what if a blagger wants to go in with a stocking over his head :omg:

[johncar54]

In English law (a common law jurisdiction) the law on contempt is partly set out in case law, and partly specified in the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Contempt may be a criminal or civil offence. The maximum sentence for criminal contempt is two years.

Disorderly, contemptuous, or insolent behaviour toward the judge or magistrates while holding the court, tending to interrupt the due course of a trial or other judicial proceeding, may be prosecuted as "direct" contempt. The term "direct" means that the court itself cites the person in contempt by describing the behaviour observed on the record. Direct contempt is distinctly different from indirect contempt, wherein another individual affected by a court order may file papers alleging contempt against a person who has wilfully violated a lawful court order.

[keithAngel]

Yes John I take that as an agreement then:xxgrinning--00xx3: since the Magistrates simply said they "might not acept her evidence" clearly if it was against the law they would have given her no such choice

[johncar54]

Just in passing.

The court was staffed by Justices of the Peace. That is non 'professional 'magistrates'

Such courts are 'controlled' by the magistrates' clerk, who is professionally trained and who makes sure the JPs don't make mistakes. Having experienced JPs and Stipendiary Magistrates, I consider the former to be part of an antiquated system which should have been replaced years ago.

Bit like being stopped by an amateur part time police officer, whoever would allow that to happen? Oh, I forgot UK have them too now !!!!!

[KeithD]

Bit like being stopped by an amateur part time police officer, whoever would allow that to happen? Oh, I forgot UK have them too now !!!!!
You mean a 'Plastic Policeman' :D .... why didn't you just say that then :icon_lol:

[johncar54]

Sorry Keith, but I was really commenting on the absurd system which permits amateur JPs deciding people's future.