> The judge who “decided not to punish” three women displaying parachute images at a protest had recently liked a social media post branding Israel a “terrorist” and calling for a “free Palestine”.
> Three weeks ago senior deputy district judge Tan Ikram, 58, liked the LinkedIn post by a barrister who had previously promoted conspiracy theories claiming that Israel allowed the October 7 attack.
I don’t think it’s a good idea for Judges to interact with social media in such a way personally, this would be an example why.
> On Tuesday Heba Alhayek, 29, Pauline Ankunda, 26, and Noimutu Olayinka Taiwo, 27, were found guilty of an offence under the Terrorism Act after displaying images of paragliders at a protest in central London seven days after October’s attack by Hamas on Israel.
> Ikram, who has a CBE and is on the judicial appointments committee, handed each of the women a 12-month conditional discharge, meaning that they could face a prison sentence if they commit a crime within the year.
But I think this punishment was probably enough. Especially since they have a criminal record alongside their names being plastered everywhere. They were stupid and almost certainly wish they hadn’t been now they’ve faced the consequences of their decision to be provocative.
I’m sorry but jailing people for being offensive would be rediculous. Calling it a “terror offence” even worse
A community service order or their current sentence was fine.
This decision would never have been questioned by zionist activists if it was a non muslim judge.
Ex-police officer jailed for 20 weeks over racist WhatsApp messages
How did we become such a pathetic country where legitimate criticism of a genocide is being treated as a criminal offence?
> Three weeks ago senior deputy district judge Tan Ikram, 58, liked the LinkedIn post by a barrister who had previously promoted conspiracy theories claiming that Israel allowed the October 7 attack.
So what did the post say? Was it a “normal” post about legal practice? Was it also antisemitic – if yes why not just say *that*.
You are really reaching with that absurd headline when this has nothing to do with terror.
6 comments
> The judge who “decided not to punish” three women displaying parachute images at a protest had recently liked a social media post branding Israel a “terrorist” and calling for a “free Palestine”.
> Three weeks ago senior deputy district judge Tan Ikram, 58, liked the LinkedIn post by a barrister who had previously promoted conspiracy theories claiming that Israel allowed the October 7 attack.
I don’t think it’s a good idea for Judges to interact with social media in such a way personally, this would be an example why.
> On Tuesday Heba Alhayek, 29, Pauline Ankunda, 26, and Noimutu Olayinka Taiwo, 27, were found guilty of an offence under the Terrorism Act after displaying images of paragliders at a protest in central London seven days after October’s attack by Hamas on Israel.
> Ikram, who has a CBE and is on the judicial appointments committee, handed each of the women a 12-month conditional discharge, meaning that they could face a prison sentence if they commit a crime within the year.
But I think this punishment was probably enough. Especially since they have a criminal record alongside their names being plastered everywhere. They were stupid and almost certainly wish they hadn’t been now they’ve faced the consequences of their decision to be provocative.
I’m sorry but jailing people for being offensive would be rediculous. Calling it a “terror offence” even worse
A community service order or their current sentence was fine.
This decision would never have been questioned by zionist activists if it was a non muslim judge.
Ex-police officer jailed for 20 weeks over racist WhatsApp messages
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/14/ex-police-officer-jailed-for-20-weeks-over-racist-whatsapp-messages
Same magistrate..Tan Ikram
How did we become such a pathetic country where legitimate criticism of a genocide is being treated as a criminal offence?
> Three weeks ago senior deputy district judge Tan Ikram, 58, liked the LinkedIn post by a barrister who had previously promoted conspiracy theories claiming that Israel allowed the October 7 attack.
So what did the post say? Was it a “normal” post about legal practice? Was it also antisemitic – if yes why not just say *that*.
You are really reaching with that absurd headline when this has nothing to do with terror.