There has been a good deal of competition over the last four months but the case of the three girls protesting with images of Hamas paragliders stitched to their clothing – even before any response from Israel to the October 7th atrocities – was singularly appalling. Like many, I was relieved to hear that they were arrested and faced trial.
But over the last 24 hours, anybody following this case could be forgiven for thinking that they had woken up in a Michel Houellebecq novel, but I do not think any author of speculative fiction could have dreamed up this scenario. While the three girls have indeed been tried in court and found guilty by a jury, there are two aspects of this case that are very troubling.
Firstly, one of the defendants, Heba Alhayek, has come to Britain from Gaza and was granted asylum because her family had been critical of Hamas. This in itself is distressing. Given that she has now been convicted of “glorification of the actions” of Hamas, one would hope that she’d now be welcomed back with open arms. What are the prospects of her being deported back to Gaza?
Secondly, there is the case of the judge that allowed the girls to walk free from court with a conditional discharge, in spite of the jury’s guilty verdict. Judge Tanweer Ikram, who in December 2023 convicted six retired police officers for the private messages they had posted in a WhatsApp group, turns out to have liked a LinkedIn post by Sham Uddin which read:
Free Free Palestine. To the Israeli terrorist both in the United Kingdom, the United States, and of course Israel you can run, you can bomb but you cannot hide — justice will be coming for you.
Ikram has since claimed not to have realised that he liked the post but, as of this morning, has deleted his LinkedIn account altogether. Why?
How does a judge with views like Ikram’s get appointed in the first place? It turns out that candidates for judicial office in courts and tribunals in England and Wales are appointed by the Judicial Appointments Commission. On December 11th last year, it was announced that, on the advice of the Lord Chancellor, His Majesty the King had approved the appointment of a new Commissioner.
His name? Deputy Senior District Judge Tanweer Ikram CBE DL.
Ian Price is a Business Psychologist. Find him on X. He is the author of the Anti-Human Substack page, where this article first appeared. Subscribe here.
Stop Press: Tom Slater has weighed in on Britain’s two tier justice system in the Spectator, as has Fraser Myers in Spiked.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
More delusional reporting about how the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer’s policies have a significant bearing on the cost of UK debt.
The UK is already bankrupt. Like most countries with a bloated overbearing state.
I’m not defending Rachel Reeves or any politician, but some minor policies which represent a drop in our ocean of debt is what wrecked our economy.
That should be “isn’t what wrecked our economy”
My take on the matter:
1.) Any reasonable market analyst or investor must have had strong suspicions about a Labour government anyway, as historically every single Labour government left the economy in worse shape than is had been before they took over.
2.) But they gave Starmer’s government the benefit of doubt. Maybe this time it will be different. You never know.
3.) By now they have realized that their suspicions were well founded, Labour haven’t got a clue and Rachel from Accounts is indeed incompetent.
4.) Borrowing cost up, pound devalued as a result.
Liz Truss may have been a careless driver but was never given a chance to improve. Whereas Rachel Reeves is totally reckless behind the wheel. Her licence to kill our economy should be immediately withdrawn with a life ban.
Rubbish.
Reeves is deliberately trashing the economy, targeting those who Labour hates.
Truss would have been the best Tory PM in 14 years, except she went too fast, too soon and was mugged by the blob. They couldn’t have her fracking, ending ECHR, moving our embassy to Jerusalem, lowering taxes.
Listen to her recent interviews and she, for my money, is leading the charge against the blob that is the real enemy within. She understands and explains how we need a people’s movement, properly led and focused on the 5th Column.
This naive reporting angers me, to be honest.
I agree. In fact this is typical pseudo-journalism. Kate Andrews seeks to make a thesis out of a very straightforward bit of politics, not economics just vicious politics.
Rachel from accounts is acting under orders and those orders are to destroy the British economy and its people. Andrews hasn’t worked this out yet and has sought a hi-brow explanation. The reality is she hasn’t got a scooby and is talking nonsense.
She works for Gove. That’s all you need to know.
Good point.
What was unknown at the time of the Truss budget was that the pensions industry had decided to play casino games with the money in the pension schemes by using LDIs. The Bank of England also neglected to inform Truss or Kwarteng that they selling off a tranche of QE bonds when the budget was announced in what could be seen as a deliberate act of sabotage.
Rachel from Accounts had fucked up all on her own and delivered mortgage rates higher than Truss did.
Let’s not forget that the “necessary intervention” to shore up the LDI pension scheme included the Bank of England’s own pension scheme.
I’m sure the “intervention” was completely necessary and nothing to do with that
That’s more like it.
Interesting (to me) that the thesis in the article alleges that ‘Rachel Reeves is Making the Same Mistake as Liz Truss‘
Surely a more valid comparison would be between Truss and Starmer – what with them both being PM? Or between Kwarteng and Reeves.
I think Starmer is being let off too lightly on the fiscal incompetence argument.
I do not believe there is “fiscal incompetence.” It is inconceivable that so many ministers and civil servants could be acting in a manner so patently fiscally incontinent. They are acting under orders and those orders are to destroy the economy and thus the nation. Nothing these days is as it seems.
I stopped my Spectator subscription because of this person. Needless to say I did not waste my time reading the article.
I suspect that the exchange rate plays more of a role than is discussed here. The govt wants to repay loans in pounds, but why would an investor want to have pounds? The govt is trashing the productive part of the economy, via unnecessary increases in energy prices, taxes, and regulations.
What use will a pound be in 5 years time?
Why would they want to “finance the transition” when “the transition£ is clearly going to destroy our economy since it’s intended to outsource all manufacturing and ensure we have the most expensive energy on the planet?
If the markets (in 22) were mainly reacting to the government’s plan to subsidise energy costs, why didn’t they react two weeks earlier when the announcement was actually made and why didn’t the enormous cost of lockdowns create any panic?
A very simplistic assessment.
Truss’ budget was a lukewarm centrist plan with a strong empirical basis. The energy subsidy was ill advised but despite her plan being thrown out the energy subsidy continued as did money printing and currency devaluation. Furthermore the continuing vast green energy subsidies still continue despite the high debt and low productivity of the UK. The article fails to grasp deeper problems.