Three London women charged with terrorism offences

Three women from London, including a mother and daughter, were charged on Wednesday with preparation of a terrorist act and conspiracy to murder, police said.

Khawla Barghouthi, 20, of northwest London, Rizlaine Boular, 21, of central London, and her mother Mina Dich, 43, of southwest London, are due to appear at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Thursday, the Metropolitan Police said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-security-arrests-idUSKBN1862QO


Other articles say they were going to carry out a stabbing attack somewhere around Westminster...!!!

Have a look at the court artists sketch here...

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/05/11/3-women-in-london-terrorism-case-make-1st-court-appearance.html


Court artist sketch by Elizabeth Cook of three women, Mina Dich, 43, left, Rizlaine Boular, 21, centre, and Khawla Barghouthi, 20, right, appearing at Westminster Magistrates Court in London charged with preparing a terrorist act and conspiracy to murder, Thursday May 11, 2017. Boular, of central London, was shot by police during a raid by elite armed offices at a terraced house in Harlesden Road, north London, on April 27.

why on earth would they be allowed to wear that garb when in court.

Why indeed...!?

If it is claimed to be a 'religious requirement' to cover their faces... then why only two of them doing it and not the third one...!?

Also i find it difficult to understand how some leftys think this 'bag over head' is perfectly ok for some... but if the police were to put a similar bag over the head of someone they had in custody who was spitting at them, for the protection of the health and safety of officers etc, the same sort of leftys would be complaining about how outrageous it was for someone to have their head and face covered etc...!!!

And i also wonder why Muslims are allowed to swear on their koran, when in it, there is written instruction that gives them permission to lie...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Why indeed...!?

If it is claimed to be a 'religious requirement' to cover their faces... then why only two of them doing it and not the third one...!?

Also i find it difficult to understand how some leftys think this 'bag over head' is perfectly ok for some... but if the police were to put a similar bag over the head of someone they had in custody who was spitting at them, for the protection of the health and safety of officers etc, the same sort of leftys would be complaining about how outrageous it was for someone to have their head and face covered etc...!!!

And i also wonder why Muslims are allowed to swear on their koran, when in it, there is written instruction that gives them permission to lie...!?

because swearing on the bible would mean nothing to them. Other religions swear on their holy book, Atheists only have to affirm they will tell the truth

presumably a devout religionist would not lie after taking such an oath

A devout religionist would not be in court on terrorism charges unless they were following their religionist beliefs...!?

And their guide book also instructs them that lying is permissible when it is about their religious beliefs...!!!

Why were those face coverings not ripped off them? Why do we always give in to them?

How does the court know that the women are who they say they are?

Raggamuffin wrote:How does the court know that the women are who they say they are?

Passport, driving licence etc.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:How does the court know that the women are who they say they are?

Passport, driving licence etc.

Based on a photograph. They can't see their faces in court though.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Passport, driving licence etc.

Based on a photograph. They can't see their faces in court though.

Hence why the Judge asked them to lift their veils

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Based on a photograph. They can't see their faces in court though.

Hence why the Judge asked them to lift their veils

Good. I hope the judge checked properly.

hE "ASKED" THEM?

I don't know of a dress code in any court, as long as people are clothed and not nude.

They accommodated the court by lifting their veils...beyond that, if you have a complaint its to their choice of Islamic garb, not for any practical reason. That's just bigotry and not something a court would be concerned about.

It seems there wasn't a proper check. Lifting their veils so the Judge could see their eyes isn't enough to identify them as the people they claim to be.

Raggamuffin wrote:It seems there wasn't a proper check. Lifting their veils so the Judge could see their eyes isn't enough to identify them as the people they claim to be.

It is enough to identify and anyway, this would have been done by the Police, when they were arrested.

I fail to see at what or if any point you are making here.
Do you think the Police have wrongfully arrested them?

Raggamuffin wrote:It seems there wasn't a proper check. Lifting their veils so the Judge could see their eyes isn't enough to identify them as the people they claim to be.

What do you suggest? A DNA check?

If a prosecutor had probable cause to suspect identity deception, perhaps yes. But without probable cause, why ask? Would you ask an anglicized looking person?

What is it about middle-easterners that bother you, except you don't like them?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It seems there wasn't a proper check. Lifting their veils so the Judge could see their eyes isn't enough to identify them as the people they claim to be.

What do you suggest?  A DNA check?  

If a prosecutor had probable cause to suspect identity deception, perhaps yes.  But without probable cause, why ask?  Would you ask an anglicized looking person?

What is it about middle-easterners that bother you, except you don't like them?

How would one know if someone was "anglicized-looking" if their face was covered? That's simply an illogical question. However, any defendant should be told in court to show their face if it was covered. The court needs to be sure of the identity of the accused.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

What do you suggest?  A DNA check?  

If a prosecutor had probable cause to suspect identity deception, perhaps yes.  But without probable cause, why ask?  Would you ask an anglicized looking person?

What is it about middle-easterners that bother you, except you don't like them?

How would one know if someone was "anglicized-looking" if their face was covered? That's simply an illogical question. However, any defendant should be told in court to show their face if it was covered. The court needs to be sure of the identity of the accused.

So again are you claiming the Police and the CPS have the wrong people?

I agree the veils should be removed, but they were lifted on order of the judge.

So again I fail to see what point you are making.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

How would one know if someone was "anglicized-looking" if their face was covered? That's simply an illogical question. However, any defendant should be told in court to show their face if it was covered. The court needs to be sure of the identity of the accused.

So again are you claiming the Police and the CPS have the wrong people?

I agree the veils should be removed, but they were lifted on order of the judge.

So again I fail to see what point you are making.

No, the judge asked if they would mind partially lifting their veils. They didn't reveal their whole faces.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


So again are you claiming the Police and the CPS have the wrong people?

I agree the veils should be removed, but they were lifted on order of the judge.

So again I fail to see what point you are making.

No, the judge asked if they would mind partially lifting their veils. They didn't reveal their whole faces.

So if you are not claiming he Police and CPS have the wrong people, what is your issue here?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It seems there wasn't a proper check. Lifting their veils so the Judge could see their eyes isn't enough to identify them as the people they claim to be.

What do you suggest?  A DNA check?  

If a prosecutor had probable cause to suspect identity deception, perhaps yes.  But without probable cause, why ask?  Would you ask an anglicized looking person?

What is it about middle-easterners that bother you, except you don't like them?

Oh, and they're not middle-eastern - they're from London.

They showed their eyes, not their faces.

Raggamuffin wrote:They showed their eyes, not their faces.

If they lifted their veils to see the eyes, they would be showing their faces.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

What do you suggest?  A DNA check?  

If a prosecutor had probable cause to suspect identity deception, perhaps yes.  But without probable cause, why ask?  Would you ask an anglicized looking person?

What is it about middle-easterners that bother you, except you don't like them?

Oh, and they're not middle-eastern - they're from London.

They are certainly ethnically Middle eastern.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:They showed their eyes, not their faces.

If they lifted their veils to see the eyes, they would be showing their faces.

No they wouldn't. There's more to a face than just eyes.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


If they lifted their veils to see the eyes, they would be showing their faces.

No they wouldn't. There's more to a face than just eyes.

Eh?

What do you think is under the eyes?

The nose, mouth, cheeks, chin etc.

If the veil is lifted up to reveal the eyes, then its going to reveal the face is it  not?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No they wouldn't. There's more to a face than just eyes.

Eh?

What do you think is under the eyes?

The nose, mouth, cheeks, chin etc.

If the veil is lifted up to reveal the eyes, then its going to reveal the face is it  not?

No, it's going to reveal the eyes, not the face.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Eh?

What do you think is under the eyes?

The nose, mouth, cheeks, chin etc.

If the veil is lifted up to reveal the eyes, then its going to reveal the face is it  not?

No, it's going to reveal the eyes, not the face.

Really?

Show me how that is possible based on the drawing at trial which shows one already showing their eyes wearing the veil?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No, it's going to reveal the eyes, not the face.

Really?

Show me how that is possible based on the drawing at trial which shows one already showing their eyes wearing the veil?

There is still more to a face than eyes, whichever way you spin it.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Really?

Show me how that is possible based on the drawing at trial which shows one already showing their eyes wearing the veil?

There is still more to a face than eyes, whichever way you spin it.

No you are simply being ridiculous here

Its plain if both have to lift their veils, their faces will be seen

One has their eyes visible already and as seen the Judge asked them to lift up their veils, which will reveal their faces

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

There is still more to a face than eyes, whichever way you spin it.

No you are simply being ridiculous here

Its plain if both have to lift their veils, their faces will be seen

One has their eyes visible already and as seen the Judge asked them to lift up their veils, which will reveal their faces

Maybe they put their hands over the rest of their face.

Thorin wrote:Chief magistrate Emma Arbuthnot asked the mother and daughter to lift their veils and they agreed so she could see their faces.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/11/mother-daughter-terror-plot-case-ordered-lift-veils-magistrate/

Not sure how you think that is to see just the eyes Rags?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


No you are simply being ridiculous here

Its plain if both have to lift their veils, their faces will be seen

One has their eyes visible already and as seen the Judge asked them to lift up their veils, which will reveal their faces

Maybe they put their hands over the rest of their face.

Maybe you also saw an elephant fly

Anyway, if they persist in wearing those veils, it will look like they have something to hide, so that will go against them at the trial.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Maybe they put their hands over the rest of their face.

Maybe you also saw an elephant fly

Will you be white-knighting these women if they're convicted?

Raggamuffin wrote:Anyway, if they persist in wearing those veils, it will look like they have something to hide, so that will go against them at the trial.

Now at last you make a sensible point on if they are questioned on the stand.

On that they should remove the veils.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Maybe you also saw an elephant fly

Will you be white-knighting these women if they're convicted?

Why would I do that?

How do equate to you being wrong about them lifting the veil. To then think I care in any shape or form for terrorism scum?

It is not a religious requirement, it is a choice... and one that they should definitely be denied having in a court of law.

Tommy Monk wrote:It is not a religious requirement, it is a choice... and one that they should definitely be denied having in a court of law.

I concur with the belief being a choice.

They should remove.

Ok... the 'head bags' was really intended as a side issue on this thread...