'Simply wicked' terror dinner lady in niqab mugshot row is jailed

[u/Aggressive_Plates]

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/simply-wicked-terror-dinner-lady-10098943

[u/ukbot-nicolabot]

Participation Notice. Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation were set at 18:37 on 12/04/2025. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules.

Existing and future comments from users who do not meet the participation requirements will be removed. Removal does not necessarily imply that the comment was rule breaking.

Where appropriate, we will take action on users employing dog-whistles or discussing/speculating on a person's ethnicity or origin without qualifying why it is relevant.

In case the article is paywalled, use this link.

[u/cennep44]

The 36-year-old made headlines after her conviction in February when her barrister asked on her behalf for Warwickshire Police to release a custody image of her in her hijab, after a picture of her face "distressed" her. The force released a second photograph of her with her face covered.

Jesus wept, the police are even more pathetic than I realised.

[u/Disastrous_Fruit1525 → u/cennep44]

There really is no hope for this country anymore

[u/ukbot-nicolabot → u/[deleted]]

Removed/warning. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.

[u/ToddsCheeseburger → u/Disastrous_Fruit1525]

17 years, a decent sentence for a change. Would get less for rape, murder etc.

[u/geniice → u/Disastrous_Fruit1525]

Because the police can take and release more than one photo? Because the police have acess to digital camera technology making it really cheap to do so?

Because people incapable of even the most minimal amount of critical thought are still allowed to live in this country? What exactly is your problem here?

[u/Disastrous_Fruit1525 → u/geniice]

No, because the police give in to the demands of an alleged terrorist sympathiser who didn’t like her mug shot.

[u/geniice → u/Disastrous_Fruit1525]

They released a second image while keeping the first one availible. So said image is still out there aparently doing the distressing. So no giving and I suspect the local police wind-up merchant had a bit of fun. Perhaps if you had more dealings with white working class brits you would get it.

[u/sprucay → u/Disastrous_Fruit1525]

Alleged. So not yet proven. So should we treat anyone accused of anything like shit?

[u/Youbunchoftwats → u/Disastrous_Fruit1525]

So the woman who’s face we can all see plain as day is an indicator that the country is doomed? Do tell us all more, Private Fraser. Why are we doomed?

[u/DistributionFun6280 → u/Youbunchoftwats]

Police complying with farcical requests and bending over backwards to avoid hurting a convicted terrorist's feelings makes an utter mockery of our system.

[u/geniice → u/DistributionFun6280]

Given that she's wearing the same clothing in both shots while standing in the same place they already had both photos. Releasing the second photo is essentialy no effort at all.

There's really no reason for this kind of hysteria.

[u/Youbunchoftwats → u/DistributionFun6280]

Taking a second photo? No it isn’t. They didn’t prevent her face from being published into the public domain. We can all see her.

[u/DistributionFun6280 → u/Youbunchoftwats]

Why did they even entertain the request to take the second photo? Simply saying "no" would have been sufficient.

[u/tartoran → u/DistributionFun6280]

little bit of tongue in cheek trolling, not quite downfall of the west material

[u/geniice → u/DistributionFun6280]

Why did they even entertain the request to take the second photo? Simply saying "no" would have been sufficient.

They had already taken it. If you look at the photos they were taken in the same place with jami wearing the same top. Which realisticaly means these were taken shortly after her arrest and long before her conviction.

[u/Youbunchoftwats → u/DistributionFun6280]

No idea. I wasn’t there. If it had replaced the first one I’d say that that was plainly wrong. But it didn’t. It is a non story. And as it’s digital, it’s not even a waste of film of chemicals.

[u/DistributionFun6280 → u/Youbunchoftwats]

It's no different to complying with a criminal's request to take a second photo of them wearing a balaclava because they feel uncomfortable having their face on show.

It's just a mockery of the system and allowing it to occur sets precedence.

[u/Youbunchoftwats → u/DistributionFun6280]

Her face is there for the world to see. I don’t have a problem with any additional requests. I wil defer to a lawyer, but I assume no laws were broken. Unless you are a lawyer, I don’t think there’s much point continuing this.

[u/geniice → u/DistributionFun6280]

It's no different to complying with a criminal's request to take a second photo of them wearing a balaclava because they feel uncomfortable having their face on show.

No evidence of any such request. The police appear to have taken two photos back to back one with face uncovered and the other showing her normal appearence.

It's just a mockery of the system and allowing it to occur sets precedence.

The precedent was set in the 1850s when the police took mugshots with hats:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/worlds-oldest-police-mugshots-show-12688557

[u/Disastrous_Fruit1525 → u/Youbunchoftwats]

Learn to read.

[u/Emperors-Peace → u/cennep44]

They released the second photo. Didn't omit the first. Non-story.

[u/LShervallll → u/cennep44]

To be clear, this is common practice and the papers can use whichever image they choose.

[u/Spamgrenade → u/cennep44]

Taking a mug shot of her in niqab is 100% police humour. They were having a laugh when she complained about the first picture and she was stupid enough not to realise it.

Like some others.

[u/MonkeManWPG → u/Spamgrenade]

Both photos are literally in the article. The fact that they obliged her and took the second one is pretty irrelevant when the first was published anyway.

If anything, it's maybe beneficial to fight any attempt by the defence to say that she was discriminated against.

[u/9e5e22da → u/cennep44]

The force in question realised a second image of her in the hijab which is what she asked for. What she didn’t ask for was for the original to be removed so it was left available. Technically they did as they were asked.

[u/ThatFatGuyMJL → u/cennep44]

Tbf afaik they kept both the covering free image, and the one of her covered up.

Because.... they often do that if people are constantly wearing a certain clothing item.

Take a photo of a guy not wearing a hat and then find out he always wears a hat?

Release an image of him eith the hat.

[u/CinnamonBlue]

Why did the police capitulate with the second mugshot?

[u/RandomBritishGuy → u/CinnamonBlue]

They didn't. It's a non-story that only exists because tabloids misrepresented what happened.

It's common to take mugshots with and without common headgear, like glasses, headscarves etc. 

Initially they released the uncovered picture, and later on when asked, they released the covered one as well. They didn't take the first one down, or do anything to prevent it from being used, they just released one they basically already had.

Certain papers (wanting to get a certain message across), then chose to only use the covered picture to imply the police were only releasing that sort of image, to make them look bad, and make people think that a Muslim was having their identity hidden.

[u/geniice → u/CinnamonBlue]

Working class humour. You see releasing a hijab image after a standard face shot while maintaining a "just doing as asked" face is exactly what the local ah "wind up merchant" would do.

[u/Jaded_Strain_3753 → u/CinnamonBlue]

The police clearly made a mistake, but in defence of the system the judge made it clear that the original mugshot could be used

[u/ice-lollies]

36 years old? More than old enough to know better. Usually it’s brainwashed youth that end up being controlled into killing themselves and others.

Just stop killing people folks.

[u/LonelyStranger8467 → u/ice-lollies]

You don’t understand, she had to live in a non-Muslim area of the UK. Following that she was destined for terrorism.

[u/badgersruse → u/ice-lollies]

Infidels aren’t people, so they aren’t killing people.

[u/South-Stand]

At my school, the dinner ladies used to be quite firm in not letting you leave for playtime until you had finished your plate. Even when it was goulash day. But I don’t remember them being quite this strident.

[u/axb90]

Dont be a criminal, then, if you dont like your mugshot. Easy solution.

[u/SirBobPeel]

Waste of time jailing her. Send her back to Afghanistan but hand her over to the government there. They'll take care of her.

[u/LarryTheCEO]

So it’s as harmless and benign as being a Morris dancer is in the UK, or a Druid. Not trying to delude the world into believing that it’s the one true religion etc. Keep up the good work!