KB-2024-002315 - [2025] EWHC 1782 (KB)

The claimant explains how he was shocked when he was contacted about this by the defendant (“a rabbit in headlights”) and how he does not feel he was given a sufficient opportunity to respond. Although he was initially told that the defendant wanted him to be “part of the message the BMA writes”, he says that he was given no opportunity to contribute to, or comment on, the email before it was sent. He says that his tweets have been taken out of context, and that both the Daily Mail and the defendant read the tweets at face value and in isolation, without appreciating the context in which they were written. He also makes complaints about the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings.

The claimant says that his use of social media was highly political and involved a heavy use of irony, sarcasm, hyperbole and absurdism. He points out that there was no adverse reaction to his tweets at the time they were sent, and says that if he had made overtly racist comments then these would immediately have been challenged or called out. He says that he does not follow anyone on social media who espouses racist views, and that he follows one account which represents “a left-wing Jewish diasporic group”. He points to other tweets that he has posted which “acknowledge the problem of antisemitism” and “Jewish people being sidelined in their own conversation.” He says that, when read in context, the small number of individual tweets which were the focus of the Daily Mail’s complaint are not in fact objectionable, and that the complaint “was manufactured as a tactic in the politics around the junior doctor’s strike.”

He explains the context for each of the three tweets.

First tweet: The claimant says that his tweet is an instance of an established comedic use of the “life hack” or “top tip” as a structure for the presentation of silly, sarcastic or unhelpful information. It was a response to the absurd unenforceability of the conditions on aid that were being proposed by the City of Dickinson. His intention was to highlight the obvious flaw in those conditions, and their sheer absurdity. He says that even if the tweet is taken literally, it is a dyad with its parent tweet, and that the “spite” is most obviously directed at the United States authorities rather than the state of Israel or Jewish people.

Second tweet: The claimant says that it is clear that he was responding to a tweet that has subsequently been deleted, and that in the absence of that missing context, his tweet cannot properly be understood. He says that the structure “Me… Also me…” is a common internet meme or shorthand by which to present two contradictory points and to highlight hypocrisy or inconsistency. The claimant is not now able to explain with certainty the precise context (because the relevant tweets have been deleted), but he believes that it concerned the use of goblins, “portrayed as hard-nosed bankers”, in the Harry Potter films. He considers that demonstrates hypocrisy on the part of the author of those books because she had been critical of Jeremy Corbyn MP for commenting on a mural which contained “some alleged, age-old anti-Jewish tropes based on capitalist domination.” He says that it is “deeply ironic” to suggest his tweet is antisemitic, because its purpose was to call out hypocrisy around the issue of antisemitism.

Third tweet: The claimant says that the image of Mr Corbyn laying a wreath related to an event to honour those killed by an air strike in 1985. He says that Mr Corbyn had been criticised for attending that event because it was close to memorials for people accused of involvement in terrorism. The account with the handle “Count Dankula” is owned by Mark Meechan. He was infamous for having trained a dog to perform a Nazi salute when he said “zeig heil” or “gas the jews.” The claimant’s response was in quotation marks, signifying that he was impersonating someone else, that person being Mr Meechan. He says he was lampooning Mr Meechan for presenting Mr Corbyn as antisemitic given his own antecedents. He points out that there were three replies which correctly acknowledge the claimant’s post for what it was and none of which suggested that it was reflective of the claimant’s own views.