Woke Judges?

[dowie]

I wonder if we'll see more stuff like this given the popularity of ideas like you can't be racist to white people, ACAB (all cops are ********)/defund the police/police are racist, speech is violence, punch TERFS etc..

Anyway a District Judge seemed to be rather lenient in the case of the apparent Hamas supporters, sporting paraglider memes at a protest:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1757733868155658599

Yet the same Judge handed down custodial sentences to Police officers over memes shared in a WhatsApp group:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1732864888937320953

And he bragged about it to students:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1732864893336858828

Police bad, Hamas supporters good?

But there's more - punching "TERFs" is seemingly OK too? (screenshot for this one as I had to censor the sweary)

What could be behind this??? Oh... good old wokeness:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1732864899330593244

And possibly a bit of obvious bias on this Israel/Palestine issue...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1757825142074249420

Tan Ikram - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Tanweer Ikram CBE (born 1965) is the deputy senior district judge (deputy chief magistrate). He studied at Wolverhampton Polytechnic where he obtained his LLB in 1988 and was called to the Bar at the Inner Temple in 1990.[1] He was admitted as a solicitor of the Senior Courts in 1993.

Ah yes, the prestigious Wolverhampton Polytechnic... perhaps in addition to getting an award for diversity efforts it seems quite plaussible he was a big beneficiary of diversity hiring himself!

 

[dowie]

Rather say why they think a person’s set of action or/and views is bad/wrong, that person is just labelled as woke, often without any justification.

If you think something it’s wrong, it helps to explain rather than just calling it “woke”, leftist or left winged.

Try reading the OP in addition to the title then, it's kinda laid out there for you.

 

[dowie]

Get off Twitter. Its ruining your perspective.

How is it ruining it? If you don't thnk there is something wrong here then perhaps you could explain? Though maybe it's your perspective that's the issue if you think this is fine.

 

[dowie]

nope.. at no point in those x posts calls the judge woke.. you questioned if the judge was woke without putting your own case forward.

You didn't read carefully then - what do you think this tweet is calling out? Why do they need to call him woke - if I'd posted someone being shot and killed and used the word murderer would you object because the tweets don't specifically say murderer?

What could be behind this??? Oh... good old wokeness:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1732864899330593244

The BBC the other day gave a decent overview of the verdict

The apparent contradiction is there too, the paraglider symbol isn't interpreted as some symbol of freedom (kinda obvious given the context) but simultaneously not support for Hamas?

 

[dowie]

Well I assume there was actual testimony and evidence which showed they weren't Hamas supporters.

So the paragliders were in fact just some sort of symbol of freedom? Happy coincidence?

They've been found guilty of a terror offence but not punished. As far as the CPS was concerned the terror offence related to support for Hamas:

Three guilty of terror offence over paraglider images at UK Palestine march

Photos displayed at protest a week after Hamas militants attacked Israel on 7 October last year

www.theguardian.com

“I do not find a reasonable person would interpret the image merely as a symbol of freedom.

“I want to be clear, there’s no evidence that any of these defendants are supporters of Hamas, or were seeking to show support for them.”

Ikram said he had “decided not to punish” the defendants as he handed them each a 12-month conditional discharge.

Reacting to the verdict, the Crown Prosecution Service said displaying the images amounted to the “glorification of the actions” of Hamas.

That the paragliders were seen as support for Hamas was the CPS's reason for bringing the case but then simultaneously they're guilty but not punished on the basis they didn't support Hamas???

 

[dowie]

because your getting your sources from flipping TWITTER. How is that hard to understand?

That's almost as meaningless criticism as some boomer dismissing info because it's "from the internet"

For example the judge didn't give the 6 formers officers sentences because they were just posting 'memes', They themselves admitted they were posting racist messages in the group and the entire reason everyone ended up finding out about it is because one of the members had a falling out and went to the press to highlight how bad it was...

The tweet makes it pretty clear that the memes were deemed offensive, though in one of the cases someone was imprisoned on the basis of some implication. The point wasn't that he was misapplying the law there (though there are reasonable objections to the law covering such things in the first place) but rather that he was quite happy to punish for those offensive communications in a private WhatsApp but seems to have both found the defendants in this case guilty and also decided to not punish for a seemingly dubious reason.

Add in the possibility of bias from the linked-in post and his apparent wokeness and it doesn't look good. If you look closely the person opining that he ought to have recused himself is a Barrister

 

[dowie]

As someone else alluded to you do have Twitter brain rot.

Perhaps you have woke brain rot?

The "Paraglider girls" received a 12-month conditional discharge for carrying or displaying an article in a public place in such a way as to arouse reasonable suspicion that they were supporting Hamas. They werent funding Hamas, didnt have pro hamas videos or literature, it was a very distasteful thing they did during a protest. The way you and this right leaning Harcore Tory talk about it you would think they are directly sending funs to Hamas.

No, no one is implying anything about the funding of Hamas, it's the denial that they were supporting Hamas by the Judge (support as in football supporter not sending money by way or material support) but the apparent contradiction with the reason the CPS bought the case, his finding that (contrary to their defence) it wasn't a symbol of freedom, and ultimately his verdict.

Ergo his apparent wokeness and his dubious "like" of that LinkedIn post don't look good re: a possible lack of impartiality here given he was quite happy to dish out punishment for offensive speech previously.

The Police officers who were "unjustly punished" were sending racist, sexist and homophobic messages on WhatsApp and all fo these things are understandably illegal. Not only that, police, even retired ones are quite rightly held at a higher standard than you and I as their actions reflect the force/institution.

What are you even quoting there re: "unjustly punished"? While I think aspects of that are objectionable the point there (relevant to this thread) is that he was happy to punish over offensive speech/communications.

 

[dowie]

I'd be interested in seeing the legislation that makes this illegal? Plenty of comedians make sexist jokes very publicly (racist and homophobic not so much), and as far as I'm aware don't get arrested and sent to prison for it.

There's a distinction between communications and live performances for example, see the comedian/YouTuber convicted for turning his girlfriend's Pug into a "Nazi" (the joke being the cute dog was turned into the worst thing possible, not an endorsement of the nazis).

While he could be convicted under the Communications Act another comedian showed the video as part of a live performance in London and there's not crime in that case. (Arguably there is no crime in the original case as the live performance in London was, in part, to demonstrate the obvious comedy aspect of the video).
In this case there it wasn't electronic communications that were the issue but terror offences, Hamas is a proscribed group so showing support for them on clothing is an issue whereas some lunatic would maybe be fine to wear a t-shirt supporting the murderer Raoul Moat.

What's odd here though is the simultaneous conviction but also the finding that they weren't supporting Hamas and then the lack of punishment.

 

[dowie]

The problem with the glider pictures is, while yes is distastful and they knew what they were doing, they were still prosecuted for it and received a 12-month conditional discharge so i dont know what you want? To hang them in prison as punishment?

Yeah, that's totally what I've called for.

Your previous post talked about funding of Hamas, you threw in some made-up quote and now I want them to be hung?

Why not go back and read what was said then respond to that.

 

[dowie]

Ahh yes the quote i quoted in the part about Hamas and paraglider girls. The part that doesnt have any direct quotes....

Nope, try again. It was directly questioned even. But more to the point; why not just address what I've said instead of throwing in nonsense about the funding of Hamas or that I want them hung etc..

 

[dowie]

I edited my post, the factual bit about what they were charged with and the consequences they received, yup made up.....

No one claimed you made that bit up nor has anyone objected to it.

Are you going to address the conundrum re: that guilty verdict and the finding that they weren't supporting Hamas?

Interestingly his LinkedIn page has now seemingly been taken down, totally normal behavior if that "like" was some sort of accident, nothing to hide, nothing to see here...

Also, the "consequences" they received (or relative lack of) are what is being objected too, you're not really adding much in response to that criticism by confirming that they did not receive a custodial sentence. Meanwhile Downing Street has referred this to the Attorney General:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1757898339255751059

Yup, there must be Twitter brain rot in Downing Street too...

 

[dowie]

Downing street is full of rot too or have you forgot about the last 4 years especially of ******* thats occured.

Lets not forget the fact that no-one in the Goverment has a spine to call for a ceasefire to the war crimes and genocide Israel is inflicting. The response has not been proportional to the terrorist act and Netanyahu who is a known right wing hardliner is blatently using this as his final solution to push all palestinians out of Gaza.

I guess that at least explains why you can't see anything wrong here and have somehow just accepted some sort of Schrodinger's Hamas support argument... along the lines of the paragliders do indicate support for Hamas as per the guilty verdict but they also weren't supporting Hamas...

 

[dowie]

There are "discussions" that are best left in the echo chambers of twitter and fb, and this is one of them..
Certain people refuses to use thoose platforms for this very reason..

God knows why the OP decided to bring this here rather than just liking, discussing it and sharing it on twitter.

God knows why the OP brought a discussion to a forum for general discussion? Yes, OCUK's GD forum, too high-brow for mere Twitter and Facebook discussions.

No one is making you read the thread so popping in twice to moan about the fact it even exists is rather silly, in fact you could just put me on ignore and you'd not see my threads at all. That you're still in here adding to the thread perhaps indicates that you're a bit mad about it and want to shut this sort of thing down, no one should object to wokeness right?

 

[dowie]

The fact is with these girls its not what you feel is right or beleive is the right punishment. It's whats prosecutable within the rules of law. They were rightly prosecuted for "arouse reasonable suspicion that they were supporting Hamas". There was however no CLEAR evidence they were actively encouraging Hamas support or their Hamas' actions. It's not what you feel it whats you can prove and prosecute within the boundries of the law.

Sure... and the CPS's response to the ruling should just be ignored too and Downing Street's request that the AG review this too...

Just double down on the Schrodinger's Hamas support argument. They maybe supported Hamas but they didn't support Hamas but they're guilty and have faced "consequences" but if you object to the consequences (or rather lack of) then...

 

[dowie]

again you use the word woke without explaining what you think it is and why you think the judge is "woke".... yes you are trying to make a point so spell it out!

I did reply to you with a specific tweet, did you not see that reply? What's the source of your confusion here - complete unfamiliarity with the term? Have you heard of the terms used in the tweet I highlighted?

Happy to clarify but you could perhaps engage with what was already presented to you and be a bit more specific here as a point has been laid out in the OP and some further clarification offered to you re: why there was a use of the term woke.

 

[dowie]

just ban dowie imo
culture wars bs has no place in the world, never mind on this forum, get out.

That seems to be the woke stance, just get mad that any of this stuff is even criticised and try to shut it down. If it makes you so angry perhaps just read other threads instead... no need for the authoritarian/commie stance re: wanting to shut down anything that might be a talking point you dislike.

 

[dowie]

or just stop wasting everyone's time with pointless arguing
tell someone who cares, basically.

Why are you in this thread then? Why not read some other thread - you simultaneously don't care but then you're throwing in a bunch of angry emojis and replying to the thread multiple times:

If you don't like the thread then read some other threads or log off and go punch the walls of your office/flat/house or whatever... If you're wasting time then that's entirely on you, now one is forcing you to reply to threads you don't like or opinions you don't like, exercise some self-control!

 

[dowie]

Would also like to know*. I dislike the word, and the fact people use it too often for things they don't like or attack someone for using it while completely missing the point. It's almost been been turned into a calling card for two tribes to identify which side they are on. It's getting silly.

*having given my understanding freely earlier in the thread.

Your understanding is correct, the reason for it is also mentioned in the OP too.

 

[dowie]

First line I take as your definition of woke?

I'm not quite there in terms of outright dismissing those things though. There's a lot of nuance, and improvements that can be made, it's the authoritarian aspect to the mindset I have concerns about.

Presumably, you disagree with the emphasis on group identity above the individual? Unfortunately, wokeness is creeping into various areas of public life:

Bench Book refresh: racism chapter 'tighter and full of practical guidance'

Judiciary declines to confirm if revised version will contain 'problematic' sentences brought to bench book editors' attention.

www.lawgazette.co.uk

Quinn and Monteith approached nine leading race experts for their thoughts before writing to the editors.

Professor Anton Emmanuel, head of the NHS Workforce Race Equality Standard, said the wording of the two sections 'is delivered with the implication that there is such a thing as a common view held by the majority of individuals of any particular social group, including those of a particular racial group. The implication that there are racially-underpinned beliefs fails to grasp the individuality of opinion and offers validity to the notion that such assumed common views exist. This is a prejudiced concept.'

Dr Shabna Begum, interim co-chief executive of The Runnymede Trust, said the statements ‘whilst purporting to assist the reader to think beyond stereotypes, operate to do the exact opposite by endorsing the premise of shared group characteristics’.

Is a victory for freedom of speech in sight? | Josephine Bartosch | The Critic Magazine

It wasn’t holocaust denial or support for Isis that led to Maya Forstater pleading her case at an Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT); it was her insistence that there are two sexes of human being and…

thecritic.co.uk

As noted by EHRC, the original ET ruling “spent two pages addressing the disadvantages experienced by transpeople” and “three pages on the protections the law provides to transpeople against discrimination”. The inference here is clear, the ET indulged in a value judgement about the validity Forstater’s beliefs, rather than addressing her right to hold them. As noted by Rozenberg, “It is surprising and worrying that the tribunal saw it as its role to dissect beliefs in this way and to dictate what is or is not an acceptable basis for a belief; and it shows just how far off the rails the tribunal went.”

One suspects that today Judge James Tayler will be feeling somewhat judged. In the two years since he passed judgement things have changed; the illogical and petulant demands of trans activists are being challenged.
[...]
From the Equal Treatment Bench Book (the guidance to which judges refer) to the Ministry of Justice’s membership of the Stonewall Champions Scheme, transgender ideology has permeated the judiciary. But slowly, as cases are put before the higher courts, much needed light and scrutiny is being shone on policies made in the dark.

 

[dowie]

@dowie, you point to the OP, is this your definition of woke?

Or is there another definition that deem 'woke' to be?

Just want to make sure we know exactly where you coming from because as @Fubsy says, 'woke' gets thrown around a lot by folk who struggle to define exactly what they mean by it.

Fusby had it right as I said already, the reason for questioning whether the judge was woke was in the part of the post I already highlighted previously - see the bit re: wokeness.