**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 have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules.
> The refugee who wore a paraglider image at a pro-Palestine protest is to have her immigration status reviewed, The Telegraph understands.
>
>Heba Alhayek, 29, was one of three women convicted this week under the Terrorism Act after they displayed the images following the October 7 terror attack on Israel which killed 1,200 people and saw Hamas fighters cross the border using paragliders.
>
>The three, including Noimutu Olayinka Taiwo and Pauline Ankunda, were handed conditional discharges for “carrying or displaying an article to arouse reasonable suspicion” that they were supporters of Hamas.
>
>Alhayek was granted refugee status in the UK after claiming that her life would be in danger if she returned to Gaza because of her family’s criticism of Hamas, her lawyer told the court.
>
>It is understood the Home Office is now looking into the issues arising from her conviction with a spokesman saying supporting a terrorist group would not be tolerated.
>
>“The Government will always prioritise the safety and security of the UK, the offences associated with proscription make it clear that supporting banned terrorist groups will not be tolerated,” said the Home Office spokesman.
>
>It follows a crackdown on foreign nationals for alleged anti-Semitic behaviour that saw an exiled Egyptian television presenter have his visa revoked for allegedly publicly backing Hamas. Moataz Matar was also placed on a watchlist, barring him from returning to Britain, after taking part in pro-Palestinian protests in London.
>
>The disclosure came amid growing criticism of the judge in the case – Tan Ikram – after it emerged that he liked a social media post branding Israel a terrorist.
>
>Judge Ikram told the court he had decided “not to punish” the three women because, although they had “crossed the line” by displaying the images, he accepted they were not “seeking to show any support for Hamas”. The maximum sentence for the offence is six months in jail, but Judge Ikram limited it to discharges.
>It emerged on Wednesday that three weeks ago, the deputy senior district judge liked a LinkedIn post by a barrister who had previously promoted conspiracy theories claiming that Israel allowed the October 7 attack.
>
>The post, by barrister Sham Uddin, stated: “Free Palestine. To the Israeli terrorist both in the United Kingdom, the United States, and of course Israel you can run, you can bomb but you cannot hide – justice will be coming for you.”
>
>Judge Ikram may now face disciplinary action after judicial guidance issued last year stated that judges known to have strong views should consider whether to hear a case. According to social media guidance for judges, they should “be aware that you can convey information about yourself and your views by … liking posts”.
>
>The Government is, however, powerless to take action to increase the sentences. Because the charges against the three women were “summary” offences only triable in the magistrates court, they are not covered by the scheme that allows the Attorney General to seek to reverse “unduly lenient” sentences.
>
>The scheme enables Victoria Prentis, the Attorney General, to refer a case to the Appeal Court to reconsider a sentence if there is a complaint that it is “unduly lenient”.
>Downing Street described the sentencing decision as “deeply troubling”. A source said: “Serious questions are being raised in government on how a judge posting this online was able to preside over this landmark case and what this means for the sentencing decision.”
>
>Suella Braverman, the former home secretary, tweeted: “Utterly shocking that a member of the judiciary may have behaved in this way. With anti-Semitism at an all-time high, judges must be impartial and beyond reproach. Justice must be done and it must also be seen to be done. The sentence must be reviewed.”
>
>After the sentence, the Jewish Leadership Council said that the women had got off “scot-free”.
>
>Lord Wolfson KC, a former justice minister, said: “Of course judges, like the rest of us, have political opinions. But the longstanding practice of the judiciary was to keep those opinions private, at least for so long as the judge continued to sit.
>
>“In an age of social media, where it is so easy to ‘like’ politically controversial posts, that practice seems all the wiser, both to ensure that justice is done, and also — which is as important — that justice is seen to be done.”
> Judge Ikram told the court he had decided “not to punish” the three women because, although they had “crossed the line” by displaying the images, he accepted they were not “seeking to show any support for Hamas”.
What was the message behind them showing the paragliders then?
This judge needs to be struck off, the girls retried and at least one deported back to the country she doesn’t mind openly supporting in its terror campaign.
So she lied to get asylum and then took to the streets to support terrorism? She should 100% be deported.
This is the same country that arrested fans for making a helicopter gesture at a football match to Leicester fans. And yet immigrants showing support to terrorist groups is something that gets no such response. Pathetic country.
She clearly lied on her asylum application.. laws must be applied
Is this a standard practice when an immigrant commits an offence or just the cases used for grandstanding?
I don’t get the mentality of some people. Wearing something like that was always going to cause havoc. What Hamas did that day wasn’t a good thing! Yes, we all know the Israeli government is complete bastards, but kidnapping and killing innocent people doesn’t make that right.
I don’t stand with the Israeli government or Hamas. I stand with the innocent people of these horrible regimes that are both responsible for so many deaths.
That’s what happens when you support terrorists and the mass killing of civilians.
Smells like typical xenophobic bullshit from the Torygraph. I mean free speech is free speech at the end of the day. I would rather live where people openly show support for terrorism than have the government try to decide what speech is fit or not. We already have way too many restrictions as it is with government trying to stop anything which is mildly offensive. That’s how you get people fined for teaching their dog to do a nazi salute. I feel uncomfortable with people being restricted from saying anti-Israeli messages. It is also possible to be a genuine asylum seeker and hold very anti-semitic views.
From reading this you all don’t seem so much pro israel, but really love that they hate Arabs and Muslims and thier genocide.
What you guys don’t understand is that they are looting, stealing and killing Arab Christians as well, and if you went there, they would hate you too!.
Not being funny, but what’s the hooha about a paraglider image???
Edit: ‘Kin ell. Downvoted for asking a real question.
Pardon me for not reading the news.
If she gets sent back to Gaza and fears Hamas reprisals, does that mean she may become a supporter of Israel’s attempt to root Hamas out of the Gaza strip?
Hope she gets kicked out. Her and every other terror supporter that has crawled out of the woodwork in the last several months.
An Egyptian was put on a terror watchlist for attending a pro Palestine rally? Wow. Britain 2024.
Imagine how much resources all of these types are costing us.
Wonder how the “free speech” grifters feel about this
Free speech when I can be racist or Islamophobic 👍
Free speech when a woman wears a t-shirt of a paraglider 👎
Unfortunately most legitimate asylum seekers go to Germany or France (better benefits)
The UK is left with mainly Albanian criminals who take advantage of our soft touch legal system.
Which makes sense, and I don’t think many people would argue that being found guilty of such an offence should result in a review. The disagreements will come from those who want instant, irrevocable decisions.
19 comments
**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 have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules.
For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
Non paywalled link [here](https://1ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2F2024%2F02%2F15%2Frefugee-who-wore-paraglider-image-to-have-status-review%2F)
Article by Charles Hymas of the Telegraph
> The refugee who wore a paraglider image at a pro-Palestine protest is to have her immigration status reviewed, The Telegraph understands.
>
>Heba Alhayek, 29, was one of three women convicted this week under the Terrorism Act after they displayed the images following the October 7 terror attack on Israel which killed 1,200 people and saw Hamas fighters cross the border using paragliders.
>
>The three, including Noimutu Olayinka Taiwo and Pauline Ankunda, were handed conditional discharges for “carrying or displaying an article to arouse reasonable suspicion” that they were supporters of Hamas.
>
>Alhayek was granted refugee status in the UK after claiming that her life would be in danger if she returned to Gaza because of her family’s criticism of Hamas, her lawyer told the court.
>
>It is understood the Home Office is now looking into the issues arising from her conviction with a spokesman saying supporting a terrorist group would not be tolerated.
>
>“The Government will always prioritise the safety and security of the UK, the offences associated with proscription make it clear that supporting banned terrorist groups will not be tolerated,” said the Home Office spokesman.
>
>It follows a crackdown on foreign nationals for alleged anti-Semitic behaviour that saw an exiled Egyptian television presenter have his visa revoked for allegedly publicly backing Hamas. Moataz Matar was also placed on a watchlist, barring him from returning to Britain, after taking part in pro-Palestinian protests in London.
>
>The disclosure came amid growing criticism of the judge in the case – Tan Ikram – after it emerged that he liked a social media post branding Israel a terrorist.
>
>Judge Ikram told the court he had decided “not to punish” the three women because, although they had “crossed the line” by displaying the images, he accepted they were not “seeking to show any support for Hamas”. The maximum sentence for the offence is six months in jail, but Judge Ikram limited it to discharges.
>It emerged on Wednesday that three weeks ago, the deputy senior district judge liked a LinkedIn post by a barrister who had previously promoted conspiracy theories claiming that Israel allowed the October 7 attack.
>
>The post, by barrister Sham Uddin, stated: “Free Palestine. To the Israeli terrorist both in the United Kingdom, the United States, and of course Israel you can run, you can bomb but you cannot hide – justice will be coming for you.”
>
>Judge Ikram may now face disciplinary action after judicial guidance issued last year stated that judges known to have strong views should consider whether to hear a case. According to social media guidance for judges, they should “be aware that you can convey information about yourself and your views by … liking posts”.
>
>The Government is, however, powerless to take action to increase the sentences. Because the charges against the three women were “summary” offences only triable in the magistrates court, they are not covered by the scheme that allows the Attorney General to seek to reverse “unduly lenient” sentences.
>
>The scheme enables Victoria Prentis, the Attorney General, to refer a case to the Appeal Court to reconsider a sentence if there is a complaint that it is “unduly lenient”.
>Downing Street described the sentencing decision as “deeply troubling”. A source said: “Serious questions are being raised in government on how a judge posting this online was able to preside over this landmark case and what this means for the sentencing decision.”
>
>Suella Braverman, the former home secretary, tweeted: “Utterly shocking that a member of the judiciary may have behaved in this way. With anti-Semitism at an all-time high, judges must be impartial and beyond reproach. Justice must be done and it must also be seen to be done. The sentence must be reviewed.”
>
>After the sentence, the Jewish Leadership Council said that the women had got off “scot-free”.
>
>Lord Wolfson KC, a former justice minister, said: “Of course judges, like the rest of us, have political opinions. But the longstanding practice of the judiciary was to keep those opinions private, at least for so long as the judge continued to sit.
>
>“In an age of social media, where it is so easy to ‘like’ politically controversial posts, that practice seems all the wiser, both to ensure that justice is done, and also — which is as important — that justice is seen to be done.”
> Judge Ikram told the court he had decided “not to punish” the three women because, although they had “crossed the line” by displaying the images, he accepted they were not “seeking to show any support for Hamas”.
What was the message behind them showing the paragliders then?
This judge needs to be struck off, the girls retried and at least one deported back to the country she doesn’t mind openly supporting in its terror campaign.
So she lied to get asylum and then took to the streets to support terrorism? She should 100% be deported.
This is the same country that arrested fans for making a helicopter gesture at a football match to Leicester fans. And yet immigrants showing support to terrorist groups is something that gets no such response. Pathetic country.
She clearly lied on her asylum application.. laws must be applied
Is this a standard practice when an immigrant commits an offence or just the cases used for grandstanding?
I don’t get the mentality of some people. Wearing something like that was always going to cause havoc. What Hamas did that day wasn’t a good thing! Yes, we all know the Israeli government is complete bastards, but kidnapping and killing innocent people doesn’t make that right.
I don’t stand with the Israeli government or Hamas. I stand with the innocent people of these horrible regimes that are both responsible for so many deaths.
That’s what happens when you support terrorists and the mass killing of civilians.
Smells like typical xenophobic bullshit from the Torygraph. I mean free speech is free speech at the end of the day. I would rather live where people openly show support for terrorism than have the government try to decide what speech is fit or not. We already have way too many restrictions as it is with government trying to stop anything which is mildly offensive. That’s how you get people fined for teaching their dog to do a nazi salute. I feel uncomfortable with people being restricted from saying anti-Israeli messages. It is also possible to be a genuine asylum seeker and hold very anti-semitic views.
From reading this you all don’t seem so much pro israel, but really love that they hate Arabs and Muslims and thier genocide.
What you guys don’t understand is that they are looting, stealing and killing Arab Christians as well, and if you went there, they would hate you too!.
Not being funny, but what’s the hooha about a paraglider image???
Edit: ‘Kin ell. Downvoted for asking a real question.
Pardon me for not reading the news.
If she gets sent back to Gaza and fears Hamas reprisals, does that mean she may become a supporter of Israel’s attempt to root Hamas out of the Gaza strip?
Hope she gets kicked out. Her and every other terror supporter that has crawled out of the woodwork in the last several months.
An Egyptian was put on a terror watchlist for attending a pro Palestine rally? Wow. Britain 2024.
Imagine how much resources all of these types are costing us.
Wonder how the “free speech” grifters feel about this
Free speech when I can be racist or Islamophobic 👍
Free speech when a woman wears a t-shirt of a paraglider 👎
Unfortunately most legitimate asylum seekers go to Germany or France (better benefits)
The UK is left with mainly Albanian criminals who take advantage of our soft touch legal system.
Which makes sense, and I don’t think many people would argue that being found guilty of such an offence should result in a review. The disagreements will come from those who want instant, irrevocable decisions.