|
|
Post by wapentake on Feb 13, 2024 15:56:50 GMT
Of terror offences for displaying paraglider symbols link |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Feb 13, 2024 16:07:31 GMT
"I want to be clear, there's no evidence that any of these defendants are supporters of Hamas, or were seeking to show support for them."He said he had "decided not to punish" the defendants, and handed the trio each a 12-month conditional discharge.
"Your lesson has been well learned. I do not find you were seeking to show any support for Hamas."
Do pull the other one, Deputy Senior District Judge Tanweer Ikram. 🙄
|
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Feb 13, 2024 16:32:28 GMT
"I want to be clear, there's no evidence that any of these defendants are supporters of Hamas, or were seeking to show support for them."He said he had "decided not to punish" the defendants, and handed the trio each a 12-month conditional discharge.
"Your lesson has been well learned. I do not find you were seeking to show any support for Hamas."
Do pull the other one, Deputy Senior District Judge Tanweer Ikram. 🙄
Tbh I never expected a guilty verdict at least it’s not been a total whitewash. People can oppose without showing support for terrorism. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Feb 13, 2024 16:46:38 GMT
"I want to be clear, there's no evidence that any of these defendants are supporters of Hamas, or were seeking to show support for them."He said he had "decided not to punish" the defendants, and handed the trio each a 12-month conditional discharge. "Your lesson has been well learned. I do not find you were seeking to show any support for Hamas." Do pull the other one, Deputy Senior District Judge Tanweer Ikram. 🙄
Tbh I never expected a guilty verdict at least it’s not been a total whitewash. People can oppose without showing support for terrorism. Yes, but that's not an offence and if that was the case then they ought not to have been convicted.
However, Deputy Senior District Judge Tanweer Ikram convicted all three of "...carrying or displaying an article to arouse reasonable suspicion that they were supporters of banned organisation".
And then went on to say that there was no evidence that they supported a banned organisation.
I think it's clear that Judge Ikram is trying to have it both ways: He knew full well they were guilty but is trying to justify not sending them down.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Feb 13, 2024 16:50:20 GMT
They are terrorists now kick them out, boot them out of their jobs, confiscate their passports, and treat them like terrorists, daft cows.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Feb 13, 2024 16:55:13 GMT
Tbh I never expected a guilty verdict at least it’s not been a total whitewash. People can oppose without showing support for terrorism. Yes, but that's not an offence and if that was the case then they ought not to have been convicted.
However, Deputy Senior District Judge Tanweer Ikram convicted all three of "...carrying or displaying an article to arouse reasonable suspicion that they were supporters of banned organisation".
And then went on to say that there was no evidence that they supported a banned organisation.
I think it's clear that Judge Ikram is trying to have it both ways: He knew full well they were guilty but is trying to justify not sending them down.
On the whole, while clearly these women were stupid, it is best not to waste public money surely by throwing people in prison for being stupid. Sounds like a good outcome. Move on. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Feb 13, 2024 17:00:04 GMT
Yes, but that's not an offence and if that was the case then they ought not to have been convicted.
However, Deputy Senior District Judge Tanweer Ikram convicted all three of "...carrying or displaying an article to arouse reasonable suspicion that they were supporters of banned organisation".
And then went on to say that there was no evidence that they supported a banned organisation.
I think it's clear that Judge Ikram is trying to have it both ways: He knew full well they were guilty but is trying to justify not sending them down.
On the whole, while clearly these women were stupid, it is best not to waste public money surely by throwing people in prison for being stupid. Sounds like a good outcome. Move on. So you think that anti-Semitism and incitement to violence is ok?
Well it's a view, I suppose.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Feb 13, 2024 17:20:43 GMT
I think two people acting like dicks is a little stretch away from "incitement to violence". Really stupid thing to do though. Sounds like they will have learned a lesson.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 13, 2024 17:31:41 GMT
And of absolutely no surprise to anyone...Court lawyers have revealed that one of the three women is actually an ex-asylum seeker who fled to the UK because she was 'being persecuted by Hamas' and is now 'concerned for her refugee status' following her conviction....  |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Feb 13, 2024 17:36:21 GMT
Yes, but that's not an offence and if that was the case then they ought not to have been convicted.
However, Deputy Senior District Judge Tanweer Ikram convicted all three of "...carrying or displaying an article to arouse reasonable suspicion that they were supporters of banned organisation".
And then went on to say that there was no evidence that they supported a banned organisation.
I think it's clear that Judge Ikram is trying to have it both ways: He knew full well they were guilty but is trying to justify not sending them down.
On the whole, while clearly these women were stupid, it is best not to waste public money surely by throwing people in prison for being stupid. Sounds like a good outcome. Move on. What's the point of a trial if the guilty aren't punished dappy..? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2024 18:33:11 GMT
And of absolutely no surprise to anyone...Court lawyers have revealed that one of the three women is actually an ex-asylum seeker who fled to the UK because she was 'being persecuted by Hamas' and is now 'concerned for her refugee status' following her conviction.... Lying and deception, taqiyya is their art. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Feb 13, 2024 19:39:39 GMT
And of absolutely no surprise to anyone...Court lawyers have revealed that one of the three women is actually an ex-asylum seeker who fled to the UK because she was 'being persecuted by Hamas' and is now 'concerned for her refugee status' following her conviction.... ...For supporting Hamas. Although she wasn't supporting Hamas according to the judge who convicted her of supporting Hamas... The corruption is palpable. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Feb 13, 2024 19:41:18 GMT
And, let me guess, was the former asylum seeker the one who mysteriously wasn't named?
|
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Feb 14, 2024 8:36:40 GMT
All three were named
Heba Alhayek, 29, and Pauline Ankunda, 26, attached images to their backs seven days after Hamas militants used paragliders to enter Israel in October.
Noimutu Olayinka Taiwo, 27, stuck one to a placard's handle at a central London pro-Palestinian march.
From one report at least two of them tried to claim in Court that someone had stuck the stickers to their coats without their knowledge, but soon gave up that falsehood and admitted they had done it, if I recall correctly
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 14, 2024 18:53:46 GMT
So it turns out that the Judge is a supporter of the pro-Hamas marches - no wonder he let these girls off.
|
|
