>>But Mark Summers KC, representing Alhayek and Ankunda, said police had “mistaken” what they saw and were fed a narrative by partisan social media groups.
>>He said they were actually displaying a “cartoon parachute” used as a “symbol of peace”.
Beyond parody.
> In his verdict, Judge Ikram said there was nothing to suggest the group were Hamas supporters.
Beyond beyond parody.
Edit: Turns one of the culprits is an asylum seeker who claims she came to Britain because she was being persecuted by Hamas.
LMAO at this whole thing. You couldn’t make it up if you tried.
Eh, terror offence? Provocative, insensitive and completely cunty yes, but it’s still just a sticker on a t-shirt isn’t it?
>He said they were actually displaying a “cartoon parachute” used as a “symbol of peace”.
Lmao
Will Toby Young and his Free Speech Union people be leaping to their defence?
There are usually quite a lot of people who come to this sub to denounce cancel culture, censorship, etc. I wonder if they’ll come along to this sub with a consistent viewpoint or whether they’re a bit too busy to join in with this conversation?
The IDF are shit, HAMAS are shit, the people of both sides are suffering. It’s a shitshow all around.
Seems like a reasonably valid use of that law, tbh. Having said that, the law is still open to abuse by a government that feels like it.
Also worth noting that they were given conditional discharges and the judge said he didn’t think they were Hamas supporters.
I’m not a fan of our laws (or lack of laws) protecting free speech and protesting. But if they are in place, this is exactly what they are there for.
“Symbol of peace” my arse. It’s a picture of terrorists before they massacre civilians.
Tan Ikram, the judge, is the same judge who handed out community service and suspended sentences to the retired men who shared racist jokes in a private WhatsApp group.
Apparently that is beyond the pale, but publicly showing support for a terror organisation days after they commit an actual massacre isn’t deserving of punishment. Very strange.
As many have already said its beyond parody. We seem to be getting more and more ‘beyond parody’ stories these days.
Oh and remember the woman who held up the poster showing Sunak as a coconut? Yeah she got interviewed by the police and no further action taken. Now imagine if a white person had done that.
So we basically have a tiered criminal and justice system at this point and they arent even trying to hide it now.
Umm ok so paragliders are banned now? even if it is alluding to that, somebody has to mention paragliders at some point.
I don’t think it should qualify as a terrorism offence. Yes its causing extreme offence, but they were not providing material support to Hamas. It was insensitive and yes it was implicitly supportive of Hamas but at the end of the day it was just words, not terrorism.
The sentence was bang on. I dont think anybody should end up in jail just for speaking, unless you can show their words influenced others to commit offences.
Good.
They’re part of the problem and deligitmise very legitimate protests against the wholesale slaughter of civilians.
12 comments
>>But Mark Summers KC, representing Alhayek and Ankunda, said police had “mistaken” what they saw and were fed a narrative by partisan social media groups.
>>He said they were actually displaying a “cartoon parachute” used as a “symbol of peace”.
Beyond parody.
> In his verdict, Judge Ikram said there was nothing to suggest the group were Hamas supporters.
Beyond beyond parody.
Edit: Turns one of the culprits is an asylum seeker who claims she came to Britain because she was being persecuted by Hamas.
LMAO at this whole thing. You couldn’t make it up if you tried.
Eh, terror offence? Provocative, insensitive and completely cunty yes, but it’s still just a sticker on a t-shirt isn’t it?
>He said they were actually displaying a “cartoon parachute” used as a “symbol of peace”.
Lmao
Will Toby Young and his Free Speech Union people be leaping to their defence?
There are usually quite a lot of people who come to this sub to denounce cancel culture, censorship, etc. I wonder if they’ll come along to this sub with a consistent viewpoint or whether they’re a bit too busy to join in with this conversation?
The IDF are shit, HAMAS are shit, the people of both sides are suffering. It’s a shitshow all around.
Seems like a reasonably valid use of that law, tbh. Having said that, the law is still open to abuse by a government that feels like it.
Also worth noting that they were given conditional discharges and the judge said he didn’t think they were Hamas supporters.
I’m not a fan of our laws (or lack of laws) protecting free speech and protesting. But if they are in place, this is exactly what they are there for.
“Symbol of peace” my arse. It’s a picture of terrorists before they massacre civilians.
Tan Ikram, the judge, is the same judge who handed out community service and suspended sentences to the retired men who shared racist jokes in a private WhatsApp group.
Apparently that is beyond the pale, but publicly showing support for a terror organisation days after they commit an actual massacre isn’t deserving of punishment. Very strange.
As many have already said its beyond parody. We seem to be getting more and more ‘beyond parody’ stories these days.
Oh and remember the woman who held up the poster showing Sunak as a coconut? Yeah she got interviewed by the police and no further action taken. Now imagine if a white person had done that.
So we basically have a tiered criminal and justice system at this point and they arent even trying to hide it now.
Umm ok so paragliders are banned now? even if it is alluding to that, somebody has to mention paragliders at some point.
I don’t think it should qualify as a terrorism offence. Yes its causing extreme offence, but they were not providing material support to Hamas. It was insensitive and yes it was implicitly supportive of Hamas but at the end of the day it was just words, not terrorism.
The sentence was bang on. I dont think anybody should end up in jail just for speaking, unless you can show their words influenced others to commit offences.
Good.
They’re part of the problem and deligitmise very legitimate protests against the wholesale slaughter of civilians.