Saturday, 31 August 2013
Sunday, 25 August 2013
Saturday, 24 August 2013
Friday, 23 August 2013
Judge Peter Murphy reportedly ordered a Muslim woman to remove her burka in his courtroom.
The woman, from Hackney in East London, who is charged with intimidating a witness, 'appeared' - in her burka, before Blackfriars Crown Court today. The defendant is alleged to have intimidated a witness, in Finsbury Park, in North London, in June. She can't be named for legal reasons.
Judge Peter Murphy refused to allow the 21-year-old defendant to stand trial wearing the veil, which revealed her eyes only, because her identity could not been confirmed.
The judge said the principle of open justice overrode the religious beliefs of the woman, and she must show her face to prove that she was indeed the defendant, because a different person could go into the dock pretending to be her.
But the woman told Blackfriars Crown Court she could not remove the veil in front of any men because of her religion.
Judge Murphy told her: “It is necessary for this court to be satisfied that they can recognise the defendant. While I obviously respect the right to dress in any way she wishes, certainly while outside the court, the interests of justice are paramount. I can’t, as a circuit judge, accept a plea from a person whose identity I am unable to ascertain."
He added, "It would be easy for someone on a later occasion to appear and claim to be the defendant. The court would have no way to check on that."
Claire Burtwistle, the unnamed woman's barrister told the court that her client was not willing to lower her veil while there were men in the room. She said, "In front of women, it is not an issue, it is simply men that she will not allow to see her face."
Ms Burtwistle suggested that a female police officer, or a female prison guard, could identify the defendant and confirm to the court that she was the same person as in the police arrest photos.
Sarah Counsell, the prosecutor, said that the police officer in charge of the case was confident that he recognised the defendant while she was wearing the burka.
But Judge Peter Murphy dismissed the suggestions, saying, "It seems to me to be quite fundamental that the court is sure who it is the court is dealing with. Furthermore, this court, as long as I am sitting, has the highest respect for any religious tradition a person has. In my courtroom also, this sometimes conflicts with the interests of a paramount need for the administration of justice. In my courtroom, that’s going to come first."
The judge added, "There is the principle of open justice and it can’t be subject to the religion of the defendant whether the principle is observed or not. I am not saying this because of the particular form of dress by this defendant, I apply that to any form of dress that had the same issues."
Judge Murphy adjourned the case for legal argument over whether the defendant should have to remove her veil.
It will be heard again on the 12th of September, when the defendant is expected to enter a not guilty plea and go to trial.
What do you think, and why?
Is Judge Peter Murphy right, or wrong?
Tuesday, 20 August 2013
Saturday, 17 August 2013
Monday, 12 August 2013
Like many people in Britain, I am sick and tired of reading about 'Benefits Britain' and how people are lazy scroungers who don't want to work, but just sit down smoking, drinking, eating junk food,and watching Jeremy Kyle on their huge flatscreen TVs all day.
Unlike many people in Britain, I don't think the real problem is with the people who are typically portrayed in these stories in the media.
Yes, Britain does spend a huge amount of money, tax payers money, on benefits.
Yes, there are no doubt people who claim benefits simply because they don't want to work.
But, why does every single newspaper report or TV programme about this topic depict the work-shy claimants as white, British people?
What about the immigrants in Britain who claim benefits? The legal immigrants, and the illegal immigrants. Just because they are in this country illegally does not mean they can't, and don't, claim benefits. They do. They obviously cost the government a fortune.
I read that it is possible for immigrants living in Britain to claim benefit for their children - children that are not even living in the UK.
How crazy is that? It's almost unbelievable.
According to reports the checks to ensure that the children even exist are not thorough, so who knows how many people are claiming for their non-existent offspring. I shudder to think.
Maybe if the government stopped being so soft and just said, No! then the benefits bill would be substantially lower.
I'm not a mean person, by nature I'm a charitable person, I believe in helping people, but I do not agree with giving money to people who are not British. Surely our government should help its own people before it helps foreigners?
I do not agree with giving money to people who only come to live in the UK because of the free money, housing, education, and healthcare, to name but a few of the available benefits.
To reiterate, I think the government should take care of British people first. First. Not last, or never. First.
Even if the typical young white British bloke, or girl, you see in the news about 'benefits Britain' has never paid any tax, or worked a single day in their lives, I still don't get as wound-up about them receiving benefits as much as I do about foreigners being given money.
After all, it's likely that the parents of the so-called benefits scroungers, have worked and paid tax, and also likely that their grandparents may have fought for this country in the war.
What exactly have the immigrants who come to Britain, and whi have never worked, and have never paid tax, done for our country? Nothing!
Actually, as I wrote this post, being the contrary person I am, I almost don't blame the immigrants for wanting to live in Britain. Why wouldn't they, when they are given so much for free.
If I could go and live somewhere else, in a country of my choosing, be given free (or cheap) accommodation, money, free healthcare for myself and my family, free education for my children, and various other benefits, why wouldn't I? I would, I'd go right now.
But alas, I think Britain is the only seriously soft country in the World. The only country who never says no to anyone holding out a begging bowl.
Why does the media constantly bang on about this particular person or that person, whoever is the scapegoat of the day, instead of complaining about the government. It is the government who created the situation.
The government are a big part of our obsession with consumerism. They actively encourage it as far as I can tell. That's no surprise though is it?
We all know who truly runs this country - the big companies. The supermarkets, Tesco, Asda, Sainsburys, and let's not forget Amazon, Google etc.
Obviously the big supermarkets and other large companies need to make a profit, but at what cost?
They want millions of immigrants in Britain, because they need the cheap labour, to ensure that their profits remain obscenely high.
They pay peanuts, peanuts are not enough to live on, so the immigrants get extra cash by claiming benefits.
And that's where the people who say they have to work every hour God sends, moan about never having a holiday, or any luxuries, but are just struggling to feed themselves, and heat their homes etc. need to stop and think, who is really at fault. Is it the benefit scroungers? Or is it the government, mismanaging the taxpayers money?
I digress, slightly, I was daydreaming about living somewhere other than here, so, back to the problem of benefits Britain.
Is too much money being spent on benefits? Not necessarily.
The cost of living in Britain is astronomical. Even when you're very careful with every penny, and don't have any luxuries, but just buy the basics, your money does not go far.
Yes, people who could work, don't work.
Yes, it's out of order.
But are they really the real cause of the problem?
I say no!
If the government sent out a clear message that anyone coming to Britain will not receive anything, ever; no money, no housing, no education, no healthcare, I'm pretty certain there'd be a lot less people eager to come and live in Britain.
Big business wouldn't like it though, would they. So, it's never going to happen.
The moaners who begrudge jobless people their job seeks allowance money, which on average in £71 a week, say even that's too much cash. They justify this by saying that the unemployed have enough money for cigarettes so they're obviously being given too much money in their benefits. Don't the moaners realise that smoking is not only addictive, it's expensive, so obviously people are going without in other areas in order to buy fags, probably going without food, or paying their bills. They're not living the dream by any stretch of the imagination.
The government is currently changing the benefits system. They say they are capping the maximum amount a claimant can receive to £26,000 a year, which is, they say, the same as the average working family in Britain.
This news still hasn't pleased the moaners. They're saying it's still too much money because it's completely tax free, whereas they have to pay tax on their wages.
It's hardly tax free is it because everything in Britain is taxed, and highly. Every thing we purchase is heavily taxed; petrol, food, booze, cigaretts, clothes, the air we breath...... The list goes on.
Britain should be one of the best countries in the World to live in. It's not. It's more like a third world country. It makes me wonder where all the tax payers money goes. Maybe my maths is worse than I thought, or maybe the government gives it to the criminals. The dictators, the greedy bankers, their friends, and themselves. Well, someone has to pay for them to live in luxury, it may as well be the tax payer - thank you very much!
One more thing, for those who moan about working all day every day, and paying tax, just so that other people can sit about doing nothing, why don't they moan as much about the millions, if not billions of pounds the government gives away in aid.
Aid to countries that are already incredibly wealthy. Aid that will never reach the poor people who so desperately need it. Aid that will be used to buy luxuries for the rulers of those countries, luxuries like palaces, Supercars, diamonds, gold, yachts, private jets...........
The government says the benefits system in in chaos.
What are they going to do about it?
No doubt they'll cut benefits to those who genuine need help, and give more to those who don't.
As for the corrupt leaders of other countries they need not worry - their benefits will continue to flow.
One more thing, as I sit writing this rant, I'm watching Jeremy Kyle on my widescreen TV. Hahaha! ;)