What would you have done in these circumstances: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... sions.html

What would you have done in these circumstances: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... sions.html

I wouldn't have clicked a link to a shitty rag in the first place

Sounds like you just did (again).

Personally it wouldn't have bothered me but given that the article doesn't give us the full facts (who'd've thunk it, Mail fans?) it's too difficult to say.

If the judge felt he needed to see her facial expressions, as claimed, then her refusal to remove the veil meant she couldn't serve on the jury. As long as he has followed the correct guidelines and procedures, I don't see any problem, tbh.

Added to that is that the judge will be legally qualified and experienced, far more so than the outraged Rebecca Camber

I'd have followed the guidelines, which say it's down to the trial judge to make a decision on a case by case basis.

Another Mail non-story on Muslims.

Unfortunately, the white male who replaced her was Frank Sidebottom

I'd drink the tea and stroke the kittens

Gawd bless 'im.

Dally wrote:What would you have done in these circumstances: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... sions.html Deleted my Internet history afterwards, that's for sure.

Dally wrote:What would you have done in these circumstances: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... sions.html Deleted my Internet history afterwards, that's for sure.

Couldn't care less.