• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "She should have been locked up!"

Collapse

  • Lucifer Box
    replied
    It gets even better

    She's been signed off on the sick. Due to stress no doubt.

    Leave a comment:


  • DaveB
    replied
    Originally posted by zeitghost
    Problem solved.

    They've changed the judge...

    They have also replaced her.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/6142520.stm

    Leave a comment:


  • Joe Black
    replied
    Originally posted by JaredM
    Erm we live in a soceity that preaches freedom of expression and freedom of speech.

    We have people who do all sorts in this country. Just because wearing a veil has a religious connotation shouldn't make it any different.

    If we let people wear what they want, believe in a right to express freely, then that extends to people who want to cover up as much as it extends to people who want to show more flesh or dress in questionable styles.
    Are you saying then that you will equally defend my right to teach children wearing nothing at all, because, just perhaps, my own little group of believers consider only the first few paragraphs of the bible to be true, and therefore we should all be naked before God?

    Leave a comment:


  • Troll
    replied
    Originally posted by JaredM
    Erm we live in a soceity that preaches freedom of expression and freedom of speech.
    Yeah.. freedom of speech and expression ... great innit!!.... who would have thought a few cartoons would have caused such a stir....did you join the protest?

    Leave a comment:


  • JaredM
    replied
    Erm we live in a soceity that preaches freedom of expression and freedom of speech.

    We have people who do all sorts in this country. Just because wearing a veil has a religious connotation shouldn't make it any different.

    If we let people wear what they want, believe in a right to express freely, then that extends to people who want to cover up as much as it extends to people who want to show more flesh or dress in questionable styles.

    Leave a comment:


  • zathras
    replied
    Originally posted by Troll
    From BBC:

    Legal advisers and solicitors may wear the Islamic veil in court unless it interferes with the "interests of justice", judges have been told.
    Oh FFS!

    How many Muslim advocates have operated without a veil in the approx 800 years of the religion.

    Are we going to get a spate of appeals on the grounds of an unfair trail 'exuse me M'lud I did n't get a fair trial - I could n't understand a word my lawyer said'

    It is not a requirement of the Muslim religion - it is a requirement of a small fringe that has it's roots in Saudi Arabia.

    Leave a comment:


  • Emperor Dalek
    replied
    Originally posted by snaw
    Stop acting like a knob
    That could be a major problem for Mailman.

    Leave a comment:


  • snaw
    replied
    Originally posted by Mailman
    Sorry, I should have used to technically correct name of ***!

    Mailman
    You know, you had a perfectly valid point, screwed up by your not so latent racism. It added nothing to your post beyond making you look like the bigot you probably are.

    There's a line that seems easy for some people to cross when they hide behind the anonymity of a computer screen that in real life they wouldn't do, because in civilised society it's rightly considered offensive. Stop acting like a knob and cut out the offensive crap, it's not needed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Joe Black
    replied
    Originally posted by Troll
    I can just see all the criminals adopting this & standing in the dock wearing a veil...

    Prosecution to the witness: "do you see the accused standing before you in this court"

    err no


    Would make police line-ups fun as well...

    Leave a comment:


  • Mailman
    replied
    Originally posted by snaw
    Care to watch how you phrase things - calling people fuzzy wuzzies is overstepping the line big time, no matter how much you meant it in jest, or how valid your actual point may be.
    Sorry, I should have used to technically correct name of ***!

    Mailman

    Leave a comment:


  • wobbegong
    replied
    At least it'll make the courtroom artists' job easier.

    Leave a comment:


  • Troll
    replied
    I can just see all the criminals adopting this & standing in the dock wearing a veil...

    Prosecution to the witness: "do you see the accused standing before you in this court"

    err no

    Leave a comment:


  • SandyDown
    replied
    Why can't we have freedom of what to wear ?? I don't wear a mask but I do like my batwoman mask !!!

    Leave a comment:


  • Troll
    replied
    ...and Gibson's dog in Dam Busters,will never be the same again

    Leave a comment:


  • stackpole
    replied
    Originally posted by Troll
    I guess the BBC are going to be busy sanitising all those Dads Army episodes then
    And threaded is going back in time to introduce a head-shaving culture in Africa.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X