Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It does sound a bit confusing, there's bound to be a backlash.." I think there should be, reading some more from other news channels, it appears one of the woman found guilty of terrorism offences in this case, was a refugee from Gaza, who left because her family were critical of Hamas. There are also other reports that I can smell a rat, but if the above is true, what is going on this country? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It does sound a bit confusing, there's bound to be a backlash.. I think there should be, reading some more from other news channels, it appears one of the woman found guilty of terrorism offences in this case, was a refugee from Gaza, who left because her family were critical of Hamas. There are also other reports that I can smell a rat, but if the above is true, what is going on this country?" What sort of backlash should there be? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It does sound a bit confusing, there's bound to be a backlash.. I think there should be, reading some more from other news channels, it appears one of the woman found guilty of terrorism offences in this case, was a refugee from Gaza, who left because her family were critical of Hamas. There are also other reports that I can smell a rat, but if the above is true, what is going on this country? What sort of backlash should there be? " You tell me Sherlock, anything you are not happy with? Or is everything acceptable to you? Try not to go down your racist rabbit hole, it might help… | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It does sound a bit confusing, there's bound to be a backlash.. I think there should be, reading some more from other news channels, it appears one of the woman found guilty of terrorism offences in this case, was a refugee from Gaza, who left because her family were critical of Hamas. There are also other reports that I can smell a rat, but if the above is true, what is going on this country? What sort of backlash should there be? " none as the judge made his decision and that should be end of it | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It does sound a bit confusing, there's bound to be a backlash.. I think there should be, reading some more from other news channels, it appears one of the woman found guilty of terrorism offences in this case, was a refugee from Gaza, who left because her family were critical of Hamas. There are also other reports that I can smell a rat, but if the above is true, what is going on this country? What sort of backlash should there be? none as the judge made his decision and that should be end of it" Happy that he found them guilty and summed up as he did? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It does sound a bit confusing, there's bound to be a backlash.. I think there should be, reading some more from other news channels, it appears one of the woman found guilty of terrorism offences in this case, was a refugee from Gaza, who left because her family were critical of Hamas. There are also other reports that I can smell a rat, but if the above is true, what is going on this country? What sort of backlash should there be? You tell me Sherlock, anything you are not happy with? Or is everything acceptable to you? Try not to go down your racist rabbit hole, it might help… " You’re the one who said there should be backlash, why are you asking me to specify what it should be? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It does sound a bit confusing, there's bound to be a backlash.. I think there should be, reading some more from other news channels, it appears one of the woman found guilty of terrorism offences in this case, was a refugee from Gaza, who left because her family were critical of Hamas. There are also other reports that I can smell a rat, but if the above is true, what is going on this country? What sort of backlash should there be? none as the judge made his decision and that should be end of it" Tend to agree. Else what’s the point of a judiciary? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It does sound a bit confusing, there's bound to be a backlash.. I think there should be, reading some more from other news channels, it appears one of the woman found guilty of terrorism offences in this case, was a refugee from Gaza, who left because her family were critical of Hamas. There are also other reports that I can smell a rat, but if the above is true, what is going on this country? What sort of backlash should there be? none as the judge made his decision and that should be end of it Happy that he found them guilty and summed up as he did?" He said clearly there is no evidence that they support hamas,so yes im happy with decision | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I know it's a controversial decision by the judge but it's one that I actually agree with )if the three were of good character and no previous run ins with the law). Yes, what they did crossed a line and caused deep hurt and upset but so did Harry when he went out dressed as a Nazi and (arguably) English football fans turning up to the Qatar world cup dressed as crusaders. The ladies punishment may be seen as a slap on the wrist (maybe a fine or community order may have been warranted) but I'm sure that having their names and faces in the news and on the record will affect their future prospects. I think that jail would be disproportionate."  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Would a picture on a jacket depicting the prophet munching a bag of pork scratchings be an offence. " Did the prophet commit acts of terror munching a bag of pork scratchings, 7 days after people were wearing that symbol?i If that happened what would be your thoughts? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It does sound a bit confusing, there's bound to be a backlash.. I think there should be, reading some more from other news channels, it appears one of the woman found guilty of terrorism offences in this case, was a refugee from Gaza, who left because her family were critical of Hamas. There are also other reports that I can smell a rat, but if the above is true, what is going on this country? What sort of backlash should there be? none as the judge made his decision and that should be end of it Happy that he found them guilty and summed up as he did? He said clearly there is no evidence that they support hamas,so yes im happy with decision" Why were they found guilty of terrorism offences and given a suspended sentence? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It does sound a bit confusing, there's bound to be a backlash.. I think there should be, reading some more from other news channels, it appears one of the woman found guilty of terrorism offences in this case, was a refugee from Gaza, who left because her family were critical of Hamas. There are also other reports that I can smell a rat, but if the above is true, what is going on this country? What sort of backlash should there be? You tell me Sherlock, anything you are not happy with? Or is everything acceptable to you? Try not to go down your racist rabbit hole, it might help… You’re the one who said there should be backlash, why are you asking me to specify what it should be? " I was agreeing with another there should be, you seem to not be able to understand why though, which is fine, and I have also come to terms with the fact you will be unlikely to add anything further that would clarify your position | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It does sound a bit confusing, there's bound to be a backlash.. I think there should be, reading some more from other news channels, it appears one of the woman found guilty of terrorism offences in this case, was a refugee from Gaza, who left because her family were critical of Hamas. There are also other reports that I can smell a rat, but if the above is true, what is going on this country? What sort of backlash should there be? You tell me Sherlock, anything you are not happy with? Or is everything acceptable to you? Try not to go down your racist rabbit hole, it might help… You’re the one who said there should be backlash, why are you asking me to specify what it should be? I was agreeing with another there should be, you seem to not be able to understand why though, which is fine, and I have also come to terms with the fact you will be unlikely to add anything further that would clarify your position " The OP said there’s bound to be backlash (they didn’t pass judgment on whether that was right or wrong) You, however said ‘there should be’ - I simply asked what you thought the backlash should be, exactly. And yet you want to turn this on to me. Bizarre. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It does seem a bit odd they were actually charged with terror for wearing an image, albeit one that was used in the barbarous attack by Hamas.. Does that mean a tee shirt with an AK 47 on it is also terrorism .. They were out of order in wearing them but perhaps a public order type of charge might have been more appropriate.." I wouldn’t have thought so, but if a person wore a t-shirt with something that was specifically used in an attack such as 9-11? To add, it was recorded the stickers would have been associated to the terrorists attack, this is why I’m questioning, why find them guilty and then let them off and say you wasn’t supporting? Shocking turn of events | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It does sound a bit confusing, there's bound to be a backlash.. I think there should be, reading some more from other news channels, it appears one of the woman found guilty of terrorism offences in this case, was a refugee from Gaza, who left because her family were critical of Hamas. There are also other reports that I can smell a rat, but if the above is true, what is going on this country? What sort of backlash should there be? You tell me Sherlock, anything you are not happy with? Or is everything acceptable to you? Try not to go down your racist rabbit hole, it might help… You’re the one who said there should be backlash, why are you asking me to specify what it should be? I was agreeing with another there should be, you seem to not be able to understand why though, which is fine, and I have also come to terms with the fact you will be unlikely to add anything further that would clarify your position The OP said there’s bound to be backlash (they didn’t pass judgment on whether that was right or wrong) You, however said ‘there should be’ - I simply asked what you thought the backlash should be, exactly. And yet you want to turn this on to me. Bizarre. " Do you think the person who was responsible to oversee and pass judgement did so properly? No questions to be asked in the summing or verdict, which are contradictory? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It does sound a bit confusing, there's bound to be a backlash.. I think there should be, reading some more from other news channels, it appears one of the woman found guilty of terrorism offences in this case, was a refugee from Gaza, who left because her family were critical of Hamas. There are also other reports that I can smell a rat, but if the above is true, what is going on this country? What sort of backlash should there be? none as the judge made his decision and that should be end of it Happy that he found them guilty and summed up as he did? He said clearly there is no evidence that they support hamas,so yes im happy with decision Why were they found guilty of terrorism offences and given a suspended sentence? " You would have to ask the judge that | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think that you are guilty if wear something that arouses reasonable suspicion of supporting a terrorist group. Which they did. Rather than the meeting of the higher bar if showing that you are a supporter. Which looks unproven. " From the verdict : ref the stickers / symbols being displayed being connected to Hamas attacks. A reasonable person would have seen and read that. I do not find a reasonable person would interpret the image merely as a symbol of freedom | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It does sound a bit confusing, there's bound to be a backlash.. I think there should be, reading some more from other news channels, it appears one of the woman found guilty of terrorism offences in this case, was a refugee from Gaza, who left because her family were critical of Hamas. There are also other reports that I can smell a rat, but if the above is true, what is going on this country? What sort of backlash should there be? You tell me Sherlock, anything you are not happy with? Or is everything acceptable to you? Try not to go down your racist rabbit hole, it might help… You’re the one who said there should be backlash, why are you asking me to specify what it should be? I was agreeing with another there should be, you seem to not be able to understand why though, which is fine, and I have also come to terms with the fact you will be unlikely to add anything further that would clarify your position The OP said there’s bound to be backlash (they didn’t pass judgment on whether that was right or wrong) You, however said ‘there should be’ - I simply asked what you thought the backlash should be, exactly. And yet you want to turn this on to me. Bizarre. Do you think the person who was responsible to oversee and pass judgement did so properly? No questions to be asked in the summing or verdict, which are contradictory? " I wasn’t privy to the case. These things are generally dealt with without custodial sentencing so I don’t see a particularly huge issue with a conditional discharge here. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It does sound a bit confusing, there's bound to be a backlash.. I think there should be, reading some more from other news channels, it appears one of the woman found guilty of terrorism offences in this case, was a refugee from Gaza, who left because her family were critical of Hamas. There are also other reports that I can smell a rat, but if the above is true, what is going on this country? What sort of backlash should there be? You tell me Sherlock, anything you are not happy with? Or is everything acceptable to you? Try not to go down your racist rabbit hole, it might help… You’re the one who said there should be backlash, why are you asking me to specify what it should be? I was agreeing with another there should be, you seem to not be able to understand why though, which is fine, and I have also come to terms with the fact you will be unlikely to add anything further that would clarify your position The OP said there’s bound to be backlash (they didn’t pass judgment on whether that was right or wrong) You, however said ‘there should be’ - I simply asked what you thought the backlash should be, exactly. And yet you want to turn this on to me. Bizarre. Do you think the person who was responsible to oversee and pass judgement did so properly? No questions to be asked in the summing or verdict, which are contradictory? I wasn’t privy to the case. These things are generally dealt with without custodial sentencing so I don’t see a particularly huge issue with a conditional discharge here. " As I said, I have become accustomed to you being unable to discuss. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It does seem a bit odd they were actually charged with terror for wearing an image, albeit one that was used in the barbarous attack by Hamas.. Does that mean a tee shirt with an AK 47 on it is also terrorism .. They were out of order in wearing them but perhaps a public order type of charge might have been more appropriate.. I wouldn’t have thought so, but if a person wore a t-shirt with something that was specifically used in an attack such as 9-11? To add, it was recorded the stickers would have been associated to the terrorists attack, this is why I’m questioning, why find them guilty and then let them off and say you wasn’t supporting? Shocking turn of events" So are you saying anyone wearing an offensive tshirt should be jailed ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It does sound a bit confusing, there's bound to be a backlash.. I think there should be, reading some more from other news channels, it appears one of the woman found guilty of terrorism offences in this case, was a refugee from Gaza, who left because her family were critical of Hamas. There are also other reports that I can smell a rat, but if the above is true, what is going on this country? What sort of backlash should there be? You tell me Sherlock, anything you are not happy with? Or is everything acceptable to you? Try not to go down your racist rabbit hole, it might help… You’re the one who said there should be backlash, why are you asking me to specify what it should be? I was agreeing with another there should be, you seem to not be able to understand why though, which is fine, and I have also come to terms with the fact you will be unlikely to add anything further that would clarify your position The OP said there’s bound to be backlash (they didn’t pass judgment on whether that was right or wrong) You, however said ‘there should be’ - I simply asked what you thought the backlash should be, exactly. And yet you want to turn this on to me. Bizarre. Do you think the person who was responsible to oversee and pass judgement did so properly? No questions to be asked in the summing or verdict, which are contradictory? I wasn’t privy to the case. These things are generally dealt with without custodial sentencing so I don’t see a particularly huge issue with a conditional discharge here. As I said, I have become accustomed to you being unable to discuss." I’m discussing now. And you still haven’t explained exactly what backlash there should be. Which one of us is avoiding discussion, exactly? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They were guilty, they were found guilty and given a 12 month conditional discharge by the Court, Deputy Senior District Judge Tan Ikram, but he went on to sum it up like that? How can he keep that position and how can being found guilty of a terrorism offence be dealt with so lightly?" The offence they were prosecuted for was 'displaying an article in such a way as to arouse reasonable suspicion that they were a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation, contrary to section 13(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000'. The offence wasn't supporting Hamas (that's a section 12 offence), it was giving the appearance that they supported Hamas (section 13). The judge has made it clear that he does not believe that they were actually supporting Hamas, and therefore they haven't been prosecuted for any of the more serious terrorism offences. But they were guilty of appearing to support Hamas, for which they gave been given a light sentence. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think that you are guilty if wear something that arouses reasonable suspicion of supporting a terrorist group. Which they did. Rather than the meeting of the higher bar if showing that you are a supporter. Which looks unproven. From the verdict : ref the stickers / symbols being displayed being connected to Hamas attacks. A reasonable person would have seen and read that. I do not find a reasonable person would interpret the image merely as a symbol of freedom" nor did the judge. Hence they were found guilty of that. That doesn't mean they are supporters. Just that a reasonable person may suspect they are. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It does seem a bit odd they were actually charged with terror for wearing an image, albeit one that was used in the barbarous attack by Hamas.. Does that mean a tee shirt with an AK 47 on it is also terrorism .. They were out of order in wearing them but perhaps a public order type of charge might have been more appropriate.. I wouldn’t have thought so, but if a person wore a t-shirt with something that was specifically used in an attack such as 9-11? To add, it was recorded the stickers would have been associated to the terrorists attack, this is why I’m questioning, why find them guilty and then let them off and say you wasn’t supporting? Shocking turn of events" I'm a bit confused also by the judgement, it does sound like they've been found guilty of a pretty high level charge yet the sanction is a slap on the wrist.. I looked online and there's literally dozens of tee shirts with Ak's and the terrorists on the day used Ak's so does one now have to accept that as that weapon is one readily available and favoured by terrorists globally that if you wear that type of tee shirt then beware..? Or was it down to the three people being on that march a week after the event that was the issue.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"3 woman celebrated Hamas attacks at a pro Palestinian march in London by attaching images of paragliders to their backs seven days after Hamas militants used paragliders to enter Israel in October. They were found guilty of terrorism offences, but strangest of things seems to have happened, that puzzles me! From the BBC: Convicting them at Westminster Magistrates' Court, Deputy Senior District Judge Tan Ikram said: "Seven days earlier, Hamas went into Israel with what was described by the media as paragliders. A reasonable person would have seen and read that. I do not find a reasonable person would interpret the image merely as a symbol of freedom (lawyers argued they were symbols of peace) So far so good. Mr Ikram, delivering his verdict, said: "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." He said he had "decided not to punish" the defendants, and handed the trio each a 12-month conditional discharge. You crossed the line, but it would have been fair to say that emotions ran very high on this issue," Mr Ikram said. Your lesson has been well learned. I do not find you were seeking to show any support for Hamas. They were guilty, they were found guilty and given a 12 month conditional discharge by the Court, Deputy Senior District Judge Tan Ikram, but he went on to sum it up like that? How can he keep that position and how can being found guilty of a terrorism offence be dealt with so lightly? I can’t understand how this will pass unchallenged." I would say the majority of the people at these pro Palestine protests have not got a clue why they are there. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"3 woman celebrated Hamas attacks at a pro Palestinian march in London by attaching images of paragliders to their backs seven days after Hamas militants used paragliders to enter Israel in October. They were found guilty of terrorism offences, but strangest of things seems to have happened, that puzzles me! From the BBC: Convicting them at Westminster Magistrates' Court, Deputy Senior District Judge Tan Ikram said: "Seven days earlier, Hamas went into Israel with what was described by the media as paragliders. A reasonable person would have seen and read that. I do not find a reasonable person would interpret the image merely as a symbol of freedom (lawyers argued they were symbols of peace) So far so good. Mr Ikram, delivering his verdict, said: "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." He said he had "decided not to punish" the defendants, and handed the trio each a 12-month conditional discharge. You crossed the line, but it would have been fair to say that emotions ran very high on this issue," Mr Ikram said. Your lesson has been well learned. I do not find you were seeking to show any support for Hamas. They were guilty, they were found guilty and given a 12 month conditional discharge by the Court, Deputy Senior District Judge Tan Ikram, but he went on to sum it up like that? How can he keep that position and how can being found guilty of a terrorism offence be dealt with so lightly? I can’t understand how this will pass unchallenged. I would say the majority of the people at these pro Palestine protests have not got a clue why they are there." They want to stop the genocide. Something you're incapable to understand unless the people on the receiving end are considered human beings in your book. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"3 woman celebrated Hamas attacks at a pro Palestinian march in London by attaching images of paragliders to their backs seven days after Hamas militants used paragliders to enter Israel in October. They were found guilty of terrorism offences, but strangest of things seems to have happened, that puzzles me! From the BBC: Convicting them at Westminster Magistrates' Court, Deputy Senior District Judge Tan Ikram said: "Seven days earlier, Hamas went into Israel with what was described by the media as paragliders. A reasonable person would have seen and read that. I do not find a reasonable person would interpret the image merely as a symbol of freedom (lawyers argued they were symbols of peace) So far so good. Mr Ikram, delivering his verdict, said: "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." He said he had "decided not to punish" the defendants, and handed the trio each a 12-month conditional discharge. You crossed the line, but it would have been fair to say that emotions ran very high on this issue," Mr Ikram said. Your lesson has been well learned. I do not find you were seeking to show any support for Hamas. They were guilty, they were found guilty and given a 12 month conditional discharge by the Court, Deputy Senior District Judge Tan Ikram, but he went on to sum it up like that? How can he keep that position and how can being found guilty of a terrorism offence be dealt with so lightly? I can’t understand how this will pass unchallenged. I would say the majority of the people at these pro Palestine protests have not got a clue why they are there. They want to stop the genocide. Something you're incapable to understand unless the people on the receiving end are considered human beings in your book. " Should Hamas return the hostages. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"3 woman celebrated Hamas attacks at a pro Palestinian march in London by attaching images of paragliders to their backs seven days after Hamas militants used paragliders to enter Israel in October. They were found guilty of terrorism offences, but strangest of things seems to have happened, that puzzles me! From the BBC: Convicting them at Westminster Magistrates' Court, Deputy Senior District Judge Tan Ikram said: "Seven days earlier, Hamas went into Israel with what was described by the media as paragliders. A reasonable person would have seen and read that. I do not find a reasonable person would interpret the image merely as a symbol of freedom (lawyers argued they were symbols of peace) So far so good. Mr Ikram, delivering his verdict, said: "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." He said he had "decided not to punish" the defendants, and handed the trio each a 12-month conditional discharge. You crossed the line, but it would have been fair to say that emotions ran very high on this issue," Mr Ikram said. Your lesson has been well learned. I do not find you were seeking to show any support for Hamas. They were guilty, they were found guilty and given a 12 month conditional discharge by the Court, Deputy Senior District Judge Tan Ikram, but he went on to sum it up like that? How can he keep that position and how can being found guilty of a terrorism offence be dealt with so lightly? I can’t understand how this will pass unchallenged. I would say the majority of the people at these pro Palestine protests have not got a clue why they are there. They want to stop the genocide. Something you're incapable to understand unless the people on the receiving end are considered human beings in your book. " Bit of a history rewrite there isn't it? The Hamas attack took place on the 7th October. The offences took place on the 14th October. Those offences were specifically related to the pictorial celebration of the terrorists using paragliders. The Israeli offensive began on the 27th October. The offences were therefore linked to the celebration of the tactics and outcomes of the 7th October by virtue of what they graphically portrayed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They were guilty, they were found guilty and given a 12 month conditional discharge by the Court, Deputy Senior District Judge Tan Ikram, but he went on to sum it up like that? How can he keep that position and how can being found guilty of a terrorism offence be dealt with so lightly? The offence they were prosecuted for was 'displaying an article in such a way as to arouse reasonable suspicion that they were a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation, contrary to section 13(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000'. The offence wasn't supporting Hamas (that's a section 12 offence), it was giving the appearance that they supported Hamas (section 13). The judge has made it clear that he does not believe that they were actually supporting Hamas, and therefore they haven't been prosecuted for any of the more serious terrorism offences. But they were guilty of appearing to support Hamas, for which they gave been given a light sentence." I think all but the apologists for their actions can clearly see they were supporting hamas. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"3 woman celebrated Hamas attacks at a pro Palestinian march in London by attaching images of paragliders to their backs seven days after Hamas militants used paragliders to enter Israel in October. They were found guilty of terrorism offences, but strangest of things seems to have happened, that puzzles me! From the BBC: Convicting them at Westminster Magistrates' Court, Deputy Senior District Judge Tan Ikram said: "Seven days earlier, Hamas went into Israel with what was described by the media as paragliders. A reasonable person would have seen and read that. I do not find a reasonable person would interpret the image merely as a symbol of freedom (lawyers argued they were symbols of peace) So far so good. Mr Ikram, delivering his verdict, said: "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." He said he had "decided not to punish" the defendants, and handed the trio each a 12-month conditional discharge. You crossed the line, but it would have been fair to say that emotions ran very high on this issue," Mr Ikram said. Your lesson has been well learned. I do not find you were seeking to show any support for Hamas. They were guilty, they were found guilty and given a 12 month conditional discharge by the Court, Deputy Senior District Judge Tan Ikram, but he went on to sum it up like that? How can he keep that position and how can being found guilty of a terrorism offence be dealt with so lightly? I can’t understand how this will pass unchallenged. I would say the majority of the people at these pro Palestine protests have not got a clue why they are there. They want to stop the genocide. Something you're incapable to understand unless the people on the receiving end are considered human beings in your book. Bit of a history rewrite there isn't it? The Hamas attack took place on the 7th October. The offences took place on the 14th October. Those offences were specifically related to the pictorial celebration of the terrorists using paragliders. The Israeli offensive began on the 27th October. The offences were therefore linked to the celebration of the tactics and outcomes of the 7th October by virtue of what they graphically portrayed." I would respond about what happened on the 7th of Octobre if I were in a country that allows free speech without being charged of terrorism for it. There is plenty footage and Israeli witnesses that show Israeli Army did most of the civilian killing on the 7th of October. Those territories are internationally recognised Palestinian land. Don't take other people houses by force and kik them and when they try to get it back you cry victim then justify murdering babies. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They were guilty, they were found guilty and given a 12 month conditional discharge by the Court, Deputy Senior District Judge Tan Ikram, but he went on to sum it up like that? How can he keep that position and how can being found guilty of a terrorism offence be dealt with so lightly?" "The offence they were prosecuted for was 'displaying an article in such a way as to arouse reasonable suspicion that they were a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation, contrary to section 13(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000'. The offence wasn't supporting Hamas (that's a section 12 offence), it was giving the appearance that they supported Hamas (section 13). The judge has made it clear that he does not believe that they were actually supporting Hamas, and therefore they haven't been prosecuted for any of the more serious terrorism offences. But they were guilty of appearing to support Hamas, for which they gave been given a light sentence." "I think all but the apologists for their actions can clearly see they were supporting hamas." I meant - the judge has made it clear that their conduct does not amount to 'support' of Hamas, using the definition of 'support' given in section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000. I think it's pretty clear that their actions were supporting Hamas in the normal English language sense of the word. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"3 woman celebrated Hamas attacks at a pro Palestinian march in London by attaching images of paragliders to their backs seven days after Hamas militants used paragliders to enter Israel in October. They were found guilty of terrorism offences, but strangest of things seems to have happened, that puzzles me! From the BBC: Convicting them at Westminster Magistrates' Court, Deputy Senior District Judge Tan Ikram said: "Seven days earlier, Hamas went into Israel with what was described by the media as paragliders. A reasonable person would have seen and read that. I do not find a reasonable person would interpret the image merely as a symbol of freedom (lawyers argued they were symbols of peace) So far so good. Mr Ikram, delivering his verdict, said: "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." He said he had "decided not to punish" the defendants, and handed the trio each a 12-month conditional discharge. You crossed the line, but it would have been fair to say that emotions ran very high on this issue," Mr Ikram said. Your lesson has been well learned. I do not find you were seeking to show any support for Hamas. They were guilty, they were found guilty and given a 12 month conditional discharge by the Court, Deputy Senior District Judge Tan Ikram, but he went on to sum it up like that? How can he keep that position and how can being found guilty of a terrorism offence be dealt with so lightly? I can’t understand how this will pass unchallenged. I would say the majority of the people at these pro Palestine protests have not got a clue why they are there. They want to stop the genocide. Something you're incapable to understand unless the people on the receiving end are considered human beings in your book. Bit of a history rewrite there isn't it? The Hamas attack took place on the 7th October. The offences took place on the 14th October. Those offences were specifically related to the pictorial celebration of the terrorists using paragliders. The Israeli offensive began on the 27th October. The offences were therefore linked to the celebration of the tactics and outcomes of the 7th October by virtue of what they graphically portrayed. I would respond about what happened on the 7th of Octobre if I were in a country that allows free speech without being charged of terrorism for it. There is plenty footage and Israeli witnesses that show Israeli Army did most of the civilian killing on the 7th of October. Those territories are internationally recognised Palestinian land. Don't take other people houses by force and kik them and when they try to get it back you cry victim then justify murdering babies. " The Israeli Army did most of the killing on 7th October?????? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"3 woman celebrated Hamas attacks at a pro Palestinian march in London by attaching images of paragliders to their backs seven days after Hamas militants used paragliders to enter Israel in October. They were found guilty of terrorism offences, but strangest of things seems to have happened, that puzzles me! From the BBC: Convicting them at Westminster Magistrates' Court, Deputy Senior District Judge Tan Ikram said: "Seven days earlier, Hamas went into Israel with what was described by the media as paragliders. A reasonable person would have seen and read that. I do not find a reasonable person would interpret the image merely as a symbol of freedom (lawyers argued they were symbols of peace) So far so good. Mr Ikram, delivering his verdict, said: "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." He said he had "decided not to punish" the defendants, and handed the trio each a 12-month conditional discharge. You crossed the line, but it would have been fair to say that emotions ran very high on this issue," Mr Ikram said. Your lesson has been well learned. I do not find you were seeking to show any support for Hamas. They were guilty, they were found guilty and given a 12 month conditional discharge by the Court, Deputy Senior District Judge Tan Ikram, but he went on to sum it up like that? How can he keep that position and how can being found guilty of a terrorism offence be dealt with so lightly? I can’t understand how this will pass unchallenged. I would say the majority of the people at these pro Palestine protests have not got a clue why they are there. They want to stop the genocide. Something you're incapable to understand unless the people on the receiving end are considered human beings in your book. Bit of a history rewrite there isn't it? The Hamas attack took place on the 7th October. The offences took place on the 14th October. Those offences were specifically related to the pictorial celebration of the terrorists using paragliders. The Israeli offensive began on the 27th October. The offences were therefore linked to the celebration of the tactics and outcomes of the 7th October by virtue of what they graphically portrayed. I would respond about what happened on the 7th of Octobre if I were in a country that allows free speech without being charged of terrorism for it. There is plenty footage and Israeli witnesses that show Israeli Army did most of the civilian killing on the 7th of October. Those territories are internationally recognised Palestinian land. Don't take other people houses by force and kik them and when they try to get it back you cry victim then justify murdering babies. The Israeli Army did most of the killing on 7th October?????? " Yes, even the Israeli Media is saying that. Get out of the Murdoch Propaganda box, to know what's really happening there | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"3 woman celebrated Hamas attacks at a pro Palestinian march in London by attaching images of paragliders to their backs seven days after Hamas militants used paragliders to enter Israel in October. They were found guilty of terrorism offences, but strangest of things seems to have happened, that puzzles me! From the BBC: Convicting them at Westminster Magistrates' Court, Deputy Senior District Judge Tan Ikram said: "Seven days earlier, Hamas went into Israel with what was described by the media as paragliders. A reasonable person would have seen and read that. I do not find a reasonable person would interpret the image merely as a symbol of freedom (lawyers argued they were symbols of peace) So far so good. Mr Ikram, delivering his verdict, said: "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." He said he had "decided not to punish" the defendants, and handed the trio each a 12-month conditional discharge. You crossed the line, but it would have been fair to say that emotions ran very high on this issue," Mr Ikram said. Your lesson has been well learned. I do not find you were seeking to show any support for Hamas. They were guilty, they were found guilty and given a 12 month conditional discharge by the Court, Deputy Senior District Judge Tan Ikram, but he went on to sum it up like that? How can he keep that position and how can being found guilty of a terrorism offence be dealt with so lightly? I can’t understand how this will pass unchallenged. I would say the majority of the people at these pro Palestine protests have not got a clue why they are there. They want to stop the genocide. Something you're incapable to understand unless the people on the receiving end are considered human beings in your book. Bit of a history rewrite there isn't it? The Hamas attack took place on the 7th October. The offences took place on the 14th October. Those offences were specifically related to the pictorial celebration of the terrorists using paragliders. The Israeli offensive began on the 27th October. The offences were therefore linked to the celebration of the tactics and outcomes of the 7th October by virtue of what they graphically portrayed. I would respond about what happened on the 7th of Octobre if I were in a country that allows free speech without being charged of terrorism for it. There is plenty footage and Israeli witnesses that show Israeli Army did most of the civilian killing on the 7th of October. Those territories are internationally recognised Palestinian land. Don't take other people houses by force and kik them and when they try to get it back you cry victim then justify murdering babies. The Israeli Army did most of the killing on 7th October?????? Yes, even the Israeli Media is saying that. Get out of the Murdoch Propaganda box, to know what's really happening there" Source? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"3 woman celebrated Hamas attacks at a pro Palestinian march in London by attaching images of paragliders to their backs seven days after Hamas militants used paragliders to enter Israel in October. They were found guilty of terrorism offences, but strangest of things seems to have happened, that puzzles me! From the BBC: Convicting them at Westminster Magistrates' Court, Deputy Senior District Judge Tan Ikram said: "Seven days earlier, Hamas went into Israel with what was described by the media as paragliders. A reasonable person would have seen and read that. I do not find a reasonable person would interpret the image merely as a symbol of freedom (lawyers argued they were symbols of peace) So far so good. Mr Ikram, delivering his verdict, said: "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." He said he had "decided not to punish" the defendants, and handed the trio each a 12-month conditional discharge. You crossed the line, but it would have been fair to say that emotions ran very high on this issue," Mr Ikram said. Your lesson has been well learned. I do not find you were seeking to show any support for Hamas. They were guilty, they were found guilty and given a 12 month conditional discharge by the Court, Deputy Senior District Judge Tan Ikram, but he went on to sum it up like that? How can he keep that position and how can being found guilty of a terrorism offence be dealt with so lightly? I can’t understand how this will pass unchallenged. I would say the majority of the people at these pro Palestine protests have not got a clue why they are there. They want to stop the genocide. Something you're incapable to understand unless the people on the receiving end are considered human beings in your book. Bit of a history rewrite there isn't it? The Hamas attack took place on the 7th October. The offences took place on the 14th October. Those offences were specifically related to the pictorial celebration of the terrorists using paragliders. The Israeli offensive began on the 27th October. The offences were therefore linked to the celebration of the tactics and outcomes of the 7th October by virtue of what they graphically portrayed. I would respond about what happened on the 7th of Octobre if I were in a country that allows free speech without being charged of terrorism for it. There is plenty footage and Israeli witnesses that show Israeli Army did most of the civilian killing on the 7th of October. Those territories are internationally recognised Palestinian land. Don't take other people houses by force and kik them and when they try to get it back you cry victim then justify murdering babies. The Israeli Army did most of the killing on 7th October?????? Yes, even the Israeli Media is saying that. Get out of the Murdoch Propaganda box, to know what's really happening there Source?" Videos of witnesses (Israeli survivors of 7th october) are all over Youtube. Footage of Israeli Taks shelling Israeli Houses on the 7th of October are all over the net. Search tool is your friend. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"3 woman celebrated Hamas attacks at a pro Palestinian march in London by attaching images of paragliders to their backs seven days after Hamas militants used paragliders to enter Israel in October. They were found guilty of terrorism offences, but strangest of things seems to have happened, that puzzles me! From the BBC: Convicting them at Westminster Magistrates' Court, Deputy Senior District Judge Tan Ikram said: "Seven days earlier, Hamas went into Israel with what was described by the media as paragliders. A reasonable person would have seen and read that. I do not find a reasonable person would interpret the image merely as a symbol of freedom (lawyers argued they were symbols of peace) So far so good. Mr Ikram, delivering his verdict, said: "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." He said he had "decided not to punish" the defendants, and handed the trio each a 12-month conditional discharge. You crossed the line, but it would have been fair to say that emotions ran very high on this issue," Mr Ikram said. Your lesson has been well learned. I do not find you were seeking to show any support for Hamas. They were guilty, they were found guilty and given a 12 month conditional discharge by the Court, Deputy Senior District Judge Tan Ikram, but he went on to sum it up like that? How can he keep that position and how can being found guilty of a terrorism offence be dealt with so lightly? I can’t understand how this will pass unchallenged. I would say the majority of the people at these pro Palestine protests have not got a clue why they are there. They want to stop the genocide. Something you're incapable to understand unless the people on the receiving end are considered human beings in your book. Bit of a history rewrite there isn't it? The Hamas attack took place on the 7th October. The offences took place on the 14th October. Those offences were specifically related to the pictorial celebration of the terrorists using paragliders. The Israeli offensive began on the 27th October. The offences were therefore linked to the celebration of the tactics and outcomes of the 7th October by virtue of what they graphically portrayed. I would respond about what happened on the 7th of Octobre if I were in a country that allows free speech without being charged of terrorism for it. There is plenty footage and Israeli witnesses that show Israeli Army did most of the civilian killing on the 7th of October. Those territories are internationally recognised Palestinian land. Don't take other people houses by force and kik them and when they try to get it back you cry victim then justify murdering babies. The Israeli Army did most of the killing on 7th October?????? Yes, even the Israeli Media is saying that. Get out of the Murdoch Propaganda box, to know what's really happening there" And what's really happening? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"3 woman celebrated Hamas attacks at a pro Palestinian march in London by attaching images of paragliders to their backs seven days after Hamas militants used paragliders to enter Israel in October. They were found guilty of terrorism offences, but strangest of things seems to have happened, that puzzles me! From the BBC: Convicting them at Westminster Magistrates' Court, Deputy Senior District Judge Tan Ikram said: "Seven days earlier, Hamas went into Israel with what was described by the media as paragliders. A reasonable person would have seen and read that. I do not find a reasonable person would interpret the image merely as a symbol of freedom (lawyers argued they were symbols of peace) So far so good. Mr Ikram, delivering his verdict, said: "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." He said he had "decided not to punish" the defendants, and handed the trio each a 12-month conditional discharge. You crossed the line, but it would have been fair to say that emotions ran very high on this issue," Mr Ikram said. Your lesson has been well learned. I do not find you were seeking to show any support for Hamas. They were guilty, they were found guilty and given a 12 month conditional discharge by the Court, Deputy Senior District Judge Tan Ikram, but he went on to sum it up like that? How can he keep that position and how can being found guilty of a terrorism offence be dealt with so lightly? I can’t understand how this will pass unchallenged. I would say the majority of the people at these pro Palestine protests have not got a clue why they are there. They want to stop the genocide. Something you're incapable to understand unless the people on the receiving end are considered human beings in your book. Bit of a history rewrite there isn't it? The Hamas attack took place on the 7th October. The offences took place on the 14th October. Those offences were specifically related to the pictorial celebration of the terrorists using paragliders. The Israeli offensive began on the 27th October. The offences were therefore linked to the celebration of the tactics and outcomes of the 7th October by virtue of what they graphically portrayed. I would respond about what happened on the 7th of Octobre if I were in a country that allows free speech without being charged of terrorism for it. There is plenty footage and Israeli witnesses that show Israeli Army did most of the civilian killing on the 7th of October. Those territories are internationally recognised Palestinian land. Don't take other people houses by force and kik them and when they try to get it back you cry victim then justify murdering babies. The Israeli Army did most of the killing on 7th October?????? Yes, even the Israeli Media is saying that. Get out of the Murdoch Propaganda box, to know what's really happening there Source? Videos of witnesses (Israeli survivors of 7th october) are all over Youtube. Footage of Israeli Taks shelling Israeli Houses on the 7th of October are all over the net. Search tool is your friend. " Are you looking to be the next labour candidate for Rochdale? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hang on a minute! We have a poster claiming it was the Israeli Army that killed Jews on 7 October and telling us the proof is on YouTube. That is some serious accusation. How come the Arab Media aren’t running with that?" There have been reports (and I think confirmation) that an Israeli tank fired upon a property where hostages were being held. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hang on a minute! We have a poster claiming it was the Israeli Army that killed Jews on 7 October and telling us the proof is on YouTube. That is some serious accusation. How come the Arab Media aren’t running with that? There have been reports (and I think confirmation) that an Israeli tank fired upon a property where hostages were being held. " The posters original quote was this: "There is plenty footage and Israeli witnesses that show Israeli Army did most of the civilian killing on the 7th of October." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hang on a minute! We have a poster claiming it was the Israeli Army that killed Jews on 7 October and telling us the proof is on YouTube. That is some serious accusation. How come the Arab Media aren’t running with that? There have been reports (and I think confirmation) that an Israeli tank fired upon a property where hostages were being held. The posters original quote was this: "There is plenty footage and Israeli witnesses that show Israeli Army did most of the civilian killing on the 7th of October." " I know. That claim is bollocks and cannot be backed up. Was just adding where I think it's come from. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hang on a minute! We have a poster claiming it was the Israeli Army that killed Jews on 7 October and telling us the proof is on YouTube. That is some serious accusation. How come the Arab Media aren’t running with that? There have been reports (and I think confirmation) that an Israeli tank fired upon a property where hostages were being held. The posters original quote was this: "There is plenty footage and Israeli witnesses that show Israeli Army did most of the civilian killing on the 7th of October." I know. That claim is bollocks and cannot be backed up. Was just adding where I think it's come from. " I want the poster to justify and prove that claim re Oct 7th. That is HUGE! Presumably the (one) tank that fired on a house with hostages in was a) after 7th Oct and b) only killed a fraction of the number of Jews killed by Hamas on 7th Oct? So if THAT is the “proof” then it really is bollocks! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hang on a minute! We have a poster claiming it was the Israeli Army that killed Jews on 7 October and telling us the proof is on YouTube. That is some serious accusation. How come the Arab Media aren’t running with that? There have been reports (and I think confirmation) that an Israeli tank fired upon a property where hostages were being held. The posters original quote was this: "There is plenty footage and Israeli witnesses that show Israeli Army did most of the civilian killing on the 7th of October." I know. That claim is bollocks and cannot be backed up. Was just adding where I think it's come from. I want the poster to justify and prove that claim re Oct 7th. That is HUGE! Presumably the (one) tank that fired on a house with hostages in was a) after 7th Oct and b) only killed a fraction of the number of Jews killed by Hamas on 7th Oct? So if THAT is the “proof” then it really is bollocks!" As far as I'm aware, the particular story I'm referencing, it was ONE tank and ONE civilian was killed, it was on Oct 7th in response to the invasion. The poster can't back their claim, it's bollocks (I'm sure you know that already) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hang on a minute! We have a poster claiming it was the Israeli Army that killed Jews on 7 October and telling us the proof is on YouTube. That is some serious accusation. How come the Arab Media aren’t running with that? There have been reports (and I think confirmation) that an Israeli tank fired upon a property where hostages were being held. The posters original quote was this: "There is plenty footage and Israeli witnesses that show Israeli Army did most of the civilian killing on the 7th of October." I know. That claim is bollocks and cannot be backed up. Was just adding where I think it's come from. I want the poster to justify and prove that claim re Oct 7th. That is HUGE! Presumably the (one) tank that fired on a house with hostages in was a) after 7th Oct and b) only killed a fraction of the number of Jews killed by Hamas on 7th Oct? So if THAT is the “proof” then it really is bollocks!" Wrong: Look for 7th Octobre Kibbutz Survivor Yasmin Porat, interrogated by Israel Haretz Journalist. Describing the events of how Israeli tak Shelled and destroyed a house, inside there were 39 hostages including a 12 year gil. And 12 Hamas militants. Killing everyone inside exccept another wom | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hang on a minute! We have a poster claiming it was the Israeli Army that killed Jews on 7 October and telling us the proof is on YouTube. That is some serious accusation. How come the Arab Media aren’t running with that? There have been reports (and I think confirmation) that an Israeli tank fired upon a property where hostages were being held. The posters original quote was this: "There is plenty footage and Israeli witnesses that show Israeli Army did most of the civilian killing on the 7th of October." I know. That claim is bollocks and cannot be backed up. Was just adding where I think it's come from. I want the poster to justify and prove that claim re Oct 7th. That is HUGE! Presumably the (one) tank that fired on a house with hostages in was a) after 7th Oct and b) only killed a fraction of the number of Jews killed by Hamas on 7th Oct? So if THAT is the “proof” then it really is bollocks! Wrong: Look for 7th Octobre Kibbutz Survivor Yasmin Porat, interrogated by Israel Haretz Journalist. Describing the events of how Israeli tak Shelled and destroyed a house, inside there were 39 hostages including a 12 year gil. And 12 Hamas militants. Killing everyone inside exccept another wom" It took me going through over a 100 MSM fake news to find it. Middle east eye is one of the Sources that aired the interview | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I would respond about what happened on the 7th of Octobre if I were in a country that allows free speech without being charged of terrorism for it. There is plenty footage and Israeli witnesses that show Israeli Army did most of the civilian killing on the 7th of October. Those territories are internationally recognised Palestinian land. Don't take other people houses by force and kik them and when they try to get it back you cry victim then justify murdering babies. " And the Israeli government k*dnapped Israeli hostages and is keeping them in Area 51 with Elvis? And the footage of Hamas abusing women (dead and alive) is a hoax? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I would respond about what happened on the 7th of Octobre if I were in a country that allows free speech without being charged of terrorism for it. There is plenty footage and Israeli witnesses that show Israeli Army did most of the civilian killing on the 7th of October. Those territories are internationally recognised Palestinian land. Don't take other people houses by force and kik them and when they try to get it back you cry victim then justify murdering babies. And the Israeli government k*dnapped Israeli hostages and is keeping them in Area 51 with Elvis? And the footage of Hamas abusing women (dead and alive) is a hoax?" 7 million Palestinians are held hostage in their own land. Over 2 million of them are starving to death and being bombed on a daily basis. Not just since 7th of Octobre. Since 75 hears. Their homes almost all destroyed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" 7 million Palestinians are held hostage in their own land. Over 2 million of them are starving to death and being bombed on a daily basis. Not just since 7th of Octobre. Since 75 hears. Their homes almost all destroyed. " Bad stuff happening doesn't mean you can make up nonsense. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I would respond about what happened on the 7th of Octobre if I were in a country that allows free speech without being charged of terrorism for it. There is plenty footage and Israeli witnesses that show Israeli Army did most of the civilian killing on the 7th of October. Those territories are internationally recognised Palestinian land. Don't take other people houses by force and kik them and when they try to get it back you cry victim then justify murdering babies. And the Israeli government k*dnapped Israeli hostages and is keeping them in Area 51 with Elvis? And the footage of Hamas abusing women (dead and alive) is a hoax?" A hoax | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" And the footage of Hamas abusing women (dead and alive) is a hoax? A hoax" Okay. You are entitled to your opinion. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hang on a minute! We have a poster claiming it was the Israeli Army that killed Jews on 7 October and telling us the proof is on YouTube. That is some serious accusation. How come the Arab Media aren’t running with that? There have been reports (and I think confirmation) that an Israeli tank fired upon a property where hostages were being held. The posters original quote was this: "There is plenty footage and Israeli witnesses that show Israeli Army did most of the civilian killing on the 7th of October." I know. That claim is bollocks and cannot be backed up. Was just adding where I think it's come from. I want the poster to justify and prove that claim re Oct 7th. That is HUGE! Presumably the (one) tank that fired on a house with hostages in was a) after 7th Oct and b) only killed a fraction of the number of Jews killed by Hamas on 7th Oct? So if THAT is the “proof” then it really is bollocks! Wrong: Look for 7th Octobre Kibbutz Survivor Yasmin Porat, interrogated by Israel Haretz Journalist. Describing the events of how Israeli tak Shelled and destroyed a house, inside there were 39 hostages including a 12 year gil. And 12 Hamas militants. Killing everyone inside exccept another wom" Ok I will look but as per above YOU said… " "There is plenty footage and Israeli witnesses that show Israeli Army did most of the civilian killing on the 7th of October."" So you are saying the IDF killed more (Jewish?) civilians on 7 October than Hamas did? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" And the footage of Hamas abusing women (dead and alive) is a hoax? A hoax Okay. You are entitled to your opinion." It's not an opinion. Just like the footage seen and verified by Biden in Person of 40 babies killed in their incubators, and cooked in the Oven. Lies after lies after lies. And countless AI made footage made by Israel. All debunked | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hang on a minute! We have a poster claiming it was the Israeli Army that killed Jews on 7 October and telling us the proof is on YouTube. That is some serious accusation. How come the Arab Media aren’t running with that? There have been reports (and I think confirmation) that an Israeli tank fired upon a property where hostages were being held. The posters original quote was this: "There is plenty footage and Israeli witnesses that show Israeli Army did most of the civilian killing on the 7th of October." I know. That claim is bollocks and cannot be backed up. Was just adding where I think it's come from. I want the poster to justify and prove that claim re Oct 7th. That is HUGE! Presumably the (one) tank that fired on a house with hostages in was a) after 7th Oct and b) only killed a fraction of the number of Jews killed by Hamas on 7th Oct? So if THAT is the “proof” then it really is bollocks! Wrong: Look for 7th Octobre Kibbutz Survivor Yasmin Porat, interrogated by Israel Haretz Journalist. Describing the events of how Israeli tak Shelled and destroyed a house, inside there were 39 hostages including a 12 year gil. And 12 Hamas militants. Killing everyone inside exccept another wom Ok I will look but as per above YOU said… "There is plenty footage and Israeli witnesses that show Israeli Army did most of the civilian killing on the 7th of October." So you are saying the IDF killed more (Jewish?) civilians on 7 October than Hamas did? " Yes. Israeli Journalists are saying that. It's a shame they're not shown to western audiences. Haretz released air footages of Israeli tanks shelling and targetting the Kibbutz villages. They also said in their newspaper that they have verified footages of Israeli helicopters shooting at the civilians fleeing the festival. The army had orders to shoot everyone trying to get out the area. 100 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hang on a minute! We have a poster claiming it was the Israeli Army that killed Jews on 7 October and telling us the proof is on YouTube. That is some serious accusation. How come the Arab Media aren’t running with that? There have been reports (and I think confirmation) that an Israeli tank fired upon a property where hostages were being held. The posters original quote was this: "There is plenty footage and Israeli witnesses that show Israeli Army did most of the civilian killing on the 7th of October." I know. That claim is bollocks and cannot be backed up. Was just adding where I think it's come from. I want the poster to justify and prove that claim re Oct 7th. That is HUGE! Presumably the (one) tank that fired on a house with hostages in was a) after 7th Oct and b) only killed a fraction of the number of Jews killed by Hamas on 7th Oct? So if THAT is the “proof” then it really is bollocks! Wrong: Look for 7th Octobre Kibbutz Survivor Yasmin Porat, interrogated by Israel Haretz Journalist. Describing the events of how Israeli tak Shelled and destroyed a house, inside there were 39 hostages including a 12 year gil. And 12 Hamas militants. Killing everyone inside exccept another wom" Haretz as quoted by Reuters state that there were 15 Israeli hostages plus an unknown number of terrorists inside the building the tank shelled, 12 were killed .. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hang on a minute! We have a poster claiming it was the Israeli Army that killed Jews on 7 October and telling us the proof is on YouTube. That is some serious accusation. How come the Arab Media aren’t running with that? There have been reports (and I think confirmation) that an Israeli tank fired upon a property where hostages were being held. The posters original quote was this: "There is plenty footage and Israeli witnesses that show Israeli Army did most of the civilian killing on the 7th of October." I know. That claim is bollocks and cannot be backed up. Was just adding where I think it's come from. I want the poster to justify and prove that claim re Oct 7th. That is HUGE! Presumably the (one) tank that fired on a house with hostages in was a) after 7th Oct and b) only killed a fraction of the number of Jews killed by Hamas on 7th Oct? So if THAT is the “proof” then it really is bollocks! Wrong: Look for 7th Octobre Kibbutz Survivor Yasmin Porat, interrogated by Israel Haretz Journalist. Describing the events of how Israeli tak Shelled and destroyed a house, inside there were 39 hostages including a 12 year gil. And 12 Hamas militants. Killing everyone inside exccept another wom Haretz as quoted by Reuters state that there were 15 Israeli hostages plus an unknown number of terrorists inside the building the tank shelled, 12 were killed .." Reuters?! Lol, listen to Yasmin Porat and the ither woman who survived. They were both hostage inside the house for 8 hours. 40 hostages in total. And 12 Hamas militants who were trying to negociate their surrender to the Police surrounding them outside. Yasmin survived because she was taken out by a Militant to negotiate with the Police the surrender of his mates. He took her out to ensure they don't shoot him. And she was standing there for hours. The Police waited for the tank all the time. Then they just destroyed the house. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Reuters?! Lol, listen to Yasmin Porat and the ither woman who survived. They were both hostage inside the house for 8 hours. 40 hostages in total. And 12 Hamas militants who were trying to negociate their surrender to the Police surrounding them outside. Yasmin survived because she was taken out by a Militant to negotiate with the Police the surrender of his mates. He took her out to ensure they don't shoot him. And she was standing there for hours. The Police waited for the tank all the time. Then they just destroyed the house. " What were Hamas doing with innocent civilians in the first place? Were these innocent civilians able to walk away, or would those innocent civilians have been shot? Who put those innocent civilians in harm's way? Oh, yes. Hamas. Much like they're doing to the innocent civilians who are Palestinians. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That area is renowned for relying on women's testimony, even though they are not listened too any other time, the resurrection springs to mind. " She's an Israeli Jew, very much liberated and western. Now suddenly women's testimonies are not credible in hour book? Lol | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hang on a minute! We have a poster claiming it was the Israeli Army that killed Jews on 7 October and telling us the proof is on YouTube. That is some serious accusation. How come the Arab Media aren’t running with that? There have been reports (and I think confirmation) that an Israeli tank fired upon a property where hostages were being held. The posters original quote was this: "There is plenty footage and Israeli witnesses that show Israeli Army did most of the civilian killing on the 7th of October." I know. That claim is bollocks and cannot be backed up. Was just adding where I think it's come from. I want the poster to justify and prove that claim re Oct 7th. That is HUGE! Presumably the (one) tank that fired on a house with hostages in was a) after 7th Oct and b) only killed a fraction of the number of Jews killed by Hamas on 7th Oct? So if THAT is the “proof” then it really is bollocks! Wrong: Look for 7th Octobre Kibbutz Survivor Yasmin Porat, interrogated by Israel Haretz Journalist. Describing the events of how Israeli tak Shelled and destroyed a house, inside there were 39 hostages including a 12 year gil. And 12 Hamas militants. Killing everyone inside exccept another wom Haretz as quoted by Reuters state that there were 15 Israeli hostages plus an unknown number of terrorists inside the building the tank shelled, 12 were killed .. Reuters?! Lol, listen to Yasmin Porat and the ither woman who survived. They were both hostage inside the house for 8 hours. 40 hostages in total. And 12 Hamas militants who were trying to negociate their surrender to the Police surrounding them outside. Yasmin survived because she was taken out by a Militant to negotiate with the Police the surrender of his mates. He took her out to ensure they don't shoot him. And she was standing there for hours. The Police waited for the tank all the time. Then they just destroyed the house. " Yes Reuters.. There were over 130 people killed in that Kibbutz by the Hamas butchers you seem so desperate to defend .. Putting aside the difference in numbers in relation to one house, any thoughts on the vast majority of the rest..? Women, children and at least one toddler amongst those.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hang on a minute! We have a poster claiming it was the Israeli Army that killed Jews on 7 October and telling us the proof is on YouTube. That is some serious accusation. How come the Arab Media aren’t running with that? There have been reports (and I think confirmation) that an Israeli tank fired upon a property where hostages were being held. The posters original quote was this: "There is plenty footage and Israeli witnesses that show Israeli Army did most of the civilian killing on the 7th of October." I know. That claim is bollocks and cannot be backed up. Was just adding where I think it's come from. I want the poster to justify and prove that claim re Oct 7th. That is HUGE! Presumably the (one) tank that fired on a house with hostages in was a) after 7th Oct and b) only killed a fraction of the number of Jews killed by Hamas on 7th Oct? So if THAT is the “proof” then it really is bollocks! Wrong: Look for 7th Octobre Kibbutz Survivor Yasmin Porat, interrogated by Israel Haretz Journalist. Describing the events of how Israeli tak Shelled and destroyed a house, inside there were 39 hostages including a 12 year gil. And 12 Hamas militants. Killing everyone inside exccept another wom Haretz as quoted by Reuters state that there were 15 Israeli hostages plus an unknown number of terrorists inside the building the tank shelled, 12 were killed .. Reuters?! Lol, listen to Yasmin Porat and the ither woman who survived. They were both hostage inside the house for 8 hours. 40 hostages in total. And 12 Hamas militants who were trying to negociate their surrender to the Police surrounding them outside. Yasmin survived because she was taken out by a Militant to negotiate with the Police the surrender of his mates. He took her out to ensure they don't shoot him. And she was standing there for hours. The Police waited for the tank all the time. Then they just destroyed the house. Yes Reuters.. There were over 130 people killed in that Kibbutz by the Hamas butchers you seem so desperate to defend .. Putting aside the difference in numbers in relation to one house, any thoughts on the vast majority of the rest..? Women, children and at least one toddler amongst those.. " 1- That wasn't the only house the IDF tanks and Helicopters shelled. Haretz air footage shows other tanks shelling other houses in that same day. 2- Same Israeli sources have credible Intelligence info that Hamas when they attacked they didn't know about the festival. 3- The Festival Parking space have 100's of cars turned into melted crashed peaces of metal. There is no hand held weapon that can oossibly do that. The footage of the destroyed cars and houses are there for everyone to see. Any ex military guy will tell you that's the work of heavy shelling. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Hang on a minute! We have a poster claiming it was the Israeli Army that killed Jews on 7 October and telling us the proof is on YouTube. That is some serious accusation. How come the Arab Media aren’t running with that? There have been reports (and I think confirmation) that an Israeli tank fired upon a property where hostages were being held. The posters original quote was this: "There is plenty footage and Israeli witnesses that show Israeli Army did most of the civilian killing on the 7th of October." I know. That claim is bollocks and cannot be backed up. Was just adding where I think it's come from. I want the poster to justify and prove that claim re Oct 7th. That is HUGE! Presumably the (one) tank that fired on a house with hostages in was a) after 7th Oct and b) only killed a fraction of the number of Jews killed by Hamas on 7th Oct? So if THAT is the “proof” then it really is bollocks! Wrong: Look for 7th Octobre Kibbutz Survivor Yasmin Porat, interrogated by Israel Haretz Journalist. Describing the events of how Israeli tak Shelled and destroyed a house, inside there were 39 hostages including a 12 year gil. And 12 Hamas militants. Killing everyone inside exccept another wom Haretz as quoted by Reuters state that there were 15 Israeli hostages plus an unknown number of terrorists inside the building the tank shelled, 12 were killed .. Reuters?! Lol, listen to Yasmin Porat and the ither woman who survived. They were both hostage inside the house for 8 hours. 40 hostages in total. And 12 Hamas militants who were trying to negociate their surrender to the Police surrounding them outside. Yasmin survived because she was taken out by a Militant to negotiate with the Police the surrender of his mates. He took her out to ensure they don't shoot him. And she was standing there for hours. The Police waited for the tank all the time. Then they just destroyed the house. Yes Reuters.. There were over 130 people killed in that Kibbutz by the Hamas butchers you seem so desperate to defend .. Putting aside the difference in numbers in relation to one house, any thoughts on the vast majority of the rest..? Women, children and at least one toddler amongst those.. 1- That wasn't the only house the IDF tanks and Helicopters shelled. Haretz air footage shows other tanks shelling other houses in that same day. 2- Same Israeli sources have credible Intelligence info that Hamas when they attacked they didn't know about the festival. 3- The Festival Parking space have 100's of cars turned into melted crashed peaces of metal. There is no hand held weapon that can oossibly do that. The footage of the destroyed cars and houses are there for everyone to see. Any ex military guy will tell you that's the work of heavy shelling. " I am ex military and the cars nor the people murdered by Hamas at the festival were absolutely not the cause of any sort of shelling let alone heavy.. All the footage of the day and not one of the IDF helicopters strafing the festival goes..? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What he doesn't realise is that his nonsense and support for Hamas is detracting and deflecting from the real message in relation to all of the truly innocent victims. " Yup! Innocent people have died in both sides. It is terrible, but let’s keep pointing the finger of blame on the other team! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What he doesn't realise is that his nonsense and support for Hamas is detracting and deflecting from the real message in relation to all of the truly innocent victims. " He may realise and it may be deliberate. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What he doesn't realise is that his nonsense and support for Hamas is detracting and deflecting from the real message in relation to all of the truly innocent victims. He may realise and it may be deliberate. " True. Someone who will necro-post to hijack a thread about feminist literature recommendations to rant about how he hates feminism and how it's the cause of youth suicide may well be planted to turn us "sheep" against the message he brings. That green arrow just gave immense entertainment (if you enjoy train wrecks). Perhaps the Israeli government has set up a stooge! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What he doesn't realise is that his nonsense and support for Hamas is detracting and deflecting from the real message in relation to all of the truly innocent victims. He may realise and it may be deliberate. True. Someone who will necro-post to hijack a thread about feminist literature recommendations to rant about how he hates feminism and how it's the cause of youth suicide may well be planted to turn us "sheep" against the message he brings. That green arrow just gave immense entertainment (if you enjoy train wrecks). Perhaps the Israeli government has set up a stooge!" I was about to make a flippant comment about conspiracy theories, but the reality of the situation for all innocents in this tragic saga, persuades me not to. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What he doesn't realise is that his nonsense and support for Hamas is detracting and deflecting from the real message in relation to all of the truly innocent victims. He may realise and it may be deliberate. True. Someone who will necro-post to hijack a thread about feminist literature recommendations to rant about how he hates feminism and how it's the cause of youth suicide may well be planted to turn us "sheep" against the message he brings. That green arrow just gave immense entertainment (if you enjoy train wrecks). Perhaps the Israeli government has set up a stooge! I was about to make a flippant comment about conspiracy theories, but the reality of the situation for all innocents in this tragic saga, persuades me not to." Duly chastised.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As a freedom of speech supporter, I don't think this should be illegal in the first place. But hey.. we don't have as much of freedom of expression anyway. At least now, I hope the progressives see the value of freedom of speech and understand how curbing it is a double-edged sword. " The justice system quite possibly worked well here. The relevant women were clearly in breach of the law. The law is necessary, to prevent hate preachers spurring those with vulnerable intellects to become terrorists, travel to Syria to join ISIS, or generally escalate the national conversation into supporting actual terrorism. Nevertheless, the women, whilst clearly hateful and offensive, were of little threat to national order in and of themselves. The police and justice system have a very fine line to tread. The police emphatically do not want to be policing freedom of speech. Politicians and activists on all sides want the police to uphold their version of free speech and quash that which they don't like. In this case, a probable crime was reported and it was important to be seen to enforce rules against supporting terrorism. Are these women terrorists? Should they be locked up at the taxpayers' expense? No and no. When all is said and done, the outcome was proportionate. The laws need to balance free speech and causing real-world problems. Freedom of speech and expression should never be absolute. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As a freedom of speech supporter, I don't think this should be illegal in the first place. But hey.. we don't have as much of freedom of expression anyway. At least now, I hope the progressives see the value of freedom of speech and understand how curbing it is a double-edged sword. " We have freedom of hypocrisy, double standards, and justifying genocides while blaming the helpless victims and criminalising anyone who defends them. And then bully the world in the name of our moral superiority. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" At least now, I hope the progressives see the value of freedom of speech and understand how curbing it is a double-edged sword. " We have freedom of speech. We don’t have freedom from consequence. That’s a fair balance IMO. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" At least now, I hope the progressives see the value of freedom of speech and understand how curbing it is a double-edged sword. We have freedom of speech. We don’t have freedom from consequence. That’s a fair balance IMO." Consequences for select opinions that don't support the war criminals narrative. There is zero consequences for supporting Apartheid, genocides, war crimes committed by one team. Zero consequences for MSM disinformation | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" At least now, I hope the progressives see the value of freedom of speech and understand how curbing it is a double-edged sword. We have freedom of speech. We don’t have freedom from consequence. That’s a fair balance IMO. Consequences for select opinions that don't support the war criminals narrative. There is zero consequences for supporting Apartheid, genocides, war crimes committed by one team. Zero consequences for MSM disinformation " I’m not getting into this with you. I don’t support the killing of any innocents, regardless of what side of a man-made border they were born on, nor what mythical sky-being they deify. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" At least now, I hope the progressives see the value of freedom of speech and understand how curbing it is a double-edged sword. We have freedom of speech. We don’t have freedom from consequence. That’s a fair balance IMO." What do you mean by freedom from consequence? If you get charged for speaking something, you don't have freedom of speech. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" At least now, I hope the progressives see the value of freedom of speech and understand how curbing it is a double-edged sword. We have freedom of speech. We don’t have freedom from consequence. That’s a fair balance IMO. What do you mean by freedom from consequence? If you get charged for speaking something, you don't have freedom of speech." Yes you do. You said it. And if it was (for example) against hate-speech laws, then you can accept the consequence of it. Do you believe anyone should be free to say anything, at any time, to anyone? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As a freedom of speech supporter, I don't think this should be illegal in the first place. But hey.. we don't have as much of freedom of expression anyway. At least now, I hope the progressives see the value of freedom of speech and understand how curbing it is a double-edged sword. The justice system quite possibly worked well here. The relevant women were clearly in breach of the law. The law is necessary, to prevent hate preachers spurring those with vulnerable intellects to become terrorists, travel to Syria to join ISIS, or generally escalate the national conversation into supporting actual terrorism. Nevertheless, the women, whilst clearly hateful and offensive, were of little threat to national order in and of themselves. The police and justice system have a very fine line to tread. The police emphatically do not want to be policing freedom of speech. Politicians and activists on all sides want the police to uphold their version of free speech and quash that which they don't like. In this case, a probable crime was reported and it was important to be seen to enforce rules against supporting terrorism. Are these women terrorists? Should they be locked up at the taxpayers' expense? No and no. When all is said and done, the outcome was proportionate. The laws need to balance free speech and causing real-world problems. Freedom of speech and expression should never be absolute." It's a double edged sword as I said. What counts as hate speech is decided by the government. I prefer the line being drawn at when someone actually plans to violence rather than taking the side of what another group did. Allowing government to control our speech hasn't really worked well in the UK IMO. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As a freedom of speech supporter, I don't think this should be illegal in the first place. But hey.. we don't have as much of freedom of expression anyway. At least now, I hope the progressives see the value of freedom of speech and understand how curbing it is a double-edged sword. The justice system quite possibly worked well here. The relevant women were clearly in breach of the law. The law is necessary, to prevent hate preachers spurring those with vulnerable intellects to become terrorists, travel to Syria to join ISIS, or generally escalate the national conversation into supporting actual terrorism. Nevertheless, the women, whilst clearly hateful and offensive, were of little threat to national order in and of themselves. The police and justice system have a very fine line to tread. The police emphatically do not want to be policing freedom of speech. Politicians and activists on all sides want the police to uphold their version of free speech and quash that which they don't like. In this case, a probable crime was reported and it was important to be seen to enforce rules against supporting terrorism. Are these women terrorists? Should they be locked up at the taxpayers' expense? No and no. When all is said and done, the outcome was proportionate. The laws need to balance free speech and causing real-world problems. Freedom of speech and expression should never be absolute. It's a double edged sword as I said. What counts as hate speech is decided by the government. I prefer the line being drawn at when someone actually plans to violence rather than taking the side of what another group did. Allowing government to control our speech hasn't really worked well in the UK IMO." So should someone be allowed to call for violence against an individual or group? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" At least now, I hope the progressives see the value of freedom of speech and understand how curbing it is a double-edged sword. We have freedom of speech. We don’t have freedom from consequence. That’s a fair balance IMO. What do you mean by freedom from consequence? If you get charged for speaking something, you don't have freedom of speech. Yes you do. You said it. And if it was (for example) against hate-speech laws, then you can accept the consequence of it. Do you believe anyone should be free to say anything, at any time, to anyone? " It's same as saying you have the freedom to murder. In political terms, freedom means your ability to do something without the government taking action on you. If you get arrested for doing something, you never had the freedom to do that thing. I believe that we need to follow first amendment of the US with the minimal exceptions that they have. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As a freedom of speech supporter, I don't think this should be illegal in the first place. But hey.. we don't have as much of freedom of expression anyway. At least now, I hope the progressives see the value of freedom of speech and understand how curbing it is a double-edged sword. The justice system quite possibly worked well here. The relevant women were clearly in breach of the law. The law is necessary, to prevent hate preachers spurring those with vulnerable intellects to become terrorists, travel to Syria to join ISIS, or generally escalate the national conversation into supporting actual terrorism. Nevertheless, the women, whilst clearly hateful and offensive, were of little threat to national order in and of themselves. The police and justice system have a very fine line to tread. The police emphatically do not want to be policing freedom of speech. Politicians and activists on all sides want the police to uphold their version of free speech and quash that which they don't like. In this case, a probable crime was reported and it was important to be seen to enforce rules against supporting terrorism. Are these women terrorists? Should they be locked up at the taxpayers' expense? No and no. When all is said and done, the outcome was proportionate. The laws need to balance free speech and causing real-world problems. Freedom of speech and expression should never be absolute. It's a double edged sword as I said. What counts as hate speech is decided by the government. I prefer the line being drawn at when someone actually plans to violence rather than taking the side of what another group did. Allowing government to control our speech hasn't really worked well in the UK IMO. So should someone be allowed to call for violence against an individual or group? " Direct Call for violence should be illegal, as I already said above. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" At least now, I hope the progressives see the value of freedom of speech and understand how curbing it is a double-edged sword. We have freedom of speech. We don’t have freedom from consequence. That’s a fair balance IMO. What do you mean by freedom from consequence? If you get charged for speaking something, you don't have freedom of speech. Yes you do. You said it. And if it was (for example) against hate-speech laws, then you can accept the consequence of it. Do you believe anyone should be free to say anything, at any time, to anyone? It's same as saying you have the freedom to murder. In political terms, freedom means your ability to do something without the government taking action on you. If you get arrested for doing something, you never had the freedom to do that thing. I believe that we need to follow first amendment of the US with the minimal exceptions that they have." So we accept that there must be exceptions to absolute free speech? I agree totally. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Direct Call for violence should be illegal, as I already said above." How about grooming terrorists? How about grooming children for future sexual use? It's a bit blurry. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well this gets more interesting.... The judge on the case likes Facebook posts of marches. One of the women is a refugee from guess where? Guess why she claimed asylum... "wasn't she a child tho somber parents claimed ? Or has that changed ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well this gets more interesting.... The judge on the case likes Facebook posts of marches. One of the women is a refugee from guess where? Guess why she claimed asylum... wasn't she a child tho somber parents claimed ? Or has that changed ? "Her parents claimed yeah. I should've been clearer. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well this gets more interesting.... The judge on the case likes Facebook posts of marches. One of the women is a refugee from guess where? Guess why she claimed asylum... wasn't she a child tho somber parents claimed ? Or has that changed ? "One of them doesn't have to pay costs because of 'immigration status', still trying to work out what that means. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well this gets more interesting.... The judge on the case likes Facebook posts of marches. One of the women is a refugee from guess where? Guess why she claimed asylum... wasn't she a child tho somber parents claimed ? Or has that changed ?
Her parents claimed yeah. I should've been clearer."
That person should have a good chat with her parents imo. I would be ashamed if that was my kid. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well this gets more interesting.... The judge on the case likes Facebook posts of marches. " I bet if he liked Israeli Soldiers tik tok videos bragging about how many Palestinian babies they killed, it wouldn't make the news. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well this gets more interesting.... The judge on the case likes Facebook posts of marches. I bet if he liked Israeli Soldiers tik tok videos bragging about how many Palestinian babies they killed, it wouldn't make the news. " It didn't make the news | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well this gets more interesting.... The judge on the case likes Facebook posts of marches. One of the women is a refugee from guess where? Guess why she claimed asylum... "Why not say where she came from ? and why she claimed asyluum?and is it a crime to like a fb post ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well this gets more interesting.... The judge on the case likes Facebook posts of marches. I bet if he liked Israeli Soldiers tik tok videos bragging about how many Palestinian babies they killed, it wouldn't make the news. It didn't make the news" How did you hear about it then? You work with Israel's Spyware Companies that monitor everyone's online activity in the World? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well this gets more interesting.... The judge on the case likes Facebook posts of marches. I bet if he liked Israeli Soldiers tik tok videos bragging about how many Palestinian babies they killed, it wouldn't make the news. It didn't make the news How did you hear about it then? You work with Israel's Spyware Companies that monitor everyone's online activity in the World? " I'm all seeing | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well this gets more interesting.... The judge on the case likes Facebook posts of marches. One of the women is a refugee from guess where? Guess why she claimed asylum...
Why not say where she came from ? and why she claimed asyluum?and is it a crime to like a fb post ?"Really need it spelling out for you? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" At least now, I hope the progressives see the value of freedom of speech and understand how curbing it is a double-edged sword. We have freedom of speech. We don’t have freedom from consequence. That’s a fair balance IMO. What do you mean by freedom from consequence? If you get charged for speaking something, you don't have freedom of speech. Yes you do. You said it. And if it was (for example) against hate-speech laws, then you can accept the consequence of it. Do you believe anyone should be free to say anything, at any time, to anyone? It's same as saying you have the freedom to murder. In political terms, freedom means your ability to do something without the government taking action on you. If you get arrested for doing something, you never had the freedom to do that thing. I believe that we need to follow first amendment of the US with the minimal exceptions that they have. So we accept that there must be exceptions to absolute free speech? I agree totally. " The exceptions must be clear, which is the big problem with UK laws around it. The US laws state that it has to be a direct call for violence for you to be charged for it. In UK, we have a bunch of random with vague wording. The communications act of 2003 states that you should not be posting anything "grossly offensive" on the internet. Now who the fuck decides what is "grossly offensive"? Some policeman who fought with his wife that day might find everything grossly offensive. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Context is also important. An individual in his house speaking to a couple of friends, saying "we should kill all the green people"? Who cares. A politician or church leader saying "God will smile upon those who kill the green people", whilst not a direct call to action, should be prevented from/punished for such speech. It's a matter of real world consequence. The bar needs to be lower depending on context. What we cannot and should not control, ever, is thought-crime, no matter how reprehensible, or genuine debate in an academic context, however offensive it is. Should we be able to debate whether Israel was behind the October 7 attacks? Yes. Do we all need to agree at the end? No. Should a politician state it as fact to gain credibility with a largely anti-Israel (and possibly anti-Semitic) audience, knowing that it will lead to real-world consequences for Jews? No. Should that be prosecutable? No." Agree with you whole heartedly | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Her parents claimed yeah. I should've been clearer.
That person should have a good chat with her parents imo. I would be ashamed if that was my kid. "In an interview they said that they didn't stick it on, someone else did without their knowledge. Then they admitted that they did stick it on. The other said they were handed a placard but it was blurry and she didn't know what it was. Then, at court, they decided that they meant to have the images, but that parachutes are a symbol of joy and celebration. Or maybe freedom from oppression. Or maybe referring to a Banksy. Whatever would get them out of trouble. The blatant dishonesty is really the most shameful element here. More so than the poor judgement. Says something about their values. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well this gets more interesting.... The judge on the case likes Facebook posts of marches. One of the women is a refugee from guess where? Guess why she claimed asylum...
Why not say where she came from ? and why she claimed asyluum?and is it a crime to like a fb post ?
Really need it spelling out for you?
"aye on you go,and while your at it can you say why it matters | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well this gets more interesting.... The judge on the case likes Facebook posts of marches. One of the women is a refugee from guess where? Guess why she claimed asylum...
Why not say where she came from ? and why she claimed asyluum?and is it a crime to like a fb post ?"It's not an issue liking FB posts in general but if your a member of the judiciary you've a different standing than Jo bloggs, and if you then find your sitting in a case where you have publicly shown a potential bias then you should exclude yourself.. Entirely possible the Attorney general may review this now.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well this gets more interesting.... The judge on the case likes Facebook posts of marches. One of the women is a refugee from guess where? Guess why she claimed asylum...
Why not say where she came from ? and why she claimed asyluum?and is it a crime to like a fb post ?
It's not an issue liking FB posts in general but if your a member of the judiciary you've a different standing than Jo bloggs, and if you then find your sitting in a case where you have publicly shown a potential bias then you should exclude yourself..
Entirely possible the Attorney general may review this now.."Did the post he liked have anything to do with case | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It's not an issue liking FB posts in general but if your a member of the judiciary you've a different standing than Jo bloggs, and if you then find your sitting in a case where you have publicly shown a potential bias then you should exclude yourself.. Entirely possible the Attorney general may review this now.." It should definitely be reviewed in light of this (nothing to do with the merits of the case or judgement). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well this gets more interesting.... The judge on the case likes Facebook posts of marches. I bet if he liked Israeli Soldiers tik tok videos bragging about how many Palestinian babies they killed, it wouldn't make the news. It didn't make the news How did you hear about it then? You work with Israel's Spyware Companies that monitor everyone's online activity in the World? " It's all over mainstream media. Sky News, Al-Jaz, Auntie Beeb, GB News all ran reports....hardly a single source. By the way, didn't you realise that you are once again perpetrating antisemitic views by invoking a conspiracy on international terms relating to your unsubstantiated allegations that a poster on here is working to spy on everyone's online activities? The International Jewish Conspiracy theory was a trope that the Nazis would use frequently. Just checking but are you a National Socialist....? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It's not an issue liking FB posts in general but if your a member of the judiciary you've a different standing than Jo bloggs, and if you then find your sitting in a case where you have publicly shown a potential bias then you should exclude yourself.. Entirely possible the Attorney general may review this now.. It should definitely be reviewed in light of this (nothing to do with the merits of the case or judgement)." why?the judge dealt with it ,its over and done with and rightly so | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Just checking but are you a National Socialist....? " More in the Amin al-Husseini camp of National Socialist supporter? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Just checking but are you a National Socialist....? More in the Amin al-Husseini camp of National Socialist supporter?" Not sure that he could pass the entrance exam. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It should definitely be reviewed in light of this (nothing to do with the merits of the case or judgement). why?the judge dealt with it ,its over and done with and rightly so" Perhaps. But justice needs to be seen to be impartial. Especially in cases like this. Otherwise conspiracy theories fester and people lose trust. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Her parents claimed yeah. I should've been clearer.
That person should have a good chat with her parents imo. I would be ashamed if that was my kid.
In an interview they said that they didn't stick it on, someone else did without their knowledge. Then they admitted that they did stick it on. The other said they were handed a placard but it was blurry and she didn't know what it was.
Then, at court, they decided that they meant to have the images, but that parachutes are a symbol of joy and celebration. Or maybe freedom from oppression. Or maybe referring to a Banksy. Whatever would get them out of trouble.
The blatant dishonesty is really the most shameful element here. More so than the poor judgement. Says something about their values."They were protesting against Genocide. That says a lot about their values. Couldn't be said for most in this forum. Who are quick to call Hamas Terrorists and the 1000's of Palestinian kids detained and tortured by the real terrorists "Criminals". And quick to justify the genocide with "Well Hamas shouldn't have attacked on the 7th" rhetoric People charged with terrorism for protesting agaist genocide with bollocks laws made by Zionists actively aiding genocide, would say anything to save their lives from being ruined by a corrupt system. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It should definitely be reviewed in light of this (nothing to do with the merits of the case or judgement). why?the judge dealt with it ,its over and done with and rightly so Perhaps. But justice needs to be seen to be impartial. Especially in cases like this. Otherwise conspiracy theories fester and people lose trust." Exactly what do you and others want done? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Her parents claimed yeah. I should've been clearer.
That person should have a good chat with her parents imo. I would be ashamed if that was my kid.
In an interview they said that they didn't stick it on, someone else did without their knowledge. Then they admitted that they did stick it on. The other said they were handed a placard but it was blurry and she didn't know what it was.
Then, at court, they decided that they meant to have the images, but that parachutes are a symbol of joy and celebration. Or maybe freedom from oppression. Or maybe referring to a Banksy. Whatever would get them out of trouble.
The blatant dishonesty is really the most shameful element here. More so than the poor judgement. Says something about their values.
They were protesting against Genocide. That says a lot about their values. Couldn't be said for most in this forum. Who are quick to call Hamas Terrorists and the 1000's of Palestinian kids detained and tortured by the real terrorists "Criminals". And quick to justify the genocide with "Well Hamas shouldn't have attacked on the 7th" rhetoric
People charged with terrorism for protesting agaist genocide with bollocks laws made by Zionists actively aiding genocide, would say anything to save their lives from being ruined by a corrupt system. "More antisemitism claiming that the relevant laws were created by Zionists, again implying a Jewish Conspiracy. Go on, have another pop. You are definitely a Nazi. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well this gets more interesting.... The judge on the case likes Facebook posts of marches. One of the women is a refugee from guess where? Guess why she claimed asylum...
Why not say where she came from ? and why she claimed asyluum?and is it a crime to like a fb post ?
It's not an issue liking FB posts in general but if your a member of the judiciary you've a different standing than Jo bloggs, and if you then find your sitting in a case where you have publicly shown a potential bias then you should exclude yourself..
Entirely possible the Attorney general may review this now..
Did the post he liked have anything to do with case"If he's shown bias to 'one side' that's enough for a miscarriage of justice and that won't be the view if you or I on here which are pretty much irrelevant to the actual case that will be other legitimately interested bodies . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well this gets more interesting.... The judge on the case likes Facebook posts of marches. One of the women is a refugee from guess where? Guess why she claimed asylum...
Why not say where she came from ? and why she claimed asyluum?and is it a crime to like a fb post ?
It's not an issue liking FB posts in general but if your a member of the judiciary you've a different standing than Jo bloggs, and if you then find your sitting in a case where you have publicly shown a potential bias then you should exclude yourself..
Entirely possible the Attorney general may review this now..
Did the post he liked have anything to do with case
If he's shown bias to 'one side' that's enough for a miscarriage of justice and that won't be the view if you or I on here which are pretty much irrelevant to the actual case that will be other legitimately interested bodies . "does anyone have a searchable phrase  to help understand what he liked. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well this gets more interesting.... The judge on the case likes Facebook posts of marches. One of the women is a refugee from guess where? Guess why she claimed asylum...
Why not say where she came from ? and why she claimed asyluum?and is it a crime to like a fb post ?
It's not an issue liking FB posts in general but if your a member of the judiciary you've a different standing than Jo bloggs, and if you then find your sitting in a case where you have publicly shown a potential bias then you should exclude yourself..
Entirely possible the Attorney general may review this now..
Did the post he liked have anything to do with case
If he's shown bias to 'one side' that's enough for a miscarriage of justice and that won't be the view if you or I on here which are pretty much irrelevant to the actual case that will be other legitimately interested bodies . "Is he not allowed an opinion or veiw and broke no laws,and if it is reveiwed they will back the judge as they have been punished | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Her parents claimed yeah. I should've been clearer.
That person should have a good chat with her parents imo. I would be ashamed if that was my kid.
In an interview they said that they didn't stick it on, someone else did without their knowledge. Then they admitted that they did stick it on. The other said they were handed a placard but it was blurry and she didn't know what it was.
Then, at court, they decided that they meant to have the images, but that parachutes are a symbol of joy and celebration. Or maybe freedom from oppression. Or maybe referring to a Banksy. Whatever would get them out of trouble.
The blatant dishonesty is really the most shameful element here. More so than the poor judgement. Says something about their values.
They were protesting against Genocide. That says a lot about their values. Couldn't be said for most in this forum. Who are quick to call Hamas Terrorists and the 1000's of Palestinian kids detained and tortured by the real terrorists "Criminals". And quick to justify the genocide with "Well Hamas shouldn't have attacked on the 7th" rhetoric
People charged with terrorism for protesting agaist genocide with bollocks laws made by Zionists actively aiding genocide, would say anything to save their lives from being ruined by a corrupt system.
More antisemitism claiming that the relevant laws were created by Zionists, again implying a Jewish Conspiracy.
Go on, have another pop.
You are definitely a Nazi."There are 100 000's of jews against Zionism. They are antiSemites? The Palestinians being Ethnically cleansed and genocided for 75 years have more Jewish and Smitic Blood running in their veins than any Israeli colonial setler or terrorist. You're a Zionazi | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" They were protesting against Genocide. That says a lot about their values. Couldn't be said for most in this forum. Who are quick to call Hamas Terrorists... " Hamas are literally terrorists. They perform indiscriminate attacks upon civilians to exert pressure through fear and terror to achieve political or religious aims. What you could argue is that terrorism is a legitimate form of achieving those aims. But you cannot argue that they are not terrorists (well, you could, but it would be pointless). Anyone may protest against whatever they wish. But lying so blatantly is just pathetic. You could argue that it is Taqiyya, possibly, but it's still cowardly. If they felt justified, they could have attempted to put forward their views to the court/police. But they just acted like scared kids when taken away from their herd. Had they been honest and thrown themselves on the mercy of the court, the outcome would have been the same and they could've kept some pride. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well this gets more interesting.... The judge on the case likes Facebook posts of marches. One of the women is a refugee from guess where? Guess why she claimed asylum...
Why not say where she came from ? and why she claimed asyluum?and is it a crime to like a fb post ?
It's not an issue liking FB posts in general but if your a member of the judiciary you've a different standing than Jo bloggs, and if you then find your sitting in a case where you have publicly shown a potential bias then you should exclude yourself..
Entirely possible the Attorney general may review this now..
Did the post he liked have anything to do with case
If he's shown bias to 'one side' that's enough for a miscarriage of justice and that won't be the view if you or I on here which are pretty much irrelevant to the actual case that will be other legitimately interested bodies . does anyone have a searchable phrase to help understand what he liked. "Search Tanwee Ikram on X. He doesn't show support to these women in particular. But he does show support for someone posting about Free Palestine and Israel, UK and US being terrorist states. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" They were protesting against Genocide. That says a lot about their values. Couldn't be said for most in this forum. Who are quick to call Hamas Terrorists... Hamas are literally terrorists. They perform indiscriminate attacks upon civilians to exert pressure through fear and terror to achieve political or religious aims. What you could argue is that terrorism is a legitimate form of achieving those aims. But you cannot argue that they are not terrorists (well, you could, but it would be pointless). Anyone may protest against whatever they wish. But lying so blatantly is just pathetic. You could argue that it is Taqiyya, possibly, but it's still cowardly. If they felt justified, they could have attempted to put forward their views to the court/police. But they just acted like scared kids when taken away from their herd. Had they been honest and thrown themselves on the mercy of the court, the outcome would have been the same and they could've kept some pride." According to who? Of course the colonial west that invaded them. Wasn't Nelson Mandela a gerro | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Her parents claimed yeah. I should've been clearer.
That person should have a good chat with her parents imo. I would be ashamed if that was my kid.
In an interview they said that they didn't stick it on, someone else did without their knowledge. Then they admitted that they did stick it on. The other said they were handed a placard but it was blurry and she didn't know what it was.
Then, at court, they decided that they meant to have the images, but that parachutes are a symbol of joy and celebration. Or maybe freedom from oppression. Or maybe referring to a Banksy. Whatever would get them out of trouble.
The blatant dishonesty is really the most shameful element here. More so than the poor judgement. Says something about their values.
They were protesting against Genocide. That says a lot about their values. Couldn't be said for most in this forum. Who are quick to call Hamas Terrorists and the 1000's of Palestinian kids detained and tortured by the real terrorists "Criminals". And quick to justify the genocide with "Well Hamas shouldn't have attacked on the 7th" rhetoric
People charged with terrorism for protesting agaist genocide with bollocks laws made by Zionists actively aiding genocide, would say anything to save their lives from being ruined by a corrupt system. "The offence was the weekend after the 7th October, Israel didn't launch it's ground attack till later .. The only 'genocide' at that point was by Hamas upon mostly civilians.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Her parents claimed yeah. I should've been clearer.
That person should have a good chat with her parents imo. I would be ashamed if that was my kid.
In an interview they said that they didn't stick it on, someone else did without their knowledge. Then they admitted that they did stick it on. The other said they were handed a placard but it was blurry and she didn't know what it was.
Then, at court, they decided that they meant to have the images, but that parachutes are a symbol of joy and celebration. Or maybe freedom from oppression. Or maybe referring to a Banksy. Whatever would get them out of trouble.
The blatant dishonesty is really the most shameful element here. More so than the poor judgement. Says something about their values.
They were protesting against Genocide. That says a lot about their values. Couldn't be said for most in this forum. Who are quick to call Hamas Terrorists and the 1000's of Palestinian kids detained and tortured by the real terrorists "Criminals". And quick to justify the genocide with "Well Hamas shouldn't have attacked on the 7th" rhetoric
People charged with terrorism for protesting agaist genocide with bollocks laws made by Zionists actively aiding genocide, would say anything to save their lives from being ruined by a corrupt system.
The offence was the weekend after the 7th October, Israel didn't launch it's ground attack till later ..
The only 'genocide' at that point was by Hamas upon mostly civilians.."You don't need a ground offense to commit a genocide. They were bombing every residential building day an night since the 7th. And their Politicians including Netenyahu declared on live tv that Genocide is what they will get. Even quoting the Genocide against Amalek in the Bible and saying Palestinians are Amalek. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well this gets more interesting.... The judge on the case likes Facebook posts of marches. One of the women is a refugee from guess where? Guess why she claimed asylum...
Why not say where she came from ? and why she claimed asyluum?and is it a crime to like a fb post ?
It's not an issue liking FB posts in general but if your a member of the judiciary you've a different standing than Jo bloggs, and if you then find your sitting in a case where you have publicly shown a potential bias then you should exclude yourself..
Entirely possible the Attorney general may review this now..
Did the post he liked have anything to do with case
If he's shown bias to 'one side' that's enough for a miscarriage of justice and that won't be the view if you or I on here which are pretty much irrelevant to the actual case that will be other legitimately interested bodies . does anyone have a searchable phrase to help understand what he liked.
Search Tanwee Ikram on X.
He doesn't show support to these women in particular. But he does show support for someone posting about Free Palestine and Israel, UK and US being terrorist states. "
Not a good look. While of struggle to get behind immediate custodial for this, a judge needs to at least look impartial. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well this gets more interesting.... The judge on the case likes Facebook posts of marches. One of the women is a refugee from guess where? Guess why she claimed asylum...
Why not say where she came from ? and why she claimed asyluum?and is it a crime to like a fb post ?
It's not an issue liking FB posts in general but if your a member of the judiciary you've a different standing than Jo bloggs, and if you then find your sitting in a case where you have publicly shown a potential bias then you should exclude yourself..
Entirely possible the Attorney general may review this now..
Did the post he liked have anything to do with case
If he's shown bias to 'one side' that's enough for a miscarriage of justice and that won't be the view if you or I on here which are pretty much irrelevant to the actual case that will be other legitimately interested bodies .
Is he not allowed an opinion or veiw and broke no laws,and if it is reveiwed they will back the judge as they have been punished "With jury service there are certain cases where both sides will ask about issues whereby they feel a potential juror should be excluded, bias being one.. This judge and he may say he did his duty on the merits of the case if asked had liked one of the dogs in the fight so to speak, if he had liked the other side the issue remains for an accusation of not being impartial and that's at the core of his role within the judicial system.. We are all entitled to that and rightly so.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well this gets more interesting.... The judge on the case likes Facebook posts of marches. One of the women is a refugee from guess where? Guess why she claimed asylum...
Why not say where she came from ? and why she claimed asyluum?and is it a crime to like a fb post ?
It's not an issue liking FB posts in general but if your a member of the judiciary you've a different standing than Jo bloggs, and if you then find your sitting in a case where you have publicly shown a potential bias then you should exclude yourself..
Entirely possible the Attorney general may review this now..
Did the post he liked have anything to do with case
If he's shown bias to 'one side' that's enough for a miscarriage of justice and that won't be the view if you or I on here which are pretty much irrelevant to the actual case that will be other legitimately interested bodies . does anyone have a searchable phrase to help understand what he liked.
Search Tanwee Ikram on X.
He doesn't show support to these women in particular. But he does show support for someone posting about Free Palestine and Israel, UK and US being terrorist states.
Not a good look. While of struggle to get behind immediate custodial for this, a judge needs to at least look impartial. "Oh I'm not really interested in a custodial, I don't think stupidity and misguidance warrants that. Conditional discharge is far too lenient though, its nothing more than a slap on the wrist. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Her parents claimed yeah. I should've been clearer.
That person should have a good chat with her parents imo. I would be ashamed if that was my kid.
In an interview they said that they didn't stick it on, someone else did without their knowledge. Then they admitted that they did stick it on. The other said they were handed a placard but it was blurry and she didn't know what it was.
Then, at court, they decided that they meant to have the images, but that parachutes are a symbol of joy and celebration. Or maybe freedom from oppression. Or maybe referring to a Banksy. Whatever would get them out of trouble.
The blatant dishonesty is really the most shameful element here. More so than the poor judgement. Says something about their values.
They were protesting against Genocide. That says a lot about their values. Couldn't be said for most in this forum. Who are quick to call Hamas Terrorists and the 1000's of Palestinian kids detained and tortured by the real terrorists "Criminals". And quick to justify the genocide with "Well Hamas shouldn't have attacked on the 7th" rhetoric
People charged with terrorism for protesting agaist genocide with bollocks laws made by Zionists actively aiding genocide, would say anything to save their lives from being ruined by a corrupt system.
More antisemitism claiming that the relevant laws were created by Zionists, again implying a Jewish Conspiracy.
Go on, have another pop.
You are definitely a Nazi.
There are 100 000's of jews against Zionism. They are antiSemites?
The Palestinians being Ethnically cleansed and genocided for 75 years have more Jewish and Smitic Blood running in their veins than any Israeli colonial setler or terrorist.
You're a Zionazi"You are perpetrating the usual antisemitic trope....frequently. You are trying to sugar coat your twisted antisemitism by hiding behind your support for Hamas. So much so that you frequently type posts and remove them shortly after presumably having considered the severity of your views. I'll let the viewer judge your posts.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Her parents claimed yeah. I should've been clearer.
That person should have a good chat with her parents imo. I would be ashamed if that was my kid.
In an interview they said that they didn't stick it on, someone else did without their knowledge. Then they admitted that they did stick it on. The other said they were handed a placard but it was blurry and she didn't know what it was.
Then, at court, they decided that they meant to have the images, but that parachutes are a symbol of joy and celebration. Or maybe freedom from oppression. Or maybe referring to a Banksy. Whatever would get them out of trouble.
The blatant dishonesty is really the most shameful element here. More so than the poor judgement. Says something about their values.
They were protesting against Genocide. That says a lot about their values. Couldn't be said for most in this forum. Who are quick to call Hamas Terrorists and the 1000's of Palestinian kids detained and tortured by the real terrorists "Criminals". And quick to justify the genocide with "Well Hamas shouldn't have attacked on the 7th" rhetoric
People charged with terrorism for protesting agaist genocide with bollocks laws made by Zionists actively aiding genocide, would say anything to save their lives from being ruined by a corrupt system.
More antisemitism claiming that the relevant laws were created by Zionists, again implying a Jewish Conspiracy.
Go on, have another pop.
You are definitely a Nazi.
There are 100 000's of jews against Zionism. They are antiSemites?
The Palestinians being Ethnically cleansed and genocided for 75 years have more Jewish and Smitic Blood running in their veins than any Israeli colonial setler or terrorist.
You're a Zionazi
You are perpetrating the usual antisemitic trope....frequently. You are trying to sugar coat your twisted antisemitism by hiding behind your support for Hamas. So much so that you frequently type posts and remove them shortly after presumably having considered the severity of your views.
I'll let the viewer judge your posts...."A load of BS. I type with my left hand, and the send button is at the edge of the screen and sensitive. Nothing to do with your bollocks | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Her parents claimed yeah. I should've been clearer.
That person should have a good chat with her parents imo. I would be ashamed if that was my kid.
In an interview they said that they didn't stick it on, someone else did without their knowledge. Then they admitted that they did stick it on. The other said they were handed a placard but it was blurry and she didn't know what it was.
Then, at court, they decided that they meant to have the images, but that parachutes are a symbol of joy and celebration. Or maybe freedom from oppression. Or maybe referring to a Banksy. Whatever would get them out of trouble.
The blatant dishonesty is really the most shameful element here. More so than the poor judgement. Says something about their values.
They were protesting against Genocide. That says a lot about their values. Couldn't be said for most in this forum. Who are quick to call Hamas Terrorists and the 1000's of Palestinian kids detained and tortured by the real terrorists "Criminals". And quick to justify the genocide with "Well Hamas shouldn't have attacked on the 7th" rhetoric
People charged with terrorism for protesting agaist genocide with bollocks laws made by Zionists actively aiding genocide, would say anything to save their lives from being ruined by a corrupt system.
The offence was the weekend after the 7th October, Israel didn't launch it's ground attack till later ..
The only 'genocide' at that point was by Hamas upon mostly civilians..
You don't need a ground offense to commit a genocide. They were bombing every residential building day an night since the 7th. And their Politicians including Netenyahu declared on live tv that Genocide is what they will get. Even quoting the Genocide against Amalek in the Bible and saying Palestinians are Amalek. "Along with the IDF using heavy weapons and helicopters on the festival goes the claim that every residential building being bombed is patently false.. One residential building being bombed where innocent lives are lost is wrong but same residential building where Hamas are sheltered or have a tunnel entrance/firing point is legit to target.. Do you agree that innocent Israeli civilians killed by Hamas on the 7th October is equally as wrong as innocent Palestinians killed by the IDF.. Neither are justified whatever the ideology? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Her parents claimed yeah. I should've been clearer.
That person should have a good chat with her parents imo. I would be ashamed if that was my kid.
In an interview they said that they didn't stick it on, someone else did without their knowledge. Then they admitted that they did stick it on. The other said they were handed a placard but it was blurry and she didn't know what it was.
Then, at court, they decided that they meant to have the images, but that parachutes are a symbol of joy and celebration. Or maybe freedom from oppression. Or maybe referring to a Banksy. Whatever would get them out of trouble.
The blatant dishonesty is really the most shameful element here. More so than the poor judgement. Says something about their values.
They were protesting against Genocide. That says a lot about their values. Couldn't be said for most in this forum. Who are quick to call Hamas Terrorists and the 1000's of Palestinian kids detained and tortured by the real terrorists "Criminals". And quick to justify the genocide with "Well Hamas shouldn't have attacked on the 7th" rhetoric
People charged with terrorism for protesting agaist genocide with bollocks laws made by Zionists actively aiding genocide, would say anything to save their lives from being ruined by a corrupt system.
The offence was the weekend after the 7th October, Israel didn't launch it's ground attack till later ..
The only 'genocide' at that point was by Hamas upon mostly civilians..
You don't need a ground offense to commit a genocide. They were bombing every residential building day an night since the 7th. And their Politicians including Netenyahu declared on live tv that Genocide is what they will get. Even quoting the Genocide against Amalek in the Bible and saying Palestinians are Amalek.
Along with the IDF using heavy weapons and helicopters on the festival goes the claim that every residential building being bombed is patently false..
One residential building being bombed where innocent lives are lost is wrong but same residential building where Hamas are sheltered or have a tunnel entrance/firing point is legit to target..
Do you agree that innocent Israeli civilians killed by Hamas on the 7th October is equally as wrong as innocent Palestinians killed by the IDF..
Neither are justified whatever the ideology?
"You're assuming The Israeli claims and western propaganda know for never lying just as much they breath and telling half truths. If a totally partial international investigation finds them targeting civilians (Which Israel is proven guilty of doing for 75 years) then yes of course I condemn that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Her parents claimed yeah. I should've been clearer.
That person should have a good chat with her parents imo. I would be ashamed if that was my kid.
In an interview they said that they didn't stick it on, someone else did without their knowledge. Then they admitted that they did stick it on. The other said they were handed a placard but it was blurry and she didn't know what it was.
Then, at court, they decided that they meant to have the images, but that parachutes are a symbol of joy and celebration. Or maybe freedom from oppression. Or maybe referring to a Banksy. Whatever would get them out of trouble.
The blatant dishonesty is really the most shameful element here. More so than the poor judgement. Says something about their values.
They were protesting against Genocide. That says a lot about their values. Couldn't be said for most in this forum. Who are quick to call Hamas Terrorists and the 1000's of Palestinian kids detained and tortured by the real terrorists "Criminals". And quick to justify the genocide with "Well Hamas shouldn't have attacked on the 7th" rhetoric
People charged with terrorism for protesting agaist genocide with bollocks laws made by Zionists actively aiding genocide, would say anything to save their lives from being ruined by a corrupt system.
The offence was the weekend after the 7th October, Israel didn't launch it's ground attack till later ..
The only 'genocide' at that point was by Hamas upon mostly civilians..
You don't need a ground offense to commit a genocide. They were bombing every residential building day an night since the 7th. And their Politicians including Netenyahu declared on live tv that Genocide is what they will get. Even quoting the Genocide against Amalek in the Bible and saying Palestinians are Amalek.
Along with the IDF using heavy weapons and helicopters on the festival goes the claim that every residential building being bombed is patently false..
One residential building being bombed where innocent lives are lost is wrong but same residential building where Hamas are sheltered or have a tunnel entrance/firing point is legit to target..
Do you agree that innocent Israeli civilians killed by Hamas on the 7th October is equally as wrong as innocent Palestinians killed by the IDF..
Neither are justified whatever the ideology?
You're assuming The Israeli claims and western propaganda know for never lying just as much they breath and telling half truths.
If a totally partial international investigation finds them targeting civilians (Which Israel is proven guilty of doing for 75 years) then yes of course I condemn that. "Also, settlers, civilians or not shouldn't be in another people's property they stole by force. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Her parents claimed yeah. I should've been clearer.
That person should have a good chat with her parents imo. I would be ashamed if that was my kid.
In an interview they said that they didn't stick it on, someone else did without their knowledge. Then they admitted that they did stick it on. The other said they were handed a placard but it was blurry and she didn't know what it was.
Then, at court, they decided that they meant to have the images, but that parachutes are a symbol of joy and celebration. Or maybe freedom from oppression. Or maybe referring to a Banksy. Whatever would get them out of trouble.
The blatant dishonesty is really the most shameful element here. More so than the poor judgement. Says something about their values.
They were protesting against Genocide. That says a lot about their values. Couldn't be said for most in this forum. Who are quick to call Hamas Terrorists and the 1000's of Palestinian kids detained and tortured by the real terrorists "Criminals". And quick to justify the genocide with "Well Hamas shouldn't have attacked on the 7th" rhetoric
People charged with terrorism for protesting agaist genocide with bollocks laws made by Zionists actively aiding genocide, would say anything to save their lives from being ruined by a corrupt system.
The offence was the weekend after the 7th October, Israel didn't launch it's ground attack till later ..
The only 'genocide' at that point was by Hamas upon mostly civilians..
You don't need a ground offense to commit a genocide. They were bombing every residential building day an night since the 7th. And their Politicians including Netenyahu declared on live tv that Genocide is what they will get. Even quoting the Genocide against Amalek in the Bible and saying Palestinians are Amalek.
Along with the IDF using heavy weapons and helicopters on the festival goes the claim that every residential building being bombed is patently false..
One residential building being bombed where innocent lives are lost is wrong but same residential building where Hamas are sheltered or have a tunnel entrance/firing point is legit to target..
Do you agree that innocent Israeli civilians killed by Hamas on the 7th October is equally as wrong as innocent Palestinians killed by the IDF..
Neither are justified whatever the ideology?
You're assuming The Israeli claims and western propaganda know for never lying just as much they breath and telling half truths.
If a totally partial international investigation finds them targeting civilians (Which Israel is proven guilty of doing for 75 years) then yes of course I condemn that. "I doubt you would tbh, your incapable of any sort of different reality than the one you've wrapped yourself up in.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Her parents claimed yeah. I should've been clearer.
That person should have a good chat with her parents imo. I would be ashamed if that was my kid.
In an interview they said that they didn't stick it on, someone else did without their knowledge. Then they admitted that they did stick it on. The other said they were handed a placard but it was blurry and she didn't know what it was.
Then, at court, they decided that they meant to have the images, but that parachutes are a symbol of joy and celebration. Or maybe freedom from oppression. Or maybe referring to a Banksy. Whatever would get them out of trouble.
The blatant dishonesty is really the most shameful element here. More so than the poor judgement. Says something about their values.
They were protesting against Genocide. That says a lot about their values. Couldn't be said for most in this forum. Who are quick to call Hamas Terrorists and the 1000's of Palestinian kids detained and tortured by the real terrorists "Criminals". And quick to justify the genocide with "Well Hamas shouldn't have attacked on the 7th" rhetoric
People charged with terrorism for protesting agaist genocide with bollocks laws made by Zionists actively aiding genocide, would say anything to save their lives from being ruined by a corrupt system.
The offence was the weekend after the 7th October, Israel didn't launch it's ground attack till later ..
The only 'genocide' at that point was by Hamas upon mostly civilians..
You don't need a ground offense to commit a genocide. They were bombing every residential building day an night since the 7th. And their Politicians including Netenyahu declared on live tv that Genocide is what they will get. Even quoting the Genocide against Amalek in the Bible and saying Palestinians are Amalek.
Along with the IDF using heavy weapons and helicopters on the festival goes the claim that every residential building being bombed is patently false..
One residential building being bombed where innocent lives are lost is wrong but same residential building where Hamas are sheltered or have a tunnel entrance/firing point is legit to target..
Do you agree that innocent Israeli civilians killed by Hamas on the 7th October is equally as wrong as innocent Palestinians killed by the IDF..
Neither are justified whatever the ideology?
You're assuming The Israeli claims and western propaganda know for never lying just as much they breath and telling half truths.
If a totally partial international investigation finds them targeting civilians (Which Israel is proven guilty of doing for 75 years) then yes of course I condemn that. "Did Hamas take civilian hostages? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Her parents claimed yeah. I should've been clearer.
That person should have a good chat with her parents imo. I would be ashamed if that was my kid.
In an interview they said that they didn't stick it on, someone else did without their knowledge. Then they admitted that they did stick it on. The other said they were handed a placard but it was blurry and she didn't know what it was.
Then, at court, they decided that they meant to have the images, but that parachutes are a symbol of joy and celebration. Or maybe freedom from oppression. Or maybe referring to a Banksy. Whatever would get them out of trouble.
The blatant dishonesty is really the most shameful element here. More so than the poor judgement. Says something about their values.
They were protesting against Genocide. That says a lot about their values. Couldn't be said for most in this forum. Who are quick to call Hamas Terrorists and the 1000's of Palestinian kids detained and tortured by the real terrorists "Criminals". And quick to justify the genocide with "Well Hamas shouldn't have attacked on the 7th" rhetoric
People charged with terrorism for protesting agaist genocide with bollocks laws made by Zionists actively aiding genocide, would say anything to save their lives from being ruined by a corrupt system.
The offence was the weekend after the 7th October, Israel didn't launch it's ground attack till later ..
The only 'genocide' at that point was by Hamas upon mostly civilians..
You don't need a ground offense to commit a genocide. They were bombing every residential building day an night since the 7th. And their Politicians including Netenyahu declared on live tv that Genocide is what they will get. Even quoting the Genocide against Amalek in the Bible and saying Palestinians are Amalek.
Along with the IDF using heavy weapons and helicopters on the festival goes the claim that every residential building being bombed is patently false..
One residential building being bombed where innocent lives are lost is wrong but same residential building where Hamas are sheltered or have a tunnel entrance/firing point is legit to target..
Do you agree that innocent Israeli civilians killed by Hamas on the 7th October is equally as wrong as innocent Palestinians killed by the IDF..
Neither are justified whatever the ideology?
You're assuming The Israeli claims and western propaganda know for never lying just as much they breath and telling half truths.
If a totally partial international investigation finds them targeting civilians (Which Israel is proven guilty of doing for 75 years) then yes of course I condemn that.
I doubt you would tbh, your incapable of any sort of different reality than the one you've wrapped yourself up in..
"Certainly not the reality of those who make up stupid lies to justify a genocide. That's an actual reality the whole world is watching in horror | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Her parents claimed yeah. I should've been clearer.
That person should have a good chat with her parents imo. I would be ashamed if that was my kid.
In an interview they said that they didn't stick it on, someone else did without their knowledge. Then they admitted that they did stick it on. The other said they were handed a placard but it was blurry and she didn't know what it was.
Then, at court, they decided that they meant to have the images, but that parachutes are a symbol of joy and celebration. Or maybe freedom from oppression. Or maybe referring to a Banksy. Whatever would get them out of trouble.
The blatant dishonesty is really the most shameful element here. More so than the poor judgement. Says something about their values.
They were protesting against Genocide. That says a lot about their values. Couldn't be said for most in this forum. Who are quick to call Hamas Terrorists and the 1000's of Palestinian kids detained and tortured by the real terrorists "Criminals". And quick to justify the genocide with "Well Hamas shouldn't have attacked on the 7th" rhetoric
People charged with terrorism for protesting agaist genocide with bollocks laws made by Zionists actively aiding genocide, would say anything to save their lives from being ruined by a corrupt system.
The offence was the weekend after the 7th October, Israel didn't launch it's ground attack till later ..
The only 'genocide' at that point was by Hamas upon mostly civilians..
You don't need a ground offense to commit a genocide. They were bombing every residential building day an night since the 7th. And their Politicians including Netenyahu declared on live tv that Genocide is what they will get. Even quoting the Genocide against Amalek in the Bible and saying Palestinians are Amalek.
Along with the IDF using heavy weapons and helicopters on the festival goes the claim that every residential building being bombed is patently false..
One residential building being bombed where innocent lives are lost is wrong but same residential building where Hamas are sheltered or have a tunnel entrance/firing point is legit to target..
Do you agree that innocent Israeli civilians killed by Hamas on the 7th October is equally as wrong as innocent Palestinians killed by the IDF..
Neither are justified whatever the ideology?
You're assuming The Israeli claims and western propaganda know for never lying just as much they breath and telling half truths.
If a totally partial international investigation finds them targeting civilians (Which Israel is proven guilty of doing for 75 years) then yes of course I condemn that.
I doubt you would tbh, your incapable of any sort of different reality than the one you've wrapped yourself up in..
Certainly not the reality of those who make up stupid lies to justify a genocide. That's an actual reality the whole world is watching in horror "You do it constantly.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we didn't have useful idiots in these forums, there wouldn't be meaningless debates." does that include you  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"3 woman celebrated Hamas attacks at a pro Palestinian march in London by attaching images of paragliders to their backs seven days after Hamas militants used paragliders to enter Israel in October. They were found guilty of terrorism offences, but strangest of things seems to have happened, that puzzles me! From the BBC: Convicting them at Westminster Magistrates' Court, Deputy Senior District Judge Tan Ikram said: "Seven days earlier, Hamas went into Israel with what was described by the media as paragliders. A reasonable person would have seen and read that. I do not find a reasonable person would interpret the image merely as a symbol of freedom (lawyers argued they were symbols of peace) So far so good. Mr Ikram, delivering his verdict, said: "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." He said he had "decided not to punish" the defendants, and handed the trio each a 12-month conditional discharge. You crossed the line, but it would have been fair to say that emotions ran very high on this issue," Mr Ikram said. Your lesson has been well learned. I do not find you were seeking to show any support for Hamas. They were guilty, they were found guilty and given a 12 month conditional discharge by the Court, Deputy Senior District Judge Tan Ikram, but he went on to sum it up like that? How can he keep that position and how can being found guilty of a terrorism offence be dealt with so lightly? I can’t understand how this will pass unchallenged." As it was yourself that posted this,can you tell us what you would like to see happen to the 3 woman and the judge who passed sentence | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well this gets more interesting.... The judge on the case likes Facebook posts of marches. One of the women is a refugee from guess where? Guess why she claimed asylum...
Why not say where she came from ? and why she claimed asyluum?and is it a crime to like a fb post ?
It's not an issue liking FB posts in general but if your a member of the judiciary you've a different standing than Jo bloggs, and if you then find your sitting in a case where you have publicly shown a potential bias then you should exclude yourself..
Entirely possible the Attorney general may review this now..
Did the post he liked have anything to do with case
If he's shown bias to 'one side' that's enough for a miscarriage of justice and that won't be the view if you or I on here which are pretty much irrelevant to the actual case that will be other legitimately interested bodies .
Is he not allowed an opinion or veiw and broke no laws,and if it is reveiwed they will back the judge as they have been punished
With jury service there are certain cases where both sides will ask about issues whereby they feel a potential juror should be excluded, bias being one..
This judge and he may say he did his duty on the merits of the case if asked had liked one of the dogs in the fight so to speak, if he had liked the other side the issue remains for an accusation of not being impartial and that's at the core of his role within the judicial system..
We are all entitled to that and rightly so.."Surely he can be impartial in the case before him,and still have veiw on other issuse | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" As it was yourself that posted this,can you tell us what you would like to see happen to the 3 woman and the judge who passed sentence" It's nothing to do with the outcome of the judgement. Clearly, questions are being asked about the process (by the press and by the public). This can be cleared up with a review. The judgement can stand, but then there will be no question as to the integrity of the process and outcome. Judges need to be held to a very high standard of integrity. Nobody is saying anything wrong necessarily happened, but it's important to clear up any questions. You might not have questions - great! If enough others do, it's right to ask the questions. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well this gets more interesting.... The judge on the case likes Facebook posts of marches. One of the women is a refugee from guess where? Guess why she claimed asylum...
Why not say where she came from ? and why she claimed asyluum?and is it a crime to like a fb post ?
It's not an issue liking FB posts in general but if your a member of the judiciary you've a different standing than Jo bloggs, and if you then find your sitting in a case where you have publicly shown a potential bias then you should exclude yourself..
Entirely possible the Attorney general may review this now..
Did the post he liked have anything to do with case
If he's shown bias to 'one side' that's enough for a miscarriage of justice and that won't be the view if you or I on here which are pretty much irrelevant to the actual case that will be other legitimately interested bodies .
Is he not allowed an opinion or veiw and broke no laws,and if it is reveiwed they will back the judge as they have been punished
With jury service there are certain cases where both sides will ask about issues whereby they feel a potential juror should be excluded, bias being one..
This judge and he may say he did his duty on the merits of the case if asked had liked one of the dogs in the fight so to speak, if he had liked the other side the issue remains for an accusation of not being impartial and that's at the core of his role within the judicial system..
We are all entitled to that and rightly so..
Surely he can be impartial in the case before him,and still have veiw on other issuse "He may be but the perception that he's not will be looked at by whichever side that feels his expressed views might be used to their advantage, be that the crown or the defendants.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" As it was yourself that posted this,can you tell us what you would like to see happen to the 3 woman and the judge who passed sentence It's nothing to do with the outcome of the judgement. Clearly, questions are being asked about the process (by the press and by the public). This can be cleared up with a review. The judgement can stand, but then there will be no question as to the integrity of the process and outcome. Judges need to be held to a very high standard of integrity. Nobody is saying anything wrong necessarily happened, but it's important to clear up any questions. You might not have questions - great! If enough others do, it's right to ask the questions." but who are the others you say ?as ive not seen anything about it,and who is questioning the judges integrity ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well this gets more interesting.... The judge on the case likes Facebook posts of marches. One of the women is a refugee from guess where? Guess why she claimed asylum...
Why not say where she came from ? and why she claimed asyluum?and is it a crime to like a fb post ?
It's not an issue liking FB posts in general but if your a member of the judiciary you've a different standing than Jo bloggs, and if you then find your sitting in a case where you have publicly shown a potential bias then you should exclude yourself..
Entirely possible the Attorney general may review this now..
Did the post he liked have anything to do with case
If he's shown bias to 'one side' that's enough for a miscarriage of justice and that won't be the view if you or I on here which are pretty much irrelevant to the actual case that will be other legitimately interested bodies .
Is he not allowed an opinion or veiw and broke no laws,and if it is reveiwed they will back the judge as they have been punished
With jury service there are certain cases where both sides will ask about issues whereby they feel a potential juror should be excluded, bias being one..
This judge and he may say he did his duty on the merits of the case if asked had liked one of the dogs in the fight so to speak, if he had liked the other side the issue remains for an accusation of not being impartial and that's at the core of his role within the judicial system..
We are all entitled to that and rightly so..
Surely he can be impartial in the case before him,and still have veiw on other issuse
He may be but the perception that he's not will be looked at by whichever side that feels his expressed views might be used to their advantage, be that the crown or the defendants.."So is that fact or what you think will happen ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well this gets more interesting.... The judge on the case likes Facebook posts of marches. One of the women is a refugee from guess where? Guess why she claimed asylum...
Why not say where she came from ? and why she claimed asyluum?and is it a crime to like a fb post ?
It's not an issue liking FB posts in general but if your a member of the judiciary you've a different standing than Jo bloggs, and if you then find your sitting in a case where you have publicly shown a potential bias then you should exclude yourself..
Entirely possible the Attorney general may review this now..
Did the post he liked have anything to do with case
If he's shown bias to 'one side' that's enough for a miscarriage of justice and that won't be the view if you or I on here which are pretty much irrelevant to the actual case that will be other legitimately interested bodies .
Is he not allowed an opinion or veiw and broke no laws,and if it is reveiwed they will back the judge as they have been punished
With jury service there are certain cases where both sides will ask about issues whereby they feel a potential juror should be excluded, bias being one..
This judge and he may say he did his duty on the merits of the case if asked had liked one of the dogs in the fight so to speak, if he had liked the other side the issue remains for an accusation of not being impartial and that's at the core of his role within the judicial system..
We are all entitled to that and rightly so..
Surely he can be impartial in the case before him,and still have veiw on other issuse
He may be but the perception that he's not will be looked at by whichever side that feels his expressed views might be used to their advantage, be that the crown or the defendants..
So is that fact or what you think will happen ?"Is what fact? If as it's been stated he's 'liked' the pro Palestinian marches then yes I see it happening that questions will be asked both internally and other interested parties.. Our system is adversarial .. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As a freedom of speech supporter, I don't think this should be illegal in the first place. But hey.. we don't have as much of freedom of expression anyway. At least now, I hope the progressives see the value of freedom of speech and understand how curbing it is a double-edged sword. We have freedom of hypocrisy, double standards, and justifying genocides while blaming the helpless victims and criminalising anyone who defends them. And then bully the world in the name of our moral superiority. "Talking of double standards and hypocrisy, I notice you did not respond to my post. Here it is again… "So you say that footage showing Hamas atrocities are a hoax and generated by AI. But then in your next breath are saying Haretz air footage shows other tanks shelling other houses in that same day. why isn’t that a hoax and AI generated?" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Her parents claimed yeah. I should've been clearer.
That person should have a good chat with her parents imo. I would be ashamed if that was my kid.
In an interview they said that they didn't stick it on, someone else did without their knowledge. Then they admitted that they did stick it on. The other said they were handed a placard but it was blurry and she didn't know what it was.
Then, at court, they decided that they meant to have the images, but that parachutes are a symbol of joy and celebration. Or maybe freedom from oppression. Or maybe referring to a Banksy. Whatever would get them out of trouble.
The blatant dishonesty is really the most shameful element here. More so than the poor judgement. Says something about their values.
They were protesting against Genocide. That says a lot about their values. Couldn't be said for most in this forum. Who are quick to call Hamas Terrorists and the 1000's of Palestinian kids detained and tortured by the real terrorists "Criminals". And quick to justify the genocide with "Well Hamas shouldn't have attacked on the 7th" rhetoric
People charged with terrorism for protesting agaist genocide with bollocks laws made by Zionists actively aiding genocide, would say anything to save their lives from being ruined by a corrupt system.
More antisemitism claiming that the relevant laws were created by Zionists, again implying a Jewish Conspiracy.
Go on, have another pop.
You are definitely a Nazi.
There are 100 000's of jews against Zionism. They are antiSemites?
The Palestinians being Ethnically cleansed and genocided for 75 years have more Jewish and Smitic Blood running in their veins than any Israeli colonial setler or terrorist.
You're a Zionazi
You are perpetrating the usual antisemitic trope....frequently. You are trying to sugar coat your twisted antisemitism by hiding behind your support for Hamas. So much so that you frequently type posts and remove them shortly after presumably having considered the severity of your views.
I'll let the viewer judge your posts....
A load of BS.
I type with my left hand, and the send button is at the edge of the screen and sensitive. Nothing to do with your bollocks "Makes you wonder what you’re doing with your right hand while on Fab  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Her parents claimed yeah. I should've been clearer.
That person should have a good chat with her parents imo. I would be ashamed if that was my kid.
In an interview they said that they didn't stick it on, someone else did without their knowledge. Then they admitted that they did stick it on. The other said they were handed a placard but it was blurry and she didn't know what it was.
Then, at court, they decided that they meant to have the images, but that parachutes are a symbol of joy and celebration. Or maybe freedom from oppression. Or maybe referring to a Banksy. Whatever would get them out of trouble.
The blatant dishonesty is really the most shameful element here. More so than the poor judgement. Says something about their values.
They were protesting against Genocide. That says a lot about their values. Couldn't be said for most in this forum. Who are quick to call Hamas Terrorists and the 1000's of Palestinian kids detained and tortured by the real terrorists "Criminals". And quick to justify the genocide with "Well Hamas shouldn't have attacked on the 7th" rhetoric
People charged with terrorism for protesting agaist genocide with bollocks laws made by Zionists actively aiding genocide, would say anything to save their lives from being ruined by a corrupt system.
The offence was the weekend after the 7th October, Israel didn't launch it's ground attack till later ..
The only 'genocide' at that point was by Hamas upon mostly civilians..
You don't need a ground offense to commit a genocide. They were bombing every residential building day an night since the 7th. And their Politicians including Netenyahu declared on live tv that Genocide is what they will get. Even quoting the Genocide against Amalek in the Bible and saying Palestinians are Amalek.
Along with the IDF using heavy weapons and helicopters on the festival goes the claim that every residential building being bombed is patently false..
One residential building being bombed where innocent lives are lost is wrong but same residential building where Hamas are sheltered or have a tunnel entrance/firing point is legit to target..
Do you agree that innocent Israeli civilians killed by Hamas on the 7th October is equally as wrong as innocent Palestinians killed by the IDF..
Neither are justified whatever the ideology?
You're assuming The Israeli claims and western propaganda know for never lying just as much they breath and telling half truths.
If a totally partial international investigation finds them targeting civilians (Which Israel is proven guilty of doing for 75 years) then yes of course I condemn that.
I doubt you would tbh, your incapable of any sort of different reality than the one you've wrapped yourself up in..
Certainly not the reality of those who make up stupid lies to justify a genocide. That's an actual reality the whole world is watching in horror "Hamas terrify their own people | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well this gets more interesting.... The judge on the case likes Facebook posts of marches. One of the women is a refugee from guess where? Guess why she claimed asylum...
Why not say where she came from ? and why she claimed asyluum?and is it a crime to like a fb post ?
It's not an issue liking FB posts in general but if your a member of the judiciary you've a different standing than Jo bloggs, and if you then find your sitting in a case where you have publicly shown a potential bias then you should exclude yourself..
Entirely possible the Attorney general may review this now..
Did the post he liked have anything to do with case
If he's shown bias to 'one side' that's enough for a miscarriage of justice and that won't be the view if you or I on here which are pretty much irrelevant to the actual case that will be other legitimately interested bodies .
Is he not allowed an opinion or veiw and broke no laws,and if it is reveiwed they will back the judge as they have been punished
With jury service there are certain cases where both sides will ask about issues whereby they feel a potential juror should be excluded, bias being one..
This judge and he may say he did his duty on the merits of the case if asked had liked one of the dogs in the fight so to speak, if he had liked the other side the issue remains for an accusation of not being impartial and that's at the core of his role within the judicial system..
We are all entitled to that and rightly so..
Surely he can be impartial in the case before him,and still have veiw on other issuse
He may be but the perception that he's not will be looked at by whichever side that feels his expressed views might be used to their advantage, be that the crown or the defendants..
So is that fact or what you think will happen ?being looked at by the crown or defendants
Is what fact?
If as it's been stated he's 'liked' the pro Palestinian marches then yes I see it happening that questions will be asked both internally and other interested parties..
Our system is adversarial .." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Her parents claimed yeah. I should've been clearer.
That person should have a good chat with her parents imo. I would be ashamed if that was my kid.
In an interview they said that they didn't stick it on, someone else did without their knowledge. Then they admitted that they did stick it on. The other said they were handed a placard but it was blurry and she didn't know what it was.
Then, at court, they decided that they meant to have the images, but that parachutes are a symbol of joy and celebration. Or maybe freedom from oppression. Or maybe referring to a Banksy. Whatever would get them out of trouble.
The blatant dishonesty is really the most shameful element here. More so than the poor judgement. Says something about their values.
They were protesting against Genocide. That says a lot about their values. Couldn't be said for most in this forum. Who are quick to call Hamas Terrorists and the 1000's of Palestinian kids detained and tortured by the real terrorists "Criminals". And quick to justify the genocide with "Well Hamas shouldn't have attacked on the 7th" rhetoric
People charged with terrorism for protesting agaist genocide with bollocks laws made by Zionists actively aiding genocide, would say anything to save their lives from being ruined by a corrupt system.
The offence was the weekend after the 7th October, Israel didn't launch it's ground attack till later ..
The only 'genocide' at that point was by Hamas upon mostly civilians..
You don't need a ground offense to commit a genocide. They were bombing every residential building day an night since the 7th. And their Politicians including Netenyahu declared on live tv that Genocide is what they will get. Even quoting the Genocide against Amalek in the Bible and saying Palestinians are Amalek.
Along with the IDF using heavy weapons and helicopters on the festival goes the claim that every residential building being bombed is patently false..
One residential building being bombed where innocent lives are lost is wrong but same residential building where Hamas are sheltered or have a tunnel entrance/firing point is legit to target..
Do you agree that innocent Israeli civilians killed by Hamas on the 7th October is equally as wrong as innocent Palestinians killed by the IDF..
Neither are justified whatever the ideology?
You're assuming The Israeli claims and western propaganda know for never lying just as much they breath and telling half truths.
If a totally partial international investigation finds them targeting civilians (Which Israel is proven guilty of doing for 75 years) then yes of course I condemn that.
I doubt you would tbh, your incapable of any sort of different reality than the one you've wrapped yourself up in..
Certainly not the reality of those who make up stupid lies to justify a genocide. That's an actual reality the whole world is watching in horror
Hamas terrify their own people"Did their own ppl tell you this ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well this gets more interesting.... The judge on the case likes Facebook posts of marches. One of the women is a refugee from guess where? Guess why she claimed asylum...
Why not say where she came from ? and why she claimed asyluum?and is it a crime to like a fb post ?
It's not an issue liking FB posts in general but if your a member of the judiciary you've a different standing than Jo bloggs, and if you then find your sitting in a case where you have publicly shown a potential bias then you should exclude yourself..
Entirely possible the Attorney general may review this now..
Did the post he liked have anything to do with case
If he's shown bias to 'one side' that's enough for a miscarriage of justice and that won't be the view if you or I on here which are pretty much irrelevant to the actual case that will be other legitimately interested bodies .
Is he not allowed an opinion or veiw and broke no laws,and if it is reveiwed they will back the judge as they have been punished
With jury service there are certain cases where both sides will ask about issues whereby they feel a potential juror should be excluded, bias being one..
This judge and he may say he did his duty on the merits of the case if asked had liked one of the dogs in the fight so to speak, if he had liked the other side the issue remains for an accusation of not being impartial and that's at the core of his role within the judicial system..
We are all entitled to that and rightly so..
Surely he can be impartial in the case before him,and still have veiw on other issuse
He may be but the perception that he's not will be looked at by whichever side that feels his expressed views might be used to their advantage, be that the crown or the defendants..
So is that fact or what you think will happen ?
Is what fact?
If as it's been stated he's 'liked' the pro Palestinian marches then yes I see it happening that questions will be asked both internally and other interested parties..
Our system is adversarial .."It being looked at by the crown or defenedants?or is that what you want to happen | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Her parents claimed yeah. I should've been clearer.
That person should have a good chat with her parents imo. I would be ashamed if that was my kid.
In an interview they said that they didn't stick it on, someone else did without their knowledge. Then they admitted that they did stick it on. The other said they were handed a placard but it was blurry and she didn't know what it was.
Then, at court, they decided that they meant to have the images, but that parachutes are a symbol of joy and celebration. Or maybe freedom from oppression. Or maybe referring to a Banksy. Whatever would get them out of trouble.
The blatant dishonesty is really the most shameful element here. More so than the poor judgement. Says something about their values.
They were protesting against Genocide. That says a lot about their values. Couldn't be said for most in this forum. Who are quick to call Hamas Terrorists and the 1000's of Palestinian kids detained and tortured by the real terrorists "Criminals". And quick to justify the genocide with "Well Hamas shouldn't have attacked on the 7th" rhetoric
People charged with terrorism for protesting agaist genocide with bollocks laws made by Zionists actively aiding genocide, would say anything to save their lives from being ruined by a corrupt system.
The offence was the weekend after the 7th October, Israel didn't launch it's ground attack till later ..
The only 'genocide' at that point was by Hamas upon mostly civilians..
You don't need a ground offense to commit a genocide. They were bombing every residential building day an night since the 7th. And their Politicians including Netenyahu declared on live tv that Genocide is what they will get. Even quoting the Genocide against Amalek in the Bible and saying Palestinians are Amalek.
Along with the IDF using heavy weapons and helicopters on the festival goes the claim that every residential building being bombed is patently false..
One residential building being bombed where innocent lives are lost is wrong but same residential building where Hamas are sheltered or have a tunnel entrance/firing point is legit to target..
Do you agree that innocent Israeli civilians killed by Hamas on the 7th October is equally as wrong as innocent Palestinians killed by the IDF..
Neither are justified whatever the ideology?
You're assuming The Israeli claims and western propaganda know for never lying just as much they breath and telling half truths.
If a totally partial international investigation finds them targeting civilians (Which Israel is proven guilty of doing for 75 years) then yes of course I condemn that.
I doubt you would tbh, your incapable of any sort of different reality than the one you've wrapped yourself up in..
Certainly not the reality of those who make up stupid lies to justify a genocide. That's an actual reality the whole world is watching in horror
Hamas terrify their own people
Did their own ppl tell you this ?"wasn't one of the people here because her parents claimed asylum as a result of hamas ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"3 woman celebrated Hamas attacks at a pro Palestinian march in London by attaching images of paragliders to their backs seven days after Hamas militants used paragliders to enter Israel in October. They were found guilty of terrorism offences, but strangest of things seems to have happened, that puzzles me! From the BBC: Convicting them at Westminster Magistrates' Court, Deputy Senior District Judge Tan Ikram said: "Seven days earlier, Hamas went into Israel with what was described by the media as paragliders. A reasonable person would have seen and read that. I do not find a reasonable person would interpret the image merely as a symbol of freedom (lawyers argued they were symbols of peace) So far so good. Mr Ikram, delivering his verdict, said: "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." He said he had "decided not to punish" the defendants, and handed the trio each a 12-month conditional discharge. You crossed the line, but it would have been fair to say that emotions ran very high on this issue," Mr Ikram said. Your lesson has been well learned. I do not find you were seeking to show any support for Hamas. They were guilty, they were found guilty and given a 12 month conditional discharge by the Court, Deputy Senior District Judge Tan Ikram, but he went on to sum it up like that? How can he keep that position and how can being found guilty of a terrorism offence be dealt with so lightly? I can’t understand how this will pass unchallenged. As it was yourself that posted this,can you tell us what you would like to see happen to the 3 woman and the judge who passed sentence" It is really simple.... The issue is the judge found them guilty, then diluted the reason he found them guilty. He said this: "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." So what are they guilty of? That does not make sense... He also said this: Judge Tan Ikram said: "Seven days earlier, Hamas went into Israel with what was described by the media as paragliders. A reasonable person would have seen and read that. I do not find a reasonable person would interpret the image merely as a symbol of freedom. And this: You crossed the line, but it would have been fair to say that emotions ran very high on this issue," Mr Ikram said. Your lesson has been well learned. I do not find you were seeking to show any support for Hamas. What line did they cross? They crossed a line because he said they crossed a line and found them guilty of terrorism offences. Totally confusing and smacks of him being biased. If they are guilty the punishment should be appropriate, if they were not guilty they should receive no punishment, I can only conclude he followed the law to prove he had conducted correctly and decided to then wash it away with his authority. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"They were guilty, they were found guilty and given a 12 month conditional discharge by the Court, Deputy Senior District Judge Tan Ikram, but he went on to sum it up like that? How can he keep that position and how can being found guilty of a terrorism offence be dealt with so lightly? The offence they were prosecuted for was 'displaying an article in such a way as to arouse reasonable suspicion that they were a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation, contrary to section 13(1) of the Terrorism Act 2000'. The offence wasn't supporting Hamas (that's a section 12 offence), it was giving the appearance that they supported Hamas (section 13). The judge has made it clear that he does not believe that they were actually supporting Hamas, and therefore they haven't been prosecuted for any of the more serious terrorism offences. But they were guilty of appearing to support Hamas, for which they gave been given a light sentence." bumping as this gives a clear explanation of the two offences. Imo, the were found guilty of the correct charge. Based on what I know of the facts. I could be easily persuaded their punishment was light given it could have resulted in custodial. However no idea on what the sentencimg guidelines are. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It is really simple.... The issue is the judge found them guilty, then diluted the reason he found them guilty. He said this: "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." So what are they guilty of? That does not make sense..." Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my posts above. You seem to be think that they were prosecuted for supporting terrorism (section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000). They weren't. They were prosecuted for giving the appearance of supporting terrorism (section 13). The judge correctly said that no evidence had been presented that they supported terrorism. However evidence was presented that they made it look like they supported terrorism, and the judge found them guilty of that. The judge explaining that there was no evidence of a section 12 offence, does not dilute his reasoning that they were guilty of a section 13 offence. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It is really simple.... The issue is the judge found them guilty, then diluted the reason he found them guilty. He said this: "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." So what are they guilty of? That does not make sense... Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my posts above. You seem to be think that they were prosecuted for supporting terrorism (section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000). They weren't. They were prosecuted for giving the appearance of supporting terrorism (section 13). The judge correctly said that no evidence had been presented that they supported terrorism. However evidence was presented that they made it look like they supported terrorism, and the judge found them guilty of that. The judge explaining that there was no evidence of a section 12 offence, does not dilute his reasoning that they were guilty of a section 13 offence." I found the explanation clear enough, I do not accept that this was dealt with correctly by the judge. He gave them an out. I'm also pleased to see that there are others starting to ask questions with the government referring the case to the attorney general. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Her parents claimed yeah. I should've been clearer.
That person should have a good chat with her parents imo. I would be ashamed if that was my kid.
In an interview they said that they didn't stick it on, someone else did without their knowledge. Then they admitted that they did stick it on. The other said they were handed a placard but it was blurry and she didn't know what it was.
Then, at court, they decided that they meant to have the images, but that parachutes are a symbol of joy and celebration. Or maybe freedom from oppression. Or maybe referring to a Banksy. Whatever would get them out of trouble.
The blatant dishonesty is really the most shameful element here. More so than the poor judgement. Says something about their values.
They were protesting against Genocide. That says a lot about their values. Couldn't be said for most in this forum. Who are quick to call Hamas Terrorists and the 1000's of Palestinian kids detained and tortured by the real terrorists "Criminals". And quick to justify the genocide with "Well Hamas shouldn't have attacked on the 7th" rhetoric
People charged with terrorism for protesting agaist genocide with bollocks laws made by Zionists actively aiding genocide, would say anything to save their lives from being ruined by a corrupt system.
The offence was the weekend after the 7th October, Israel didn't launch it's ground attack till later ..
The only 'genocide' at that point was by Hamas upon mostly civilians..
You don't need a ground offense to commit a genocide. They were bombing every residential building day an night since the 7th. And their Politicians including Netenyahu declared on live tv that Genocide is what they will get. Even quoting the Genocide against Amalek in the Bible and saying Palestinians are Amalek.
Along with the IDF using heavy weapons and helicopters on the festival goes the claim that every residential building being bombed is patently false..
One residential building being bombed where innocent lives are lost is wrong but same residential building where Hamas are sheltered or have a tunnel entrance/firing point is legit to target..
Do you agree that innocent Israeli civilians killed by Hamas on the 7th October is equally as wrong as innocent Palestinians killed by the IDF..
Neither are justified whatever the ideology?
You're assuming The Israeli claims and western propaganda know for never lying just as much they breath and telling half truths.
If a totally partial international investigation finds them targeting civilians (Which Israel is proven guilty of doing for 75 years) then yes of course I condemn that.
I doubt you would tbh, your incapable of any sort of different reality than the one you've wrapped yourself up in..
Certainly not the reality of those who make up stupid lies to justify a genocide. That's an actual reality the whole world is watching in horror
Hamas terrify their own people
Did their own ppl tell you this ?"They control their people with threats and violence, women are down trodden they are afraid to criticise Hamas through fear | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It is really simple.... The issue is the judge found them guilty, then diluted the reason he found them guilty. He said this: "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." So what are they guilty of? That does not make sense... Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my posts above. You seem to be think that they were prosecuted for supporting terrorism (section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000). They weren't. They were prosecuted for giving the appearance of supporting terrorism (section 13). The judge correctly said that no evidence had been presented that they supported terrorism. However evidence was presented that they made it look like they supported terrorism, and the judge found them guilty of that. The judge explaining that there was no evidence of a section 12 offence, does not dilute his reasoning that they were guilty of a section 13 offence." Sounds like typical British laws. When making a law always ensure to include an option to accommodate for potential cases where there isn't much evidence. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So was it ok for Hamas to kill innocent people on 7th October?" News speak in action how many times have I seen this question. No it wasn't ok, and just to mention the 7th this is not the date all this mess started, the 7th is also news speak.. No it wasn't ok, and on the same hand it is not ok to kill starve, bomb, cut off communication and utilities create a migration within walls showing us all that there is no where to go to escape being bombed, being murdered. I will not ask you if it is ok, because I know it isn't and I need no one to tell me. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So was it ok for Hamas to kill innocent people on 7th October? News speak in action how many times have I seen this question. No it wasn't ok, and just to mention the 7th this is not the date all this mess started, the 7th is also news speak.. No it wasn't ok, and on the same hand it is not ok to kill starve, bomb, cut off communication and utilities create a migration within walls showing us all that there is no where to go to escape being bombed, being murdered. I will not ask you if it is ok, because I know it isn't and I need no one to tell me." Would you support a hamas surrender to save the people from further bloodshed? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So was it ok for Hamas to kill innocent people on 7th October? News speak in action how many times have I seen this question. No it wasn't ok, and just to mention the 7th this is not the date all this mess started, the 7th is also news speak.. No it wasn't ok, and on the same hand it is not ok to kill starve, bomb, cut off communication and utilities create a migration within walls showing us all that there is no where to go to escape being bombed, being murdered. I will not ask you if it is ok, because I know it isn't and I need no one to tell me. Would you support a hamas surrender to save the people from further bloodshed? " I do not answer loaded questions, all you need to know is that murder I do not support, starving and hoarding of civilians in an area they cannot escape, for the excuse of the news speak of the 7th and rights to defend against an enemy who have no weapons to speak of (I refer to fighter planes and bombers, tanks, latest hand held weapons and gear etc). Hamas do not have these kind of weapons so to call it a war is also news speak this is not a war it is a massacre of innocent people. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
