|
|
Post by Equivocal on Feb 15, 2024 12:16:40 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. I think he is repeating a fairly well known principle of English law. That is, if a judge is aware his personal interests are likely to give an appearance of bias, then he should recuse himself. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Feb 15, 2024 12:38:16 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. Good. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Feb 15, 2024 12:40:05 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. I wonder if you'd say the same if they'd been EDL supporters.
(Although when I say that I "Wonder", of course I don't at all).
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Feb 15, 2024 13:03:06 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. I wonder if you'd say the same if they'd been EDL supporters.
(Although when I say that I "Wonder", of course I don't at all).
If they were EDL supporters walking peacefully on a peaceful march but with say Ku Klux Klan stickers on their backs, I would absolutely say "dickheads" but no real harm done. To be honest I very much doubt if I would bother taking them to court. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Feb 15, 2024 14:44:28 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. Good. The three Muppets were charged under the Terrorism Act, time will tell if the Judge is taken to task and possibly his sentence maybe overruled Reacting to the verdict, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said displaying the images amounted to the "glorification of the actions" of Hamas. Images circulated of images of paragliders on the backs of the defendants Nick Price, head of the CPS special crime and counter terrorism division, said: "The fact that these images were being displayed in the context of a protest opposing the Israeli response to the Hamas attacks demonstrates a glorification of the actions taken by the group. "Displaying these images could be viewed as celebrating the use of paragliders as a tactic to breach the Gaza Israel border, and creates a risk of encouraging others to support Hamas. "When people break the law - whether by hateful speech, supporting proscribed organisations or by threatening public order - we prosecute swiftly and independently. "We have already prosecuted a string of offences linked to events in the Middle East and we are working closely with the police and community leaders to make sure our approach commands public confidence." |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Feb 15, 2024 16:26:28 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. Coded,there’s nothing coded about it at all as I said I didn’t expect Belmarsh and the one who was granted asylum on the grounds she was in fear of Hamas was as said at the very least hypocritical and admitted she was now fearful the conviction will affect her asylum status and indeed that should be looked at. I've said elsewhere on here that people need to understand that they are guests until they become well established and seen to be respecting our laws and customs and that apart from minor offences (motoring no tv licence etc) they should be made aware that law breaking and more serious offences will result in deportation and in lesser offences like these put on notice that further law breaking may well affect their status possibly see them deported without appeal. Hope that clears that up. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Feb 15, 2024 16:32:18 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. Coded,there’s nothing coded about it at all as I said I didn’t expect Belmarsh and the one who was granted asylum on the grounds she was in fear of Hamas was as said at the very least hypocritical and admitted she was now fearful the conviction will affect her asylum status and indeed that should be looked at. I've said elsewhere on here that people need to understand that they are guests until they become well established and seen to be respecting our laws and customs and that apart from minor offences (motoring no tv licence etc) they should be made aware that law breaking and more serious offences will result in deportation and in lesser offences like these put on notice that further law breaking may well affect their status possibly see them deported without appeal. Hope that clears that up. Well said |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Feb 15, 2024 17:06:50 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. Coded,there’s nothing coded about it at all as I said I didn’t expect Belmarsh and the one who was granted asylum on the grounds she was in fear of Hamas was as said at the very least hypocritical and admitted she was now fearful the conviction will affect her asylum status and indeed that should be looked at. I've said elsewhere on here that people need to understand that they are guests until they become well established and seen to be respecting our laws and customs and that apart from minor offences (motoring no tv licence etc) they should be made aware that law breaking and more serious offences will result in deportation and in lesser offences like these put on notice that further law breaking may well affect their status possibly see them deported without appeal. Hope that clears that up. Not really no. I said I think the sentencing was about right, you say you weren't expecting Belmarsh. Well we agree on Belmarsh but I am still not clear on whether you feel the sentencing was about right or if not what would have been. I agree people here having been awarded asylum should not commit serious offences and where possible if they do should be deported (not without appeal). I thought that was the law now. I wouldn't see this as crossing that threshhold. Would you? I don't understand what you were referring to when you said "I have too,well not the Israelis but Nutanyahu and co to be precise." |
|
|
|
Post by Totheleft on Feb 15, 2024 17:19:09 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. I wonder if you'd say the same if they'd been EDL supporters.
(Although when I say that I "Wonder", of course I don't at all).
Your not trying to.relate these 3 lady's protesting peacefully to violent drunken EDL supporters Surly not ? |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Feb 15, 2024 17:21:14 GMT
Coded,there’s nothing coded about it at all as I said I didn’t expect Belmarsh and the one who was granted asylum on the grounds she was in fear of Hamas was as said at the very least hypocritical and admitted she was now fearful the conviction will affect her asylum status and indeed that should be looked at. I've said elsewhere on here that people need to understand that they are guests until they become well established and seen to be respecting our laws and customs and that apart from minor offences (motoring no tv licence etc) they should be made aware that law breaking and more serious offences will result in deportation and in lesser offences like these put on notice that further law breaking may well affect their status possibly see them deported without appeal. Hope that clears that up. Not really no. I said I think the sentencing was about right, you say you weren't expecting Belmarsh. Well we agree on Belmarsh but I am still not clear on whether you feel the sentencing was about right or if not what would have been. I agree people here having been awarded asylum should not commit serious offences and where possible if they do should be deported (not without appeal). I thought that was the law now. I wouldn't see this as crossing that threshhold. Would you? I don't understand what you were referring to when you said "I have too,well not the Israelis but Nutanyahu and co to be precise."
Meaning I have like the judge in question made adverse remarks in my case the Israeli govt Nutanyahu and some of the loons that surround him to be precise. Unlike the judge if I was called to jury duty on a case where I had adverse views then I would ask to be excused and in fact in real life have. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Feb 15, 2024 17:38:30 GMT
I wonder if you'd say the same if they'd been EDL supporters. (Although when I say that I "Wonder", of course I don't at all).
Your not trying to.relate these 3 lady's protesting peacefully to violent drunken EDL supporters Surly not ? You're not trying to relate peaceful protest to glorifying terrorism? Surely not?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 15, 2024 17:42:05 GMT
Seems this judge has some very odd views about what should be punished.
In 2022, Ikram sent ex-police constable James Watts to prison for 20 weeks after he shared jokes about George Floyd in a WhatsApp group. It seems that jokes made in private are worthy of jail time, but the glorification of racist terrorism on the streets of London is not...
How odd.
|
|
|
|
Post by Totheleft on Feb 15, 2024 17:52:36 GMT
Your not trying to.relate these 3 lady's protesting peacefully to violent drunken EDL supporters Surly not ? You're not trying to relate peaceful protest to glorifying terrorism? Surely not?
Fifty people have been sentenced for their part in violence that broke out during an English Defence League protest in 2013. Furious protesters clashed in vicious brawls on the streets of London today as right-wing activists and anti-fascist demonstrators came to blows. Britain First and the English Defence League rallied together in the capital for what they called a 'march against terrorism'. What was you saying about praising terrorism? EDL member charged with terrorism offences is Michael Piggin Posted on March 3, 2014 by Bob Pitt Michael PigginA judge has lifted an order banning the naming of an 18-year-old man charged with terror offences. Michael Piggin, of Loughborough, is accused of possession of items for the purpose of terrorism, including partially-constructed pipe bombs. He is also charged with possessing a document containing information likely to be useful for a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Feb 15, 2024 17:55:37 GMT
I rest my case.
Well done lefty - you proved my point. And not even dappy was that dumb.
|
|
|
|
Post by Totheleft on Feb 15, 2024 18:00:22 GMT
Seems this judge has some very odd views about what should be punished. In 2022, Ikram sent ex-police constable James Watts to prison for 20 weeks after he shared jokes about George Floyd in a WhatsApp group. It seems that jokes made in private which are worthy of jail time, but the glorification of racist terrorism on the streets of London is not... How odd. What was the what's App group do you know? And don't you think a police officer shouldnt be Making jokes about the unlawful murder of George Floyd by police officers in America? |
|
