|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Feb 14, 2024 19:52:56 GMT
So it turns out that the Judge is a supporter of the pro-Hamas marches - no wonder he let these girls off. It should come as no surprise that the judge 'Tanweer Ikram' overruled the jury and found the three women not guilty of supporting Hamas. It's our own fault, in the name of political correctness we have allowed Muslims to infect every facet of society in this none Islamic country, including the judiciary. In 2022 he was awarded a CBE for services to 'judicial diversity'. You really couldn't make it up. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Feb 14, 2024 19:56:05 GMT
Yes, and it wasn't just by chance or luck they ended up with him as the presiding judge.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Feb 14, 2024 19:59:19 GMT
Yes, and it wasn't just by chance or luck they ended up with him as the presiding judge. Yes indeed there's a thought... |
|
|
|
Post by Dogburger on Feb 15, 2024 6:49:52 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Feb 15, 2024 7:27:21 GMT
Quelle surprise, not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Totheleft on Feb 15, 2024 7:44:24 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.
A discharge is a type of conviction where a court finds you guilty but does not give you a sentence because the offence is very minor. The conviction could be: an absolute discharge. a conditional discharge, where you could still get a sentence if you break the conditions. www.gov.uk › discharges Check if you need to tell someone about your criminal record |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Feb 15, 2024 9:55:21 GMT
It looks like he will be taken to task Senior deputy district judge Tan Ikram "decided not to punish" three women who displayed parachute images at a pro-Palestine protest. But just three weeks ago, the judge liked a LinkedIn post published by a barrister who had promoted conspiracy theories claiming that Israel allowed the October 7 attack. Ikram could now see disciplinary action after judicial guidance issued last year said judges known to have strong views should consider whether to hear a case. A review of the sentencing has now been called on by legal figures including a former home secretary and a Jewish campaign group. The case has been referred to the Attorney General, Downing Street has 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," a source told The Times. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Feb 15, 2024 10:03:58 GMT
We really are getting more and more like the US every day.
|
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Feb 15, 2024 11:33:55 GMT
We really are getting more and more like the US every day. Why dappy do you find it unacceptable that a judge is expected to be impartial? If he had anything about him he would’ve recused himself. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Feb 15, 2024 11:53:29 GMT
Of course the Judge should professionally hear the case, putting aside any personal views he may hold. Its what they do every day of the week.
This is just another media clickbait outrage story which when it threatens to die has more petrol thrown over it by a media clickbait storm and a government who see political advantage in fuelling outrage fires and undermining the underlying structures of our society - eg confidence in the police, judges etc to do their jobs fairly and impartially to the best of their ability.
I would be interested in your take on what the underlying story is.
Mine is:
A perfectly legitimiate protest takes place
Three women act like dicks. No one is hurt or real harm done but pretty offensive behaviour.
Establishment takes them to court to draw a line and give them a bit of a scare - arguably a bit over the top but not out of the bounds of reasonableness.
Judge gives them a bollocking and they have a record if they are stupid enough to do it again - seems about right
Judge concludes no benefit to society in prison or fines or community service - seems about right
Do you differ from any of that. If so why?
|
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Feb 15, 2024 12:01:30 GMT
Of course the Judge should professionally hear the case, putting aside any personal views he may hold. Its what they do every day of the week. This is just another media clickbait outrage story which when it threatens to die has more petrol thrown over it by a media clickbait storm and a government who see political advantage in fuelling outrage fires and undermining the underlying structures of our society - eg confidence in the police, judges etc to do their jobs fairly and impartially to the best of their ability. I would be interested in your take on what the underlying story is. Mine is: A perfectly legitimiate protest takes place Three women act like dicks. No one is hurt or real harm done but pretty offensive behaviour. Establishment takes them to court to draw a line and give them a bit of a scare - arguably a bit over the top but not out of the bounds of reasonableness. Judge gives them a bollocking and they have a record if they are stupid enough to do it again - seems about right Judge concludes no benefit to society in prison or fines or community service - seems about right Do you differ from any of that. If so why? I wasn’t expecting them to be sent to belmarsh prison but why is it outrageous to point out claiming asylum on the grounds of a threat from Hamas and then placing images of Hamas fighters on clothing is at best hypocritical. You don’t need to tell me what judges do,fact is he has an adverse opinion of Israel’s action and published that so should’ve stood down. I have too,well not the Israelis but Nutanyahu and co to be precise. |
|
|
|
Post by Dogburger on Feb 15, 2024 12:06:31 GMT
Of course the Judge should professionally hear the case, putting aside any personal views he may hold. Its what they do every day of the week. This is just another media clickbait outrage story which when it threatens to die has more petrol thrown over it by a media clickbait storm and a government who see political advantage in fuelling outrage fires and undermining the underlying structures of our society - eg confidence in the police, judges etc to do their jobs fairly and impartially to the best of their ability. I would be interested in your take on what the underlying story is. Mine is: A perfectly legitimiate protest takes place Three women act like dicks. No one is hurt or real harm done but pretty offensive behaviour. Establishment takes them to court to draw a line and give them a bit of a scare - arguably a bit over the top but not out of the bounds of reasonableness. Judge gives them a bollocking and they have a record if they are stupid enough to do it again - seems about right Judge concludes no benefit to society in prison or fines or community service - seems about right Do you differ from any of that. If so why? An illegal protest took place , endorsing a designated terrorist group is illegal ,thats what they were doing with the para glide stickers The three women were well aware their behaviour was offensive and likely to cause stress , an offence under the Public order act 1994 which carries a prison term not to exceed 6 months and a fine at level 5 which is unlimited Establishment takes them to court as a good chance of a conviction Judge thinks he can get away with letting them off Allahu akbar |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 15, 2024 12:06:35 GMT
I can just hear the screams of outrage if a judge had heard the case who had posted support for Zionism and the IDF...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2024 12:07:24 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.
He knows the issue is divided and that many on the Left support and encourage the use of terrorist symbolism. It would be like me waving a swastica or the black flag of Jihad around then claiming I don't support what it stands for. Why would anyone believe me? If I didn't support what it stood for then I wouldn't be waving it around, would I? |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Feb 15, 2024 12:08:52 GMT
Sorry I dont understand, Wapentake.
Am I right in saying that we both agree that the behaviour of the women was bad - you use the word hypocritical , I would probably go further and say idiotic
Am I right in saying we both agree that the judges sentencing was about right - give them a bollocking for being stupid but no further action required.
I think that was what you were saying but it is a little coded.
|
|
