A sound biblical definition of an idol is any person, thing, feeling, desire or thought which we love more than God. An idol is anything at all which we put in God’s place in our lives.
An idolator is anyone who worships (ascribes the greatest worth to) something or someone other than God. The man in the above video, Tan Ikram, is a good example of an idolator.
Watch the video and it is obvious that Tan Ikram – the corrupt judge who gave this howlingly bad verdict – worships the status of being a judge, and especially his own achievement of attaining judge status.
But the purpose of judge status isn’t supposed to be self-adulation and revelling in the high pay and perks. The office of a judge is for the purpose of facilitating and administering justice – impartially, honestly and faithfully, in accordance with the law.
Given that Tan Ikram has achieved judge status but is actually a terrible judge, he would do the world a great favour if he were to abandon the bench for the bathroom, and live out his days gazing in wonder at his reflection in the mirror.
It’s no surprise Tan Ikram found in favour of his fellow corrupt judge, the harassment complainant Jeremy Lea, and against the child-protecting and corruption-exposing journalist Richard Carvath, at Sheffield magistrates’ court on 23 March 2020.
Tan Ikram – a judge idolator – was never going to disappoint another judge. And who would doubt that Ikram was thinking about the best interests of his own judicial career, in backing his fellow judge?
Tan Ikram’s corruption in the case of Jeremy Lea and Richard Carvath highlights the obscenity that is trial without jury.
Tan Ikram, you need to get right with God, before His Day of Judgement.
We posed a question to the Secret Barrister and other lawyers on Twitter today. (Lawyers are such clever, moral people, aren’t they?)
We look forward to hearing comment from anybody willing to justify a criminal law statute (the Protection from Harassment Act 1997) which provides for harassment (causing ‘alarm or distress’, even if unintentional and unforeseen) not being a crime if committed once, but only if committed twice.
Is there any other ‘crime’ with this principle enshrined in the law?
It’s just common sense, isn’t it? Commit a murder/rape/assault/fraud etcetera, and you have committed a crime – the first time you do it.
But under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, it is not a crime to harass somebody else, as long as you only do it once!
The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 is a mad, bad law which ought to be repealed.