Shamima Begum’s solicitor just tweeted this

[DesperateForSun]

At least there’s a place that will happily take her now

@Galassia

Yet Twitter ban Tommy Robinson but allow this? Double standards.

As I said, 'leaving aside rules about lawyers online...'. Okay, maybe you can't leave those aside in this case and if he's broken rules presumably he'll be dealt with by the appropriate bodies. But many people here and elsewhere have said the Tweet was appalling without commenting on his role as lawyer, and that was my point. I am at the point now where I don't see how anyone can really take what he put as support for the Taliban, but, yes, he should have realised it would be taken the wrong way/was unprofessional and not posted it. I certainly don't think he's scrabbling to justify it though - he's explaining his genuine reasons, which also shouldn't be necessary and so points to the whole thing being a bit of a shitshow on his part.

[quote NotPersephone]@Xenia I do t think he wrote that - it was the OP.

@Meraas it surely cannot be a surprise to you that the conduct of solicitors - as officers of the courts - is highly regulated? If you want to know how and why, then by all means subscribe to the Law Soc Gazette (a few hundred quid) and read about it.

I’ve known people struck off and severely reprimanded for much less. Absolutely as it should be.[/quote]
No, but neither you nor anyone else on this thread has provided any evidence that lawyers can’t make an ironic joke on Twitter without being banned.

It's not an "ironic joke"? What's ironic? What's funny? Explain that.

This thread is just another education that most white people will defend free speech, but for white people only. Brown/black people can’t make a joke lest they be deemed offensive. In short, BAME people have to be whiter than white whilst white people are free to offend at will.

@AssassinatedBeauty

It's not an "ironic joke"? What's ironic? What's funny? Explain that.

I’ve already explained it upthread if you bother to RTFT.

On this thread it’s been claimed that he supports the Taliban

I’m quite sure if he was white that assumption wouldn’t have been made

@MrsBede
that some people are reacting based on his skin colour and their disagreement with his actions on behalf of Shamima Begum.

He's a lawyer so presumably well educated so surely he must know that as terrorist specialist and representative of Begum, his words are going to be scrutinised. Therfore surely he should be professional and circumspect in his comments. Personally I think he was using sarcasm to have a go at the home office, but on some occasions trying to be clever can backfire hugely. Et voila! He should know better and I don't understand why anyone would sympathise with him, let alone defend him. And trying to make out it's all just a racist attack is pathetic.

No, but neither you nor anyone else on this thread has provided any evidence that lawyers can’t make an ironic joke on Twitter without being banned. You've been told where you can find the 'evidence' for Social Media guidance and how much it will cost you t o read it.

Don't rely on other posters being reluctant to pay a couple of hundred pounds to provide you with the precise wording as proof it doesn't exist.

It just makes you look daft!

There is at least one poster here who works in the same profession - they would have said if the assertion that there are SM guidelines were wrong

Scottish verson - lite but free to read

www.lawscot.org.uk/news-and-events/law-society-news/socialmediaguidance/

@Meraas you’re making a lot of assumptions about the race, religion, and backgrounds of people who can’t see the humour in it.

@Meraas

This thread is just another education that most white people will defend free speech, but for white people only. Brown/black people can’t make a joke lest they be deemed offensive. In short, BAME people have to be whiter than white whilst white people are free to offend at will.

You are using THIS to make THAT assertion?

OK!

@Meraas

This thread is just another education that most white people will defend free speech, but for white people only. Brown/black people can’t make a joke lest they be deemed offensive. In short, BAME people have to be whiter than white whilst white people are free to offend at will.

I believe it was sarcasm made as a dig at the Pruti Patel. But this isn't a brown/black person make a joke on twitter. This is an educated lawyer who works in the area of terrorism related offences and is Begums solicitor. With his educational background surely he should be able to think through the consequences of his tweeting and behave more judiciously. Maybe he shou6kd lay off tweeting for a while.

Given that he’s defending a known supporter of terrorism it’s not surprising that his comment was read as being celebratory.

He should know better and I don't understand why anyone would sympathise with him, let alone defend him. And trying to make out it's all just a racist attack is pathetic.

I said he should have known better, or words to that effect, and I haven't said I sympathise with him; I don't. It's not about defending him but suggesting that he didn't mean what people said he did - correcting misinterpretations. Whether I agree with him or not, and as I've said, he seems to be a bit of a dick in the way he conducts himself online, it's still annoying when people assert he meant something he clearly didn't. At the start the thread was all about outrage that what he said was so offensive and he clearly supports the Taliban/sees it as a joke etc. I think as people realise he didn't mean it that way, the emphasis has shifted onto whether he should have known better as a lawyer, which he should have, yes.

And making it about racism isn't pathetic. I'm afraid that when a story centres on a person of colour, some, not all, of the reactions will inevitably be influenced by the speaker's views of the perpetrators race. It's naïve or disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

Sorry about the missing apostrophe .

@Paulinna

Given that he’s defending a known supporter of terrorism it’s not surprising that his comment was read as being celebratory.

Not really! He's a lawyer! They take cases whether they like their client or not. They argue points of law, not personality.

Well, they do here in the uK!

Don't be silly about it.

@Meraas I've RTFT. I don't agree that anyone has managed to explain the irony, sarcasm or the humour of this. Explanations certainly have been offered, but that's not the same as them being successful.

Exactly @CuriousaboutSamphire It's quite depressing how many people are black and white thinkers - defending Begum's totally legitimate right to retain her citizenship under international law = obviously a supporter of terrorism 🙄

@Meraas

This thread is just another education that most white people will defend free speech, but for white people only. Brown/black people can’t make a joke lest they be deemed offensive. In short, BAME people have to be whiter than white whilst white people are free to offend at will.

Bollocks and a bit desperate sounding too. Anyone, white black or brown who sniggered 'the boys are back in town' at the taliban in the presidential office deserve every criticism they get.

This is an educated lawyer who works in the area of terrorism related offences and is Begums solicitor. With his educational background surely he should be able to think through the consequences of his tweeting and behave more judiciously. Maybe he shou6kd lay off tweeting for a while

I think the fact that he is an educated lawyer probably means he is aware of how to call it and what the consequences will be, accurately, and be able to judge tweeting for himself. If you look at his profile, and the work he has done, it is unlikely that anything in this thread is going to be particularly useful advice for him. And if you are doing the kind of work he does day in day out, dark humour is not unexpected. I am not saying that my humour is the same, but I think that many posters here have no understanding of his area of law.

[quote CuriousaboutSamphire]No, but neither you nor anyone else on this thread has provided any evidence that lawyers can’t make an ironic joke on Twitter without being banned. You've been told where you can find the 'evidence' for Social Media guidance and how much it will cost you t o read it.

Don't rely on other posters being reluctant to pay a couple of hundred pounds to provide you with the precise wording as proof it doesn't exist.

It just makes you look daft!

There is at least one poster here who works in the same profession - they would have said if the assertion that there are SM guidelines were wrong

Scottish verson - lite but free to read

www.lawscot.org.uk/news-and-events/law-society-news/socialmediaguidance/[/quote]
That (the link) isn't evidence - it is guidance

It doesn't mean someone would or would not be banned if not following it to a "t". Dark or sardonic or ironic humour is not unheard of in law.

[quote NotPersephone]@MrsBede yep, at best he’s got poor judgment, is incapable of interpreting or understanding nuance, lacks empathy, does not have the courage of his convictions, has an appalling sense of timing and is belatedly trying to cover his tracks with obscure 70’s gang references. None of which are qualities that exactly sell him as a decent solicitor.[/quote]
Do you have any expertise in relation to his area of law which enables you to judge this? Because if not you are being very unprofessional here.

Referring to you later post - name the people struck off and what they did - it will be information in the public domain, so give details. I think you are talking tosh.

struck off and severely reprimanded it is going to be one or the other, surely - not the sort of exact wording one would expect from a lawyer.