5 Filters

BBC uses Trojan horse story to break new political ground

Man charged over racist comments at pro-Palestine rally

H/T Ceemac at TLN; the BBC headline disguises the fact that the arrest was for racial hate speak AGAINST Pro-Palestinians

But there’s more going on in this piece. Underneath a police picture has zoomed in on the ATTIRE of two protestors against violence towards Palestinians - a picture maybe three inches square - and is now appealing for them to be dobbed in for it.

This article represents a new BBC practice - a kind of political Crimewatch - a program where after being titillated with police accounts of crimes, the public were asked to help apprehend ‘real’ criminals from the footage.

But even in this Trojan horse of a story the BBC can not bring itself to at least give a truthful headline about either the horse itself, or which way it is facing.

As if to affirm the point: also on the BBC page at the moment, this screaming Heil headline:


But lighting up government buildings with terrorist government flags is okay apparently.

The old Chomsky: “A terrorist is a man with a bomb, that doesn’t have an air force.”

Now it seems that in the case of an imprisoned people, it’s not even the image of the bomb but the plane - even if it’s made of boxwood and nails.

Are there no lawyers?


You don’t even have to zoom in all that much on the right-hand photo to see that the presumed Palestinian flag on the woman’s red top has been superimposed. She quite possibly is not the same person depicted with the paraglider image cellotaped to her back: headgear looks different, with/without facemask and earring/s.


Get Marianna on the case.

As for glorifying terrorism, this faecebook post looks suspiciously close to the edge. Cropped a little to preserve anonymity.

Screenshot 2023-10-16 13.31.51

1 Like

Another BBC-style ‘report’ on the protests, from the centre of the teaspoon.
From the Heil (emphasis added).
Link: Hunt for 'hate crime' suspects at pro-Palestine march: Police post images of protesters carrying anti-Semitic placards and men wearing Hamas-style headbands after hundreds of thousands took to streets of London on Armistice Day | Daily Mail Online

“Among those wanted by police is a woman who was seen carrying a placard depicting Suella Braverman and Rishi Sunak as coconuts, which is a racist term used to imply that someone has betrayed their race”

Is it racist?
I hadn’t heard the term before.

Looked it up…brown on the outside, white on the inside - I can see how that might be objectionable, especially if used as a general slur with no context.

However when the implication is that the accused person is abetting the repression - and wholesale slaughter - of brown people on behalf of white people…

When the term has such a specific meaning, there is an easy defence - for the accused to say “No I’m not”, and explain why.

Except…I think that’s the problem that Sunak and Braverman (who are in positions of enormous power) have - explaining their use of that power.
I look forward to that debate in the commons.
Or any debate on Israel-Palestine there, for that matter.

The woman is wanted by the police. Presumably they will find her.

If she is charged, ten doughnuts to one says there will be no debate allowed in that process either.

1 Like

Okay that was my view. I see it’s been ‘tested’ before

Link: Councillor found guilty of racial harassment over 'coconut' jibe | UK news | The Guardian

The court ruled it constitued racial harassment.

I wonder if in the present context, the ‘victims’ statements - and actions - in support of the genocidal attacks on the Palestinians would be considered a relevant or mitigating factor.

Another little reporting/police tidbit.


“Police officers detain a man in the street close to the ‘National March For Palestine’ in central London”

Link: Labour joins furious backlash at 'unacceptable' mobbing of Michael Gove by pro-Palestinian protesters as he travelled home through London rail hub - as allies praise 'brilliant' police but call for Cabinet minister's security to be beefed up | Daily Mail Online

Oh - is that what they are doing!
That used to be called five police officers sitting on someone and rubbing his face in the ground.

Make that ‘brilliant police’.
‘Labour’ and the SNP are ‘furious’ at the mobbing of Michael Gove, apparently.

Well not everyone in Labour and the SNP - just the leaders.

1 Like

Thanks @Evvy I saw the coconut placard (and so many others) and figured it for a fake. In other words the woman was hasbara discrediting the marchers. A pretty weak attempt I thought. There was video footage of a woman being arrested for hate speech because of some ambiguously worded placard, no doubt there were others. But among all the nauseating hot takes this one had to be close to the top of the list (and at the foot of the screen grab you can see this schlemiel is also pushing the Mein Kampf bollix)

1 Like

I never thought of that. I guess it would need to be an outsider or people would know her.
Anyway it seems the woman is genuine as the police have got hold of her.

It doesn’t say if she was arrested or walked in of her own accord as the accused ‘hanglider’ women did.
She is a teacher, and by the sounds of it she was simply expressing a genuinely held view.
That being the case I imagine she will be the type to argue her case in court down to the nitty-gritty.

They’ve probably released her while they scour her devices and her life looking for some TrumpUppable tidbits to bolster their case.

It could be tricky if it boils down to a genuine discussion
Naturally I expect they will be guided from above, for the Greater Good (of the UK government and would be ‘state’ custodians, who may wear grey suits).

No doubt they will claim that the depiction simply used the race of Sunak and Braverman to criticize them, and if they hadn’t been of that race there wouldn’t have been a banner.
The woman will be able to point to racist UK policy on Palestinians - with the racism seemingly offset by having coloured politicians at the helm, who are rewarded by the realisation of personal ambitions and power - at the expense of the brown people .

Given that the depiction isn’t inherently racist, the guidance will likely be to see if she can be ‘done’, without giving her arguments much of an airing.
The way it’s reported so far suggests they will get help in that respect from the press.

A quick look at the value added by the rags.

The Sun and the Express want to undermine her defence in advance:

[Woman, 36, hunted by cops over racist placard of Rishi & Suella is teacher who grew up in £2m h…]

[Grinning teacher hunted by cops over racist Rishi Sunak poster at Palestine march]
Link: Grinning teacher hunted by cops over racist Rishi Sunak poster at Palestine march | UK | News | Express.co.uk)

The Old Bill (geddit?) MSN manages to bring the still picture to life:

[Teacher who waved placard depicting Rishi Sunak and Suella Braverman as coconuts …]
Link: MSN)

I also just noticed the above picture now being circulated has half of the banner cropped, thereby reducing the meaning.

1 Like

Ok: I stand corrected. It has that look of a Canadian trucker protest swastika. But if it’s a teacher that grew up in a £2m house . . .

Good luck to her. She’ll be hounded, but if her excuses are legit enough, that combined with her colour (always handy to in a minority when accused of something like this) then she’ll escape punishment. They’ll still send her round the houses though. Cos government etc

1 Like

Though you might well be proved correct, don’t forget the ladder of privilege: women lower than men, black women lower than white women, but whining loudly at the very bottom the wearers of small hats. The deluge of persecution they suffer gets to trump everyone else’s as we can see very clearly at the moment. I’m not quite sure where the Trans community are positioned right now, but I expect next time it’s Pride Month we’ll get an update. </hatespeech>

1 Like

Can we rely on msm reports to tell us whether someone has been ‘arrested’ or ‘detained’? And how exactly do the twats distinguish ‘racism’ from ‘hatred’ from ‘tewwowisim’?

The message on her placard just looks childish crap to me anyway.

Another diversion.

1 Like

It’s all for show, to discourage big attendances and limit opposition. They were keen to tell us of the two women ‘engaging in terrorist activity’ by standing in a pro-Palestinian crowd with debatable Hamas-supporting insignias picked up by zoom lenses; now got to go to court.

“And how exactly do the twats distinguish ‘racism’ from ‘hatred’ from ‘tewwowisim’?”

Well it can hardly be sincere, or half the MPs supporting the attacks on the civilian population on Gaza would be arrested for terrorism as well as Islamophobia.

1 Like

The three women have been found guilty, but given a suspended sentence.

Standoff between the state, forces that brought us Harrys Place and the Muslim community?

Remember Harry’s Place? The Euston manifesto?
Harry’s Place was a hangout of the cruise missile left (but really right) in the early noughties.

It came to the fore of forums with staunch advocacy of bombing Iraq in 2003.
At the same time, it vigorously opposes boycotts of Israel.
Yes boycotts are far too serious a thing to drop on other countries.
I can see the balance there…not.

Anyway, I didn’t know they were still around.

Quite a few features there happen to involve negative stories around the muslim community or Islam itself.

Anyway, the prosecution of these three women was a result of their project, which provided the images the police hadn’t spotted.

" Hurryupharry Was Crucial to Prosecution"

This court judgement could have been inflammatory had it either jailed women for their clothing, inflaming the muslim community, or released them scot-free, landing the judge in hot water.

The dilemma fell to Judge Tan Ikram, a second-generation immigrant judge with a high public profile.

If you throw a coin ten thousand times the chance of it landing tails-up exactly five thousand times is pretty small.
The apparent ‘balance’ in this case might be seen as rather fortuitous.
It can be viewed as a Muslim judge did his legal duty despite sympathizing with the prisoners.

But what if the judge had taken the view that as it wasn’t only Hamas that flew over the apartheid wall on October 7th, the insignias did not lend any more support to Hamas than other Palestinians? Only Hamas is proscribed by UK law.
(Or the judge might even think the 2000 anti-Terrorism bill was a political, partisan piece of legal nonsense, as it defines ‘support for terrorism’ in terms of groups the government proscribes, whatever the reality)

Would the UK government have risked the reverberative possiblity of a not-guilty verdict? This might have been seen as carte blanche for protests against Israel regarding bombing Gaza - at a bad time for the genocide-supporting UK government.

The situation may have called for some good old fashioned British diplomacy and negotiation.

Alls well that ends well? Matter of opinion…


14/1/24 Judge Decides Not to Punish 3 Women Convicted Over Parachute Images

Judge Tan Ikram has given conditional discharges to three women who displayed images of a parachutist during a pro-Palestinian march in London.

Three women—Noimutu Olayinka Taiwo (L), Heba Alhayek (C), and Pauline Ankunda (R)—accused of wearing paraglider stickers in support of Hamas, arrive at Westminster Magistrates Court in London on Feb. 12, 2024. ¶

By Chris Summers

LONDON—Three women who displayed images which appeared to show a parachutist or paraglider during a pro-Palestinian march only days after the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks on Israel, have been convicted of a terrorist offence.

Heba Alhayek, 29, Pauline Ankunda, 26, and Noimutu Olayinka Taiwo, 27, had denied carrying or displaying an article to arouse reasonable suspicion they are supporters of banned organisation Hamas, at a march through Whitehall on Oct. 14, 2023.

Hamas used motorised paragliders as part of its Oct. 7 attacks across the Israeli border, in which 1,200 civilians and military personnel were killed.

Ms. Alhayek and Ms. Ankunda were identified as being the two women seen on a video on social media during the march displaying the images on their backs, while Ms. Taiwo was carrying a placard which had the same image attached to it.

District Judge Tan Ikram rejected the defence’s assertion the image was a symbol of “flight and escape” from Gaza, which was described during the trial as the “world’s largest outdoor prison.”

He said a “reasonable person” would see the images, in the context of the march, as referring to Hamas’s use of paragliders during the Oct. 7 attacks.

Marcher Claimed Images Were Not Hamas Paragliders but Symbols of ‘Liberation and Peace’

2 Pro-Palestinian Protesters Charged With Terror Offences Over Paraglider Image


Judge Ikram said all three women had admitted they were displaying the images and he said it was relevant whether they had a “guilty mind, [or] mens rea,” as it was an offence of strict liability.

Before sentencing was passed, defence counsel Mark Summers, KC pointed out Ms. Alhayek was from Gaza but he said, “Her and her family were outspoken critics of Hamas,” and he said she had been granted refugee status in Britain because of her “fear of persecution” by Hamas if she returned there.

Mr. Summers described the commission of the offence as “unintended” and said, “She is literally the last person on that march who would have supported that organisation.”

The defence barrister rejected the prosecution’s assertion the three had acted “deliberately and maliciously” and the judge agreed with him on that point.

Judge Says No Evidence Trio Supported Hamas

Judge Ikram said there was no evidence any of the three defendants had supported Hamas or intended to do so by their use of the images, which he said technically showed a parachutist rather than a paraglider, which has a cradle attached.

The judge told the women he believed they had had a “lesson well-learned” and he said he had decided “not to punish” them.

He gave all three a 12-month conditional discharge and they left the dock and were greeted by relatives and supporters, some of whom were in tears.

On Monday the court heard Ms. Taiwo had told police she thought the image was a symbol which represented “liberation and peace.”

Prosecutor Brett Weaver argued the image was of a paraglider and, “in the context” of the march and coming only a week after the attacks, made it clear the defendants supported Hamas.

Ms. Alhayek and Ms. Ankunda initially claimed someone else on the march had attached the images to their backs without their knowledge, but they later admitted they had done it themselves, but denied it meant they supported Hamas or the atrocities on Oct. 7.

Ms. Taiwo submitted a prepared statement in which she denied supporting Hamas and said “she had been handed a placard while on the march and took no notice of what she thought was a blurred image, although she thought it was an image of liberation and peace.”

Mr. Summers, representing Ms. Alhayek and Ms. Ankunda, said the image of the two women wearing the paraglider stickers had first been shared by a Twitter page called Hurryupharry, which he described as a “right-wing American website,” which was “anti-Palestinian.”

A screen grab of video footage of Pauline Ankunda (L) and Heba Alhayek (R) wearing images of parachutes during a pro-Palestinian rally in central London, on Oct. 14, 2023. (Metropolitan Police)

He claimed the police and the prosecution had been fed a narrative of what the images represented by Hurryupharry, arrested the women, and brought them to court without ever examining whether there could be another explanation.

Hurryupharry Was Crucial to Prosecution

In his ruling Judge Ikram said there was no suggestion police evidence-spotters at the march had seen the women wearing the images and he said the matter only came before him because Hurryupharry had spotted the women on a video and had highlighted it, which was followed by comment on social media and then a police investigation.

Mr. Summers produced two witnesses: Victoria Brittain, a former associate foreign editor with The Guardian, who is also a trustee of the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign, and Sven Kuhn von Burgsdorff, a German diplomat and former European Union envoy to the Palestinians up until July 2023.

Both agreed with Mr. Summers when he said the Gaza Strip was often referred to as the “world’s largest open-air prison” and said the population dreamed of escaping its confines, often by air.

Mr. Von Burgsdorff, a former paratrooper in the German federal army, said he carried out a paragliding “stunt” in July 2023, just before he left his post.

He said it was a “symbolic gesture” to show how young Gazans aspired to fly and be free.

Not for the first time, this case (or rather, the 2000 Anti-terrorism Bill) has me applying to the resident psychoanalysts of 5Filters for a marbles check.

Two things from the above report.

District Judge Tan Ikram rejected the defence’s assertion the image was a symbol of “flight and escape” from Gaza, which was described during the trial as the “world’s largest outdoor prison.”

He said a “reasonable person” would see the images, in the context of the march, as referring to Hamas’s use of paragliders during the Oct. 7 attacks.

Judge Says No Evidence Trio Supported Hamas

Judge Ikram said there was no evidence any of the three defendants had supported Hamas or intended to do so by their use of the images, which he said technically showed a parachutist rather than a paraglider, which has a cradle attached.

“The judge told the women he believed they had had a “lesson well-learned” and he said he had decided “not to punish” them.”

Have I got this right.

  1. It is reasonable to suppose X
  2. There is no evidence of X.

Therefore they are guilty.
Without evidence.

Give it to me straight, Doc.

Though I suspect I need to ask Judge Tan Ikram.

1 Like

I hadn’t heard of Harry’s Place (etc), nor the hurryupharry website. A quick dekko this morning shows that their headline story is a ‘redux’ version of the Rochdale sexual abuse story, nicely timed for tomorrow’s by-election. I’m confident Gorgeous George will be stealing the Liebour vote, and quite right too.

As for the protesters with the paragliders (or whatever the images were supposed to be) these always struck me as a minor psyop to discredit the relevant ‘Hate March’ and the fact that these three wimmin have been found “guilty but no harm done” (I paraphrase) merely makes me more suspicious. A judge with doublethink skills of the same calibre as those used against Richard D Hall.

1 Like

From the Terrorism Act 2000

“Uniform. 13. - (1) A person in a public place commits an offence if he-
(a) wears an item of clothing, or
(b) wears, carries or displays an article,
in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that he is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation.”

You are guilty - or at least commit an offence - if you arouse reasonable suspicion.

Where does that leave the threshold of reasonable doubt?

When it is reasonable to suppose you are guilty, but also reasonable to doubt that you are not, the law seems like a piece of nonsense.

And there must be reasonable doubt, if there’s no evidence the women supported Hamas (these were the judges words).

So how did the judge even find them guilty in the first place?

Best answer I can think of is, “It wasn’t the judge.:wink:

1 Like

Hi folks, we should of course remember that the “Justice” system considers ignorance of the law to be no defence. I wonder where that idea came from?

When you break it down, what the system is saying is that statutes passed by Parliament, sometimes extended by Ministers or other bodies given power under enabling acts or where law is added or extended by the judicial precedence system - all are assumed to be miraculously embedded into the minds of everyone walking around in Britain! Everyone is informed, by magic, of changes of “law” the moment the “law” comes into existence.

But of course the whole thing is a fiction - there are no judges, lawyers, parliamentarians or police alive who know all our “laws”. Some people would have difficulty citing the Ten commandments - even in Moses’ day so I wonder how they would deal with today’s lists of offences. I can’t even find a comprehensive list of the number of criminal offences there are in the UK - the CPS has over 21 links when you search “list of offences” here is the 1A link dealing with fees payable on offences, this one only covers about a dozen pages 40 offences per page - say 500 offences.

which includes this offence -“Impeding persons endeavouring to escape wrecks” gotta watch out for that one everyone!
And yet we were told that Labour had in just 10 years to 2006 introduced over 3000 new criminal offences:

  • on this basis there must be 100’s of thousands of criminal laws introducing criminal offences!

To base our “law” on this fiction of ignorance is no defence is totally outrageous. But of course we don’t just stop at UK laws, I understand that that we have entered into scores of International Treaties allowing nations to extradite UK residents to their country for trial under their laws even where no such laws existed in the UK - so we have to know some of those laws too!

Of course civil law probably has millions of rules and regulations and codes of practice and guidelines which we must all observe.

The whole thing reminds me of an episode of Farscape which was based on a world called Litigaria where almost everyone was a lawyer!

I wonder how many lawyers are employed in the UK just to keep track of legal changes never mind defending and prosecuting offenders!

As a passing thought I wonder if it is an offence in this country to walk around London with a placard showing Palestinian toilet rolls - obviously such items could aid and abutt Hamas! :confused:



What surprises me is that the defence didn’t use the outgoing EU minister for Gaza as their inspiration. They’d have walked with this.