The Standards Sub-Committee A met on Monday 20 July 2026 to consider a complaint made against Councillor Hau-Yu Tam regarding her social media activity. The committee determined that while Councillor Tam's use of the term coconuts was problematic and fell below the expected standard, her social media 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.

Determination of a Complaint under the Code of Conduct

The primary focus of the meeting was the determination of a complaint made by former Mayor Brenda Dacres against Councillor Hau-Yu Tam. The complaint concerned several social media posts, including retweets, made by Councillor Tam on her X account, which were alleged to be antisemitic and racist.

Kirsty Cole, an investigator from Bevan Brittan LLP, presented her findings. She concluded that Councillor Tam was acting in her official capacity as a councillor when she made the posts, as her X account profile identified her as such.

Regarding the allegations of antisemitism, Ms Cole found that while some of Councillor Tam's retweets, which expressed strong criticism of Zionism, fell within the illustrative examples of antisemitism provided by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition, they did not constitute antisemitism in this context. Ms Cole noted that case law distinguishes between criticism of Zionism as a political ideology and hatred towards Jewish people. She concluded 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. Therefore, these posts were considered to be political expression protected by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

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. She referenced case law, including R v Hussain, which suggested that such comments, when directed at politicians in high office and their policies, could be considered political critique.

The committee deliberated and ultimately 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 while not a breach of the code, 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. The committee noted that Councillor Tam had since apologised for her remarks.

Jeremy Chambers, the Council's Director of Law and Corporate Governance and Monitoring Officer, explained the process, including his initial assessment of the complaint and the appointment of an external investigator. He clarified that while the investigator's report contained recommendations, the subcommittee was entitled to reach its own conclusion.

Councillor Hilary Moore raised concerns about the use of the term coconuts , questioning whether it was acceptable 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 Andre Bourne inquired about the investigator's recommendations, specifically regarding the suggestion for bespoke social media guidance and training. Kirsty Cole explained that while training is a norm for councillors, the recommendation was made to provide additional, specific guidance on social media use.

Jeremy Chambers confirmed that the council's employee assistance programme does not extend to councillors. He also clarified the subcommittee's role, stating that they were not bound by the investigator's findings and were entitled to reach a different conclusion after private deliberations.

The committee also noted that Councillor Tam had received legal representation throughout the process and that the complaint's timeline had been affected by the period between independent persons and the local elections.