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…
ED
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. ¶
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
11/4/2023
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.
One.
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.
Two.
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.
- It is reasonable to suppose X
- 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.” 
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! 
cheers
2 Likes
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.
3 Likes
Hi @LocalYokel , quite agree. Was this well publicised 6 months ago when it was posted on YT? If not, then could it be used in an appeal ( if an appeal is possible at his stage ) as new evidence to challenge the judge’s legal interpretation of what a reasonable man would think was behind the use of the para image? Or could such an appeal jeapordise the decision to give them conditional discharges.
A conditional discharge still leaves these people guilty of the offence, which means they will be blacklisted forever in all their dealings with residency, travel and interaction with UK agencies!
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/sentencing-and-the-council/types-of-sentence/discharges/
cheers
1 Like
It was publicised well enough that speculation was made that Khamas gained inspiration for their attack after the minister made his historical flight.
It is too late most likely. There is the risk that the punishment is changed accordingly. Most people aren’t aware of their rights and are intimidated by the legal system in all its guises, so they will have made statements and these are difficult to retract later. Silence is still your best option when ending up like the ladies mentioned above. You have a legal right to say nothing. Feel free to say no comment to accelerate an interview.
If questioned later in court, you’d be fully entitled to say that you were upset/angry etc because of your perceived innocence. It’s very unlikely they will, even though the plod love to warn you that it’ll jeopardise you etc etc. They changed the caution wording due to the power of no comment. It’s still your right.
So that leaves you free to assemble your defence whilst the gather their evidence against you.
2 Likes
Is ignorance of the law really no excuse? If someone lacks the capacity to understand how a particular action would be unlawful that might not prevent them from being guilty of an offence, technically speaking, but surely they wouldn’t be punished? I’m thinking of a case where someone was able to argue that they killed another person while sleepwalking. Their state of consciousness was such that they couldn’t comprehend what actions they were carrying out, even when the wrong was so obvious.
c.f. Jules Lowe case, 2005
But your point is a good one: these laws are drafted in such a way as to construct new offences.
1 Like
Very good advice. I shan’t go into the details but I answered “no comment” at least two dozen times on the only occasion I’ve been interviewed under caution. There were some provocatively worded questions to try and bait me but…
3 Likes
I think where criminal laws require a guilty mind as well as a guilty action a person without the requisite mental capacity would not be found guilty - criminal law was never my best subject I was more into jurisprudence and I’m going back over 50 years so there will be loads of changes I haven’t kept up with. It may be even possible to avoid “strict offences” ( which only require the guilty act and do not require a guilty mind) through lack of mental capacity where they had no knowledge of the acts that constituted the offence.
I think all these cases are valid but they must be tiny compared to the numbers who would not be found guilty if prior knowledge of the existence of an offence was a fundamental requirement of the offence - apart from fundamental 10 commandment type laws I would guess 100% of “offenders” would be not guilty by reason of ignorance of the law.
Given that so-called law makers regularly state that this new law or that new offence with x number of years in gaol is justified so as to deter people from committing those offences, why would this be even possible if 99.9% of people are not aware of the offence or the penalty! The place for most of these new laws is the bin, imo.
cheers
2 Likes
The plot thickens…or something.
From the EpochTimes today:
"…But on Wednesday it emerged Judge Ikram had apparently liked a post on LinkedIn by a barrister accused of promoting a theory that Israel had allowed the Oct. 7 attack.
Judge’s Account Liked ‘Israeli Terrorist’ Post
A screen grab shared on social media appeared to show the judge’s account had liked the post by Sham Uddin, which read: “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.”
Downing Street referred the case to Attorney General Victoria Prentis, and said the case was “deeply troubling.”
But on Thursday the Attorney General’s Office said, in an email to The Epoch Times: “We have received a number of referrals regarding this case. Having reviewed this, we have determined that the sentences are not eligible under the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme.”
…
…"
Guess who isn’t happy.
"But Claudia Mendoza, chief executive of the Jewish Leadership Council, said the sentence was “woefully inadequate,” and described Judge Ikram’s remarks as “extremely surprising.”
A spokesman for the Campaign Against Antisemitism said: “We are sharing our findings with the Crown Prosecution Service, which may wish to appeal the verdict, and we are considering various legal options. We are also submitting a complaint to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office.” "
So, only judges that do not think Palestine should not be occupied (and, presumably, who do not think that its people should not be bombed relentlessly) are acceptable.
Looks like it may have been Israeli pressure that got Downing Street to (ostensibly) refer the case back to the AG. As if the government would leave that outcome to chance!
Does the pro-Israeli sleuthery allegation outweigh the knowledge the government would have had before selecting Judge Ikram? I doubt it.
2 Likes
“I mean, we don’t have all the facts, we should be cautious.” Manchester mayor Andy Burnham.
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUJ7RQ3bgiA&feature=youtu.be
Story: New Manchester Airport video shows violent scenes before man 'kicked' in head by GMP officer - Manchester Evening News
Hm…okay…
The guy had been throwing punches at police officers. They may have been trying to arrest him after some kind of fracas. To that extent Burnam is right - you can’t form a final judgement on the whole incident without knowing what led up to it.
But there are some facts that seem clear from the footage.
The guy - in a pale blue hoodless top - had been throwing punches immediately prior to the kick in the head. When he was kicked in the head he had fallen along with a cop and suddenly seemed unconscious on the ground.
When I saw this a day or two ago it seemed clear that he was then tasered before being (obviously) kicked in the head. The taser tended not to be mentioned.
At the start of the footage - there may have been another incident prior - the man, while standing looking at a drinks machine(?) and flanked by another man, was approached from behind by two police who immediately try to put him in what looks like a hold from behind. Probably successfully, but the other man - who is dressed in grey - comes round and confronts one of the cops (the only male of the three). It takes off very quickly after that. Punching starts between them at about the same time. The first punch appears to come from the cop, it appears to me this was against the guy in blue who is obscured, being held downwards in the police hold.
This cop and the guy in grey continue fighting, with the grey guy punching the same cop several times (who had been fighting back unsuccessfully). The cop breaks free and uses his taser.
Meanwhile the guy in blue, who may have got in a kick while being held, is now free and tries to get back involved, seems to be kicking. The two other officers, apparently female, are trying to restrain him; they don’t throw any punches, though they had held the man in blue while he may have been punched by the male cop. He starts punching them, and they both fall.
Back in the corner the male cop seems to be tasering away at the man in grey. The guy in blue then goes to his aid, punching the cop who somehow continues firing the taser at the guy in grey, getting in at least four of these in total. The guy in grey lands several blows on the cop, who seems indestructible, and doesn’t stop tasering. The blue guy pulls the cop away and they both fall.But the guy in blue is suddenly comatose (was he tased as they fell?). The cop has got up and tases the guy on the ground at least once, then kicks his head.
So, what facts are there.
Though the male officer had defintitely taken some punishment, the kick in the head was wholly unnecessary, the guy in blue was out of it. Likewise the taser that preceded it. (As I say it looks as though he was maybe also tased in the scuffle).
Mayor Burnham should have had the guts to say that.
The two men could argue they had a right to self defense as the police chose to start what should have been a calm arrest.by a physical assault/head lock from behind (?) with apparently no warning.
The use of the taser on someone lying unconscious on the ground is obviously a breach. They could have got handcuffs on him just as easily.
I don’t know if there was a prequel to what was shown here. But it looks as if the police believe they have the right to initially commit assault on the public, and then use tasers if they get the worse of the resulting fracas.
And this doesn’t depend on the ‘full story’. Burnham seems to be wanting to keep alive the old copbrained movie response “They had it coming”.
Any thoughts?
2 Likes
This is at approximately 20-21 seconds in. The man in blue has been shot with a taser by one of the filth on the right. This is why he goes down unnaturally. If you slow the film, as he is lying face down, he pivots strangely. He is clearly incapacitated.
This sort of behaviour is only going to be more common too.
1 Like
I’ve seen two videos, sadly on the lying BBC. The first clearly shows a police officer kicking an unmoving man in the head and the stamping on his head. The second video, which appeared to come to light a little after the furor, shows the fracas where men are attacking the police. This video was poor quality and its later appearance smacks to me of more BS. So many false flags in the past have “video evidence” which is always of very poor quality I can’t help but question the provenance of this video.
Andy Burnham is like every other politician. Covering his derriere. If the police officer who kicked and stamped was a member of the public, he would be behind bars facing a GBH charge. One rule for us, and …
1 Like
Thanks PatB I hadn’t seen the stamp - clearly the video I saw had been stopped after the kick.
Hadn’t seen the BBC piece.
“## ‘Truly shocking’
There was a “clear risk” their weapons could be taken from them, the police spokesman said, adding all three had been taken to hospital, one with a broken nose.”
This amazing statement is a clear reason why tasers should not be routinely issued. A weapon has to be used because the person might take it from the police?
Admittedly the police statement is complete BS, to mask the reality of the new police MO which is to begin an attempted arrest with a blind assault from behind, then blame the person for their reaction.
Someone has to say the police started or at least provoked the violence by grabbing someone from behind.and putting them in a hold.
If there was prior (and I don’t think there was any prior violence involving the police, or they would have made sure they were mob handed) they should have made an attempt at a normal arrest rather than start by trying to physically disable the person before they even know what is happening. It’s not as if the man could have gotten away.
Cheers
1 Like
21/12/24 …the Manchester Airport assault story
Update. The two men have been charged.
No policemen have been charged for head kicking, head stamping or repeated tasering.
No police charges. CPS said prosecution of the policemen involved was not in public interest, and there was no realistic prospect of a conviction
Amar Anwar (not named in this clip) says men will ask for a review under the Victim’s Right to Review (VRR).
They can expect to draw another blank, and a near-identical lack of explanation
Clip Two men charged over Manchester airport fight with police – Channel 4 News
The MS rightly complains Two men charged with assaulting police after a disturbance at Manchester Airport but no officers will face charges | Morning Star
Discussed earlier here 7/24
I think the operative words, contained in a sentence at the top of this post, completely explain the CPS “decision”.
Here they are again:
"…realistic prospect of a conviction: "
You’ll see what I did there.
That was the real problem, it seems
Not just for the police, but their political handlers.