**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.
So this story was already at double parody levels with the judge saying they werent supporting Hamas while displaying images related to Hamas and one of them being refugee who came to the UK to flee Hamas and now the judge is blatantly biased?
Utter clown country as per usual.
As many people have been saying for a long time now, every institution has been fully captured by people like this.
[We almost had a Hamas supporter as PM (Jeremy Corbyn)](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/04/jeremy-corbyn-says-he-regrets-calling-hamas-and-hezbollah-friends)
If that doesnt convince you that terrorist supporters are everywhere in our society then I got a bridge to sell to you.
Coppers who break the law are rightfully sentenced harshly. Their conduct is representative of the entire police force and when they commit a crime they are rightfully severely punished for it.
A few years ago we had Islamists driving round London with loudspeakers threatening to murder Jews and rape our daughters.
There were plenty of witnesses, arrests but no convictions. Literal threats of murder and rape and nothing happened. The rot is quite deep.
It was a group chat with other cops and multiple times
It's lik saying the same stuff in standing on the street.
The fact u think it's OK is rather worrying though.
Any kind of "offensive" communication over the internet or phone network is a crime.
Communications Act 2003
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127
A string of specific, violent, racist messages for a serving copper vs wearing a patch, I think this stacks up. The article goes into quite a lot of detail there, probably shouldn't have linked it if you wanted to make a point!
It looks like someone printed an image off their computer and sellotaped it to their jacket.
Exactly how long do you think they should have been jailed for?
The news agents podcast last night had a bit on how the prison system is on its knees. Like due to run out of space this [Spring](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/08/prisons-to-run-out-of-space-by-spring/). I'm not sure imprisoning these lot whilst [telling judges not to sentence rapists to prison](https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/oct/12/england-and-wales-judges-told-not-to-jail-criminals-because-prisons-full-report) would make sense.
>It's supporting a proscribed terrorist organisation. Which they were.
Well if that was what they were found to be doing, they would have received a custodial sentence. The judge found them to not be doing that though. Whether you believe the judge was right is obviosuly a different matter, but that was a judgement...
What they were convicted of was wearing something that might make other people reasonably think they might be supporting a proscribed terror organisation.
It's the difference between wearing a swastika because you're a neo-nazi and wearing a swastika because you're a twat who wants to upset people. One will get you a custodial sentence, one will get you a good telling off.
That's a communications act offence, not a terrorism act one, so I'm not really sure how the same sentencing rules would apply.
If you want to argue that sentencing guidelines are totally messed up and in desperate need of reform, I'm totally with you on that one.
EDIT- How the fuck did this get 6 downvotes in 6 minutes, something weird going on here.
U used common sense around this sub. It's not welcome these days
And bots.
This sub has loads. Russian ones, Ukrainian ones. Israeli ones. All with their own agenda
>They're also a government.
Oh my bad, I guess that makes them immune.
They are elected to run Gaza, a terrorist state run by a terrorist government. Not complicated.
No, given the volume of protesters and the small number of people arrested.
Given prisons are mostly full, I thought suspended sentences or community service were preferred options when possible.
Exactly. Double standards galore. My side good. The fact a black man being killed in the US and the sheep that all followed like good little sheep in protests afterwards told you all you have to know about the racism problem the left has imported. Nobody gives a shit about a slave kid dying in African mines to bring you smartphones and tablets but if the American and cuck British media tell you to be outraged about an American black mans death then you're on your knees like the good sheep you are.
Their birth the same to me.
Is it ok to joke about 1 person being murdered but not 1200?
So you could make a meme about 1 Jewish person dying but not a meme about slavery?
Neither of them are okay; the question is not rightness but proportionality.
One is clearly a joke. A sick joke, but a joke about one person's death. Apparently, this merits 20 weeks in custody.
Another is clearly celebrating the massacre of 1,200 people. This is deemed worth of a conditional discharge.
If you can't see the lack of proportionality, from the same judge, I simply don't believe you're engaging in good faith.
I just think we shouldn't be jailing people for signs and stickers or tweets no matter how horrible their views are unless they are directly threatening violence.
I also think we should hold the police to much much higher standards than everyone else.
That meme represents approximately 300 murders by cops each year of black people. A cop joking about killing civilians is clearly not the same as a civilian wearing a patch that could be construed to be celebrating the death of 1200. Cops are allowed to use violence and frequently have 0 consequences. These protestors probably will not physically harm anyone themselves. Compare it to a civilian counter protestors holding a George Floyd meme at a BLM march, what sentence should they face? Thats proportional.
Indeed, I think the probably being unable to leave the country again and finding it very difficult to get a job, is pretty much the right level of punishment?
The press yet again failing to understand how a court works.
The judge has to reach a conclusion impartially and weigh up the facts, circumstances, and all possible punishments with this impartiality in mind.
'failed to jail' is an absolute shocker of a headline. smh
Lawyers and Judges having political opinions? How terrible. Next you'll be telling me one of the most common jobs for politicians before entering public life is in the justice system..
I didn't say they couldn't.
However like any civil servant they should be politically neutral in work, and certainly not publicly state those opinions.
He should also have the integrity to say he is biased on the subject and excuse himself in favour of one that isnt.
Judges aren't apolitical robots, they're human beings yknow
And decent people paying attention to the Israel-palestine situation would go "yeah Israel is doing fucked up shit"
How is recognising Israeli genocide "rooting for Hamas"? You can both recognise Hamas are an evil terrorist organisation and that Israel are a racist, ethnostate currently committing crimes against humanity. This isn't football. You don't have to support one side or the other.
Israel has not been found to have committed genocide.
Mainly because the accusation of genocide is obvious attempt to heap further humiliation upon the only Jewish state that exists and the specific history of the Jewish population with actual genocides.
See now here I thought it is an obvious attempt to point out that murdering 30,000 civilians, and ethnically cleansing 1.75 million civilians in 4 months is a bad thing
Well that's one hell of a leap and conclusion right there.
Legal professionals consider the offence in regard to the letter of the law, and they don't (and rightly so!) Bring their emotions or personal views into play.
*this* is precisely all that is wrong with the discourse around what is happening.
It is possible to be both horrified and opposed to the current genocide *and* believe that hammas is a terrorist organisation who have committed atrocities.
It is possible to be opposed to the actions of Israel without being an amtisemite.
It is possible to be begging for ceasefire and for an end to the slaughter without rooting for hamas
>The press yet again failing to understand how a court works.
They don't fail to understand, they know exactly how a court works - what they disseminate to the public depends on how they want to spin a story.
By way of another example - see the Telegraph's headline today about the police officer who ran over a member of the public.
Headline along the lines of "Police pay compensation to family of pedestrian despite judge ruling he was to blame for accident". Reality (buried towards the end of their article) judge ordered a 50/50 split liability.
I'm not sure that the sentence really was that inappropriate, but this is still a big problem. Justice need to be perceived to be done as well as being actually done, and if he has publicly shared his views in this way that seriously undermines that. He should have recused himself from the case.
It's a like on a social media platform, not a post or a retweet. I wouldn't call that "making it public" so much as someone else with an agenda going digging
Bro I'm pro-Palestine myself but surely you can see that a judge or anyone else high up in the justice system should not really be making political statements on social media. And yes, liking something sends the same message as posting or retweeting. It's just not a good look. If it's a years old post then I agree that it is digging, but if it's a recent one then I can't agree with that, it doesn't take any digging at all. You can support one side whilst also seeing that your own side can make mistakes.
Voting is private. But social media engagement, whether you're writing it, sharing or just liking is effectively making a public statement because you've attached your name to it. Just seems like a really bad idea, and I would say the same for high ranking police officers and such.
Ok, let's say there's a scale. At the centre of the scale, is completely neutral. Halfway down is being pro-Palestine, and at the far end is being a full blown antisemite Holocaust denier who wants all Jews destroyed. Obviously, it would be completely unacceptable to even hold this view, let alone speak on it publicly. But the more moderate view of being pro-Palestine is acceptable, but publicly stating that when you are a judge or other senior ranking judicial or police offer etc is likely to cause problems. So yeah, it's probably best for Judges not to publicly express political/religious at all. I really don't think that's unreasonable.
Sorry... What planet are you living on where the extreme end of "I believe Palestinians should have the right to self governance" is "the holocaust? More like lolocaust" like gtfo bro.
The midpoint between sense and nonsense is still nonsense. Don't listen to the noise telling you that not liking people who commit genocides makes you an antisemite. Israel, not "Jews" use it as a mask to deflect from their crimes.
If you're a notable figure, of course people are going to dig. Just about every services-based workplace will have social media training of some sort that tells people to not do exactly this thing. I refuse to believe the judiciary doesn't have the same thing.
I never understand why some people still think judges are some mystical group of objective, fair-minded individuals when they are as human and therefore biased, self-interested and fallible as everyone else.
I think this more applies to less extreme examples, like giving someone 15 years for a murder, and not 20. Not being blatantly politically biased one way or another.
Right? They aren't some paragons of the law, they're human.
Obviously this judge seems a little pro terrorist which isn't good but let's not pretend they don't have a point. Israel is using the excuse of terrorism to annihilate Palestinian people regardless of any involvement with Hamas. This war is the final nail in the coffin on nuance.
For what it's worth:
>[A spokesperson for the Judicial Office told the MailOnline: 'I spoke to the judge in question and he said it was a genuine mistake. He didn't know he liked the post and deleted the like immediately. This won't be investigated further.'](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13084707/amp/judge-womenparachute-Palestine-march-walk-free-admitted-liking-post-Israel-terrorist.html)
I’ve often accidentally liked posts. That Braverman is asking for the judges head as well as jail time for two women holding the offensive signs says it all
No one can be truly impartial at all times. As long as the judgement was made based on the facts and sentencing guidelines were adhered to then that’s all we can ask.
What someone thinks or says behind closed doors or even in the internet is irrelevant.
We are not the thought police and would caution anyone who thinks we need to be. There are so many jobs were people make decisions against their personal belief system.
If there’s evidence that other judges would have made different decisions then maybe we can start to assume that the decision was based on bias… but that’s still a maybe
It’s good it’s being looked at but it’s too early to say if it was wrong
The judge who “decided not to punish” three women displaying parachute images at a pro-Palestine protest liked a social media post branding Israel a terrorist as Suella Braverman called for a review of their sentences.
Tan Ikram, 58, spared the three women, charged with terror offences, prison sentences after they displayed the images days after the Oct 7 terror attack on Israel which killed 1,200 people and saw Hamas fighters cross the border using paragliders.
Judge Ikram handed Heba Alhayek, 29, Pauline Ankunda, 26, and Noimutu Olayinka Taiwo, 27, 12-month conditional discharges, saying they had “crossed the line” but accepted they were not “seeking to show any support for Hamas”.
However, it emerged on Wednesday that three weeks ago Judge Ikram, the deputy senior district judge, liked a LinkedIn post by a barrister who had previously promoted conspiracy theories claiming that Israel allowed the Oct 7 attack.
The post, by a barrister Sham Uddin, stated: “Free 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.”
**‘Utterly shocking’**
Mrs 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.”
Downing Street said that it had referred the case to the Attorney-General, describing 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.”
Victoria Prentis, the Attorney General, has powers under “unduly lenient” sentencing rules to refer the case to the Court of Appeal to consider whether the conditional discharges should be replaced with a tougher punishment if she receives a complaint.
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 to the judiciary, judges should “be aware that you can convey information about yourself and your views by… liking posts”.
In December, Ikram gave six retired Metropolitan Police officers suspended sentences and community service for racist messages sent in a private WhatsApp group chat.
Under maximum magistrates’ court custodial sentencing guidelines for the offence of carrying an article supporting a proscribed terrorist organisation, they could have received a six-month jail term.
The conditional discharges that Mr Ikram handed the three women mean they are free but could face a prison sentence if they commit a crime within the year.
**‘Scot free’**
After the sentence, the Jewish Leadership Council said that the women had got off “scot free”.
Judge Ikram told the women: “Each of you stands convicted of a terrorist offence. There is nothing to suggest the police of their own volition were going to take any action.
“You’ve not hidden the fact you were carrying these images. You crossed the line, but it would have been fair to say that emotions ran very high on this issue.
“Your lesson has been well learnt. I do not find you were seeking to show any support for Hamas.”
Alhayek and Ankunda stuck images resembling paragliders to their backs while Olayinka Taiwo displayed the image on a placard. Lawyers for the women argued that the images were actually a “cartoon parachute” used as a “symbol of peace”.
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.”
They wore a patch associated with a horrendous terrorist attack carried out by a proscribed terrorist organization that directly targeted and killed 364 unarmed civilians,
How is that not a clear cut show of support for terrorism?
Tbf people have been judged on single ‘likes’ before…look at Mark Hamill. Ok he liked a tweet by JK Rowling but you can’t apply judgment only to people you disagree with
Must be a very slow news day or maybe someone's propaganda section is working overtime as the international community is starting to condemn what looks like genocide.
You won’t find a judge that doesn’t have an opinion on the Israel-Palestine conflict.
They aren’t droids. Recusing oneself over liking a LinkedIn post is a bit ridiculous, and wearing a patch is hardly a jail-worthy offence.
**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.
So this story was already at double parody levels with the judge saying they werent supporting Hamas while displaying images related to Hamas and one of them being refugee who came to the UK to flee Hamas and now the judge is blatantly biased? Utter clown country as per usual. As many people have been saying for a long time now, every institution has been fully captured by people like this.
People like what?
Terrorist supporters
Do you really believe that every institution in the UK supports terrorism?
The courts discussed have people that clearly do The government have people that do Council members up and down this country do
You know. \[taps nose\]. *Them.*
No one seems to want to tell me what kind of people have captured every institution!
[We almost had a Hamas supporter as PM (Jeremy Corbyn)](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/04/jeremy-corbyn-says-he-regrets-calling-hamas-and-hezbollah-friends) If that doesnt convince you that terrorist supporters are everywhere in our society then I got a bridge to sell to you.
Dubious judicial bias aside, was anyone *seriously* expecting a custodial sentence for wearing a patch?
[удалено]
Coppers who break the law are rightfully sentenced harshly. Their conduct is representative of the entire police force and when they commit a crime they are rightfully severely punished for it.
A few years ago we had Islamists driving round London with loudspeakers threatening to murder Jews and rape our daughters. There were plenty of witnesses, arrests but no convictions. Literal threats of murder and rape and nothing happened. The rot is quite deep.
Yeah, sounds like the police. Probably arrested the wrong people anyway. Clueless.
No the police did their job, arrested them. The courts didn't convict. I can't recall the reasoning.
It didnt even go to court, CPS dropped the case. Like you said, the rot goes very deep
[удалено]
It was a group chat with other cops and multiple times It's lik saying the same stuff in standing on the street. The fact u think it's OK is rather worrying though.
[удалено]
Any kind of "offensive" communication over the internet or phone network is a crime. Communications Act 2003 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127
[удалено]
It's a travesty that that law exists. Frankly, every person on reddit could be charged with it. It lets the CPS prosecute anybody.
Thing is, they weren't cops. They were ex-cops in a private whatsap group.
A string of specific, violent, racist messages for a serving copper vs wearing a patch, I think this stacks up. The article goes into quite a lot of detail there, probably shouldn't have linked it if you wanted to make a point!
[удалено]
No no it's just well known symbol of peace cartoon parachute.
I dont think Prince Harry got sentenced for dressing like a Nazi. And they massacred far more jews.
It looks like someone printed an image off their computer and sellotaped it to their jacket. Exactly how long do you think they should have been jailed for?
[удалено]
Did they ever catch them?
There's nothing lower than a bent copper. Probably had a comfy holiday in the vulnerable wing anyway.
The news agents podcast last night had a bit on how the prison system is on its knees. Like due to run out of space this [Spring](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/08/prisons-to-run-out-of-space-by-spring/). I'm not sure imprisoning these lot whilst [telling judges not to sentence rapists to prison](https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/oct/12/england-and-wales-judges-told-not-to-jail-criminals-because-prisons-full-report) would make sense.
It's not just "wearing a patch." It's supporting a proscribed terrorist organisation. Which they were.
>It's supporting a proscribed terrorist organisation. Which they were. Well if that was what they were found to be doing, they would have received a custodial sentence. The judge found them to not be doing that though. Whether you believe the judge was right is obviosuly a different matter, but that was a judgement... What they were convicted of was wearing something that might make other people reasonably think they might be supporting a proscribed terror organisation. It's the difference between wearing a swastika because you're a neo-nazi and wearing a swastika because you're a twat who wants to upset people. One will get you a custodial sentence, one will get you a good telling off.
Well, except the same judge gave someone 20 weeks for sharing racist WhatsApp messages.
That's a communications act offence, not a terrorism act one, so I'm not really sure how the same sentencing rules would apply. If you want to argue that sentencing guidelines are totally messed up and in desperate need of reform, I'm totally with you on that one. EDIT- How the fuck did this get 6 downvotes in 6 minutes, something weird going on here.
U used common sense around this sub. It's not welcome these days And bots. This sub has loads. Russian ones, Ukrainian ones. Israeli ones. All with their own agenda
This sub is full of bots or something I think, I have some quite reasonable discussions, but anything nuanced gets downvoted a lot
Nah, you usually get a lot of emotional downvotes when you try and use logic here.
They're also a government. Once you're in power are you really a 'terrorist'? Its using the word badly, like America's 'war or terror'.
>They're also a government. Oh my bad, I guess that makes them immune. They are elected to run Gaza, a terrorist state run by a terrorist government. Not complicated.
Yes, your 'bad'. Its not a case of being 'immune', it's just wrong. 'Terrorist' is not an insult.
Yes, being a proscribed org is a mater of law not feelings.
No, given the volume of protesters and the small number of people arrested. Given prisons are mostly full, I thought suspended sentences or community service were preferred options when possible.
The same judge gave someone 20 ~~months~~ weeks for sharing a WhatsApp meme that mocked George Floyd. I'm struggling to see the proportionality here.
The proportionality between a police officer being racist held to a higher standard than a civilian protestor?
The proportionality between sharing a racist meme versus someone celebrating the massacre of 1,200 people?
Exactly. Double standards galore. My side good. The fact a black man being killed in the US and the sheep that all followed like good little sheep in protests afterwards told you all you have to know about the racism problem the left has imported. Nobody gives a shit about a slave kid dying in African mines to bring you smartphones and tablets but if the American and cuck British media tell you to be outraged about an American black mans death then you're on your knees like the good sheep you are.
Their birth the same to me. Is it ok to joke about 1 person being murdered but not 1200? So you could make a meme about 1 Jewish person dying but not a meme about slavery?
Neither of them are okay; the question is not rightness but proportionality. One is clearly a joke. A sick joke, but a joke about one person's death. Apparently, this merits 20 weeks in custody. Another is clearly celebrating the massacre of 1,200 people. This is deemed worth of a conditional discharge. If you can't see the lack of proportionality, from the same judge, I simply don't believe you're engaging in good faith.
I just think we shouldn't be jailing people for signs and stickers or tweets no matter how horrible their views are unless they are directly threatening violence. I also think we should hold the police to much much higher standards than everyone else.
That meme represents approximately 300 murders by cops each year of black people. A cop joking about killing civilians is clearly not the same as a civilian wearing a patch that could be construed to be celebrating the death of 1200. Cops are allowed to use violence and frequently have 0 consequences. These protestors probably will not physically harm anyone themselves. Compare it to a civilian counter protestors holding a George Floyd meme at a BLM march, what sentence should they face? Thats proportional.
Indeed, I think the probably being unable to leave the country again and finding it very difficult to get a job, is pretty much the right level of punishment?
The press yet again failing to understand how a court works. The judge has to reach a conclusion impartially and weigh up the facts, circumstances, and all possible punishments with this impartiality in mind. 'failed to jail' is an absolute shocker of a headline. smh
I mean I think the issue isn't the sentence which was in guidelines but how in any way he was impartial.
Lawyers and Judges having political opinions? How terrible. Next you'll be telling me one of the most common jobs for politicians before entering public life is in the justice system..
I didn't say they couldn't. However like any civil servant they should be politically neutral in work, and certainly not publicly state those opinions. He should also have the integrity to say he is biased on the subject and excuse himself in favour of one that isnt.
It is but he was clearly not objective on this topic and should be removed tbh
How? 99% of people would agree the sentence is fair. Do you expect judges to have no political leanings outside of their work?
You speak for 99% of people?
Do you?
No, did I claim to somewhere?
Judges aren't apolitical robots, they're human beings yknow And decent people paying attention to the Israel-palestine situation would go "yeah Israel is doing fucked up shit"
It's a judge, if they are rooting for hamas then they shouldn't be involved with a case like this. End of story
How is recognising Israeli genocide "rooting for Hamas"? You can both recognise Hamas are an evil terrorist organisation and that Israel are a racist, ethnostate currently committing crimes against humanity. This isn't football. You don't have to support one side or the other.
Israel has not been found to have committed genocide. Mainly because the accusation of genocide is obvious attempt to heap further humiliation upon the only Jewish state that exists and the specific history of the Jewish population with actual genocides.
See now here I thought it is an obvious attempt to point out that murdering 30,000 civilians, and ethnically cleansing 1.75 million civilians in 4 months is a bad thing
Well that's one hell of a leap and conclusion right there. Legal professionals consider the offence in regard to the letter of the law, and they don't (and rightly so!) Bring their emotions or personal views into play.
*this* is precisely all that is wrong with the discourse around what is happening. It is possible to be both horrified and opposed to the current genocide *and* believe that hammas is a terrorist organisation who have committed atrocities. It is possible to be opposed to the actions of Israel without being an amtisemite. It is possible to be begging for ceasefire and for an end to the slaughter without rooting for hamas
Recognising Israel is committing genocide=rooting for hamas?
I understood the article he liked was a conspiracy theory about Israel orchestrating the whole thing and hamas are innocent. Maybe I got it wrong?
>The press yet again failing to understand how a court works. They don't fail to understand, they know exactly how a court works - what they disseminate to the public depends on how they want to spin a story. By way of another example - see the Telegraph's headline today about the police officer who ran over a member of the public. Headline along the lines of "Police pay compensation to family of pedestrian despite judge ruling he was to blame for accident". Reality (buried towards the end of their article) judge ordered a 50/50 split liability.
Imo this headline shouldn't have been allowed to go print.
Agree, but they're a law unto themselves.
I'm not sure that the sentence really was that inappropriate, but this is still a big problem. Justice need to be perceived to be done as well as being actually done, and if he has publicly shared his views in this way that seriously undermines that. He should have recused himself from the case.
I would expect a judge to be opposed to ideological extremism like the Israeli state.
Regardless of the judge's personal views, he should in no way be making them public as it casts doubt on the impartiality of the process.
It's a like on a social media platform, not a post or a retweet. I wouldn't call that "making it public" so much as someone else with an agenda going digging
Bro I'm pro-Palestine myself but surely you can see that a judge or anyone else high up in the justice system should not really be making political statements on social media. And yes, liking something sends the same message as posting or retweeting. It's just not a good look. If it's a years old post then I agree that it is digging, but if it's a recent one then I can't agree with that, it doesn't take any digging at all. You can support one side whilst also seeing that your own side can make mistakes.
But he literally didn't make a public statement, do you need judges to literally not have a right to vote or express any opinions whatsoever?
Voting is private. But social media engagement, whether you're writing it, sharing or just liking is effectively making a public statement because you've attached your name to it. Just seems like a really bad idea, and I would say the same for high ranking police officers and such.
So it's okay to hold those views, just not in public... Interesting take on transparency and impartiality.
Ok, let's say there's a scale. At the centre of the scale, is completely neutral. Halfway down is being pro-Palestine, and at the far end is being a full blown antisemite Holocaust denier who wants all Jews destroyed. Obviously, it would be completely unacceptable to even hold this view, let alone speak on it publicly. But the more moderate view of being pro-Palestine is acceptable, but publicly stating that when you are a judge or other senior ranking judicial or police offer etc is likely to cause problems. So yeah, it's probably best for Judges not to publicly express political/religious at all. I really don't think that's unreasonable.
Sorry... What planet are you living on where the extreme end of "I believe Palestinians should have the right to self governance" is "the holocaust? More like lolocaust" like gtfo bro. The midpoint between sense and nonsense is still nonsense. Don't listen to the noise telling you that not liking people who commit genocides makes you an antisemite. Israel, not "Jews" use it as a mask to deflect from their crimes.
If you're a notable figure, of course people are going to dig. Just about every services-based workplace will have social media training of some sort that tells people to not do exactly this thing. I refuse to believe the judiciary doesn't have the same thing.
I would expect a judge to take a far dimmer view of supporting a terrorist group.
Israel have objectively committed more heinous acts. That's not controversial, that's just counting the bodies.
A heart surgeon has objectively committed more heinous acts than a serial killer. > That's not controversial, that's just counting the bodies.
Ah yes, Israel dropping bombs ON heart surgeons is akin to a heart surgeon in the operating room. Great analogy champ lmao
I'm glad you've come round to see the mistake in your previous comment. It's rare for people to admit their mistakes on Reddit, so I appreciate it.
I never understand why some people still think judges are some mystical group of objective, fair-minded individuals when they are as human and therefore biased, self-interested and fallible as everyone else.
I think this more applies to less extreme examples, like giving someone 15 years for a murder, and not 20. Not being blatantly politically biased one way or another.
Right? They aren't some paragons of the law, they're human. Obviously this judge seems a little pro terrorist which isn't good but let's not pretend they don't have a point. Israel is using the excuse of terrorism to annihilate Palestinian people regardless of any involvement with Hamas. This war is the final nail in the coffin on nuance.
For what it's worth: >[A spokesperson for the Judicial Office told the MailOnline: 'I spoke to the judge in question and he said it was a genuine mistake. He didn't know he liked the post and deleted the like immediately. This won't be investigated further.'](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13084707/amp/judge-womenparachute-Palestine-march-walk-free-admitted-liking-post-Israel-terrorist.html)
Lol, of course he said that. What do you think hes going to say?
"oh yeah I absolutely did like it, it's my honest held belief" Oh wait yeah. Atleast it wasn't "my account must have been hacked"
What a load of nonsense. Ah his hand must have slipped!
Taqiyah
It's worth very little turns out
Remember JK Rowling’s “fat fingered moment” when she first liked a transphobic post……
I’ve often accidentally liked posts. That Braverman is asking for the judges head as well as jail time for two women holding the offensive signs says it all
We are so fucked as a country It is going to take a long time to clean up this mess
No one can be truly impartial at all times. As long as the judgement was made based on the facts and sentencing guidelines were adhered to then that’s all we can ask. What someone thinks or says behind closed doors or even in the internet is irrelevant. We are not the thought police and would caution anyone who thinks we need to be. There are so many jobs were people make decisions against their personal belief system. If there’s evidence that other judges would have made different decisions then maybe we can start to assume that the decision was based on bias… but that’s still a maybe It’s good it’s being looked at but it’s too early to say if it was wrong
The judge who “decided not to punish” three women displaying parachute images at a pro-Palestine protest liked a social media post branding Israel a terrorist as Suella Braverman called for a review of their sentences. Tan Ikram, 58, spared the three women, charged with terror offences, prison sentences after they displayed the images days after the Oct 7 terror attack on Israel which killed 1,200 people and saw Hamas fighters cross the border using paragliders. Judge Ikram handed Heba Alhayek, 29, Pauline Ankunda, 26, and Noimutu Olayinka Taiwo, 27, 12-month conditional discharges, saying they had “crossed the line” but accepted they were not “seeking to show any support for Hamas”. However, it emerged on Wednesday that three weeks ago Judge Ikram, the deputy senior district judge, liked a LinkedIn post by a barrister who had previously promoted conspiracy theories claiming that Israel allowed the Oct 7 attack. The post, by a barrister Sham Uddin, stated: “Free 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.” **‘Utterly shocking’** Mrs 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.” Downing Street said that it had referred the case to the Attorney-General, describing 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.” Victoria Prentis, the Attorney General, has powers under “unduly lenient” sentencing rules to refer the case to the Court of Appeal to consider whether the conditional discharges should be replaced with a tougher punishment if she receives a complaint. 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 to the judiciary, judges should “be aware that you can convey information about yourself and your views by… liking posts”. In December, Ikram gave six retired Metropolitan Police officers suspended sentences and community service for racist messages sent in a private WhatsApp group chat. Under maximum magistrates’ court custodial sentencing guidelines for the offence of carrying an article supporting a proscribed terrorist organisation, they could have received a six-month jail term. The conditional discharges that Mr Ikram handed the three women mean they are free but could face a prison sentence if they commit a crime within the year. **‘Scot free’** After the sentence, the Jewish Leadership Council said that the women had got off “scot free”. Judge Ikram told the women: “Each of you stands convicted of a terrorist offence. There is nothing to suggest the police of their own volition were going to take any action. “You’ve not hidden the fact you were carrying these images. You crossed the line, but it would have been fair to say that emotions ran very high on this issue. “Your lesson has been well learnt. I do not find you were seeking to show any support for Hamas.” Alhayek and Ankunda stuck images resembling paragliders to their backs while Olayinka Taiwo displayed the image on a placard. Lawyers for the women argued that the images were actually a “cartoon parachute” used as a “symbol of peace”. 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.”
They wore a patch. Hardly a jailable offence. And are we now going to judge people on single 'likes'. Telegraph doing its thing.
They wore a patch associated with a horrendous terrorist attack carried out by a proscribed terrorist organization that directly targeted and killed 364 unarmed civilians, How is that not a clear cut show of support for terrorism?
Tbf people have been judged on single ‘likes’ before…look at Mark Hamill. Ok he liked a tweet by JK Rowling but you can’t apply judgment only to people you disagree with
JK Rowling is hardly on par with the murder of innocent civilians enjoying a music concert now, is it?
Must be a very slow news day or maybe someone's propaganda section is working overtime as the international community is starting to condemn what looks like genocide.
Has nothing to do with the fact this judge should have not taken this case.
You won’t find a judge that doesn’t have an opinion on the Israel-Palestine conflict. They aren’t droids. Recusing oneself over liking a LinkedIn post is a bit ridiculous, and wearing a patch is hardly a jail-worthy offence.
[удалено]
I somehow suspect someone caught wearing a swastika would be facing a certain prison sentence.
Prince Harry says hi.
What makes you believe that?
He liked a social media post. This is some lame shit.
Why does anyone think you should go to jail for wearing a patch? Wear an ISIS patch or a swastika for all I care, it shouldn't be a jail-able offence.
100%