Councillor Hau-Yu Tam has been cleared of breaching Lewisham Council's Code of Conduct over social media posts, but has been warned her conduct fell below expected standards.
A Standards Sub-Committee A meeting on Monday, July 20, 2026, considered a complaint made against Councillor Tam regarding her social media activity. The committee determined that while her use of the term coconuts
was problematic, her posts did not breach the council's Code of Conduct as they were considered expressions of political opinion protected by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The complaint, brought by former Mayor Brenda Dacres, concerned several social media posts, including retweets, made by Councillor Tam on her X account. The allegations included claims of antisemitism and racism.
An investigator from Bevan Brittan LLP, Kirsty Cole, presented her findings, concluding that Councillor Tam was acting in her official capacity as a councillor due to her X account identifying her as such. The meeting's proceedings and findings can be found in the Public reports pack 20th Jul 2026.
Regarding allegations of antisemitism, Ms Cole found that while some retweets expressed strong criticism of Zionism
, they did not constitute antisemitism in this context. Specifically, the investigator noted that case law distinguishes between criticism of Zionism as a political ideology and hatred towards Jewish people
and that Councillor Tam's posts were criticisms of the policies of the state of Israel and Zionism as a political ideology, rather than expressions of hostility towards Jewish people.
¹ The specific nature of this criticism included statements such as Zionism is pure evil and must be abolished
and Zionism is undoubtedly, unquestionably the Nazism of our time.
²
The complaint also included an allegation that Councillor Tam had made a racist comment by referring to MPs David Lammy and Priti Patel as coconuts
. Ms Cole's investigation found that while the term coconut
is widely considered offensive, in this context, it was used as political satire and fell within the protection of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The investigator found that the term was clearly political in nature rather than constituting a personalised attack,
referencing case law, including R v Hussain, which deemed similar comments directed at politicians in high office and their policies as a form of political critique.
³
The committee agreed with the investigator's conclusion that Councillor Tam had not breached the council's Code of Conduct. However, the committee expressed disappointment regarding the coconut
remarks, stating that the behaviour fell below the standard that we would expect of councillors at Lewisham
. They advised Councillor Tam to carefully consider her public comments.
As a result of the investigation, the committee requested that the monitoring officer prepare bespoke guidance and training on the use of social media by councillors for future consideration. Councillor Andre Bourne inquired about these recommendations, which Kirsty Cole confirmed were intended to provide additional, specific guidance. The Agenda frontsheet for the meeting also outlines the agenda items.
Councillor Hilary Moore raised concerns about the use of the term coconuts
, questioning its acceptability in any context and suggesting that councillors should consider their public image beyond legal requirements. She also noted that social media training for councillors had previously emphasised that they should assume they are always identifiable as councillors when posting online.
Councillor Tam has since apologised for her remarks.
Jeremy Chambers, the Council's Director of Law and Corporate Governance and Monitoring Officer, explained the process, noting that the subcommittee was entitled to reach its own conclusion, independent of the investigator's report.
Mr Chambers confirmed that the council's employee assistance programme does not extend to councillors.
¹ The investigator stated that case law distinguishes between criticism of Zionism where it's used in the context of a label given to a group of political beliefs about the foundation and subsequent policy and conduct of the State of Israel which falls within the protection of Article 10 and the right of freedom of expression as against hatred or hostility towards Jews as a racial or religious group which would constitute antisemitism.
² These specific statements were retweeted by Councillor Tam and are detailed in the investigation findings.
³ The investigator referenced case law, including R v Hussain, which deemed a similar comment to be a form of political critique directed towards politicians in high office and their policies.
