Policing of pro Palestinian marches
Discussion
swisstoni said:
Super Sonic said:
swisstoni said:
Let’s pretend these weekly marches were BNP:
And a black man is politely asked by the police to move elsewhere because his presence could be provocative?
Who is to blame?
The black man wanting to live his life like anyone else?
The police?
Or the marchers who might get violent and attack him?
The black man was born black. He didn't choose his skin colour.And a black man is politely asked by the police to move elsewhere because his presence could be provocative?
Who is to blame?
The black man wanting to live his life like anyone else?
The police?
Or the marchers who might get violent and attack him?
Gideon wasn't born wearing a hat. He chose to wear his kippah.
If he were flying an Israeli flag, fair enough about the comparisons with Celtic and Rangers fans. Instead he was wearing a symbol of his faith in the same way that other faiths might do, such as Sikhs with their turbans.
If that puts him at risk of violent assault then the fault lies elsewhere.
Do the police have a duty of care to keep anyone safe from harm?
If so and there was an armed anti ginger gang rampaging, and I fancied my chances cos I'm ard, should they let me try my luck?
The anti ginger gang isn't illegal, I'm making the choice to get stuck in.
What should the officer do, stand back and watch?
If so and there was an armed anti ginger gang rampaging, and I fancied my chances cos I'm ard, should they let me try my luck?
The anti ginger gang isn't illegal, I'm making the choice to get stuck in.
What should the officer do, stand back and watch?
Pro Palestine demonstrations are taking place outside the UK - USA universities have sent in the police to clear demonstrations from their property (USA trespass laws are stronger than the UK's)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-6887382...
Protests in support of the protesters now seem to be starting elsewhere.
This thread has focused on Gideon Falter a lot, as he's done what he wanted and generated internet traffic about himself.
As people love putting up "what ifs", what if it was a remembrance day march, and someone wanted to cross across it? That wouldn't be ok. Freedom comes with responsibility.
I think the police were correct to stop anyone pushing through a march. And especially so if they were filming themselves and looking for trouble basically.
Should a Jewish person feel safe in the UK pushing through a march of Palestine supporters whilst Israel is destroying parts of Palestine?
Yes, they should in my view.
But it's the play stupid games syndrome coming out, and Falter is being naive/disengienous to think their freedom to move anywhere should include pushing through a protest march.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-6887382...
Protests in support of the protesters now seem to be starting elsewhere.
This thread has focused on Gideon Falter a lot, as he's done what he wanted and generated internet traffic about himself.
As people love putting up "what ifs", what if it was a remembrance day march, and someone wanted to cross across it? That wouldn't be ok. Freedom comes with responsibility.
I think the police were correct to stop anyone pushing through a march. And especially so if they were filming themselves and looking for trouble basically.
Should a Jewish person feel safe in the UK pushing through a march of Palestine supporters whilst Israel is destroying parts of Palestine?
Yes, they should in my view.
But it's the play stupid games syndrome coming out, and Falter is being naive/disengienous to think their freedom to move anywhere should include pushing through a protest march.
Solocle said:
Super Sonic said:
Except as an example of the police keeping people apart to prevent violence, in which case it's valid. You care to expand on your point about the EDL march and a 'Hijabi Muslim Woman'? ie are you saying she should be allowed to cross the EDL march or she should be prevented for her own protection? It's certainly not clear from your post.
She should be treated exactly as any other member of the public, and not unlawfully discriminated against.If the public are allowed to cross, so can she, and the police should expend what resources are necessary to ensure that she is safe doing so.
If they don't have the resources to hand, then nobody is to cross, and the additional time and distance incurred on everybody should be considered when setting conditions on the protest, and a change in location to minimise disruption to the general public may well be in order.
rscott said:
If the person is actually there to cross the road, fine. But if they've turned up just to cause trouble (as Faulter did, shown by him arriving quite some time before the march, but waiting until it was underway before trying to cross), then why should they facilitate his attempts to escalate the situation?
Agreed. He didn't just happen to be there wanting to cross the road by coincidence, it was orchestrated. Wanting to cross the road was just the vehicle for him to stir up trouble. he was there to cause trouble and the police were right to prevent him (and thats coming from someone who is against the marches and supports Israel).rscott said:
If the person is actually there to cross the road, fine. But if they've turned up just to cause trouble (as Faulter did, shown by him arriving quite some time before the march, but waiting until it was underway before trying to cross), then why should they facilitate his attempts to escalate the situation?
Cos he's paid his taxes and knows his rights?Solocle said:
Super Sonic said:
Except as an example of the police keeping people apart to prevent violence, in which case it's valid. You care to expand on your point about the EDL march and a 'Hijabi Muslim Woman'? ie are you saying she should be allowed to cross the EDL march or she should be prevented for her own protection? It's certainly not clear from your post.
She should be treated exactly as any other member of the public, and not unlawfully discriminated against.If the public are allowed to cross, so can she, and the police should expend what resources are necessary to ensure that she is safe doing so.
If they don't have the resources to hand, then nobody is to cross, and the additional time and distance incurred on everybody should be considered when setting conditions on the protest, and a change in location to minimise disruption to the general public may well be in order.
"We’ve had intelligence about pro-Palestinian supporters wanting to drive vehicle convoys, waving flags, through Jewish areas in north London.
Now, there’s nothing illegal about them doing that.
There’s nothing that’s not peaceful about those Jewish communities. But it’s clearly likely to spark some sort of conflict and we prevented them doing it."
MrJuice said:
rscott said:
If the person is actually there to cross the road, fine. But if they've turned up just to cause trouble (as Faulter did, shown by him arriving quite some time before the march, but waiting until it was underway before trying to cross), then why should they facilitate his attempts to escalate the situation?
Cos he's paid his taxes and knows his rights?
rscott said:
I'm guessing you're equally upset about this statement by the Met, where they admit stopping another lawful activity in order to prevent a breach of the peace:
"We’ve had intelligence about pro-Palestinian supporters wanting to drive vehicle convoys, waving flags, through Jewish areas in north London.
Now, there’s nothing illegal about them doing that.
There’s nothing that’s not peaceful about those Jewish communities. But it’s clearly likely to spark some sort of conflict and we prevented them doing it."
Section 5 or 4A public order offence all day long that, add racial/religious aggravation."We’ve had intelligence about pro-Palestinian supporters wanting to drive vehicle convoys, waving flags, through Jewish areas in north London.
Now, there’s nothing illegal about them doing that.
There’s nothing that’s not peaceful about those Jewish communities. But it’s clearly likely to spark some sort of conflict and we prevented them doing it."
Just shows how well the Met know the law!
Greendubber said:
MrJuice said:
rscott said:
If the person is actually there to cross the road, fine. But if they've turned up just to cause trouble (as Faulter did, shown by him arriving quite some time before the march, but waiting until it was underway before trying to cross), then why should they facilitate his attempts to escalate the situation?
Cos he's paid his taxes and knows his rights?Who_Goes_Blue said:
How many times over the years have we heard the statement that criticising Israel is not anti-semitic.
Yet here we are talking about a Jew in relation to a protest against the actions of the Israeli government.
We're talking about the leader of a pro-Israeli government organization with very close links (including funding) to that state.Yet here we are talking about a Jew in relation to a protest against the actions of the Israeli government.
rscott said:
Who_Goes_Blue said:
How many times over the years have we heard the statement that criticising Israel is not anti-semitic.
Yet here we are talking about a Jew in relation to a protest against the actions of the Israeli government.
We're talking about the leader of a pro-Israeli government organization with very close links (including funding) to that state.Yet here we are talking about a Jew in relation to a protest against the actions of the Israeli government.
MrJuice said:
Gideon didn't just stumble on the march as his Times article suggests. Why does he feel he can lie all the time and demand to be taken seriously?
What a wally
Gideon's intention is to try and provoke a violent reaction and then argue that the Marches should be closed down because they're violent. In some ways he's trying to do what Tommy Robinson did. Hopefully he won't get the result he's aiming for.What a wally
Who_Goes_Blue said:
No this is about a chap appearing "overtly jewish"
As has been said numerous times there are people who are "overtly jewish" who are actually taking part in the marches. being jewish (overtly or otherwise) has nothing to do with it. It's his "behaving like a t
t and trying to provoke a reaction" that the Police were trying to curtail.Solocle said:
rscott said:
I'm guessing you're equally upset about this statement by the Met, where they admit stopping another lawful activity in order to prevent a breach of the peace:
"We’ve had intelligence about pro-Palestinian supporters wanting to drive vehicle convoys, waving flags, through Jewish areas in north London.
Now, there’s nothing illegal about them doing that.
There’s nothing that’s not peaceful about those Jewish communities. But it’s clearly likely to spark some sort of conflict and we prevented them doing it."
Section 5 or 4A public order offence all day long that, add racial/religious aggravation."We’ve had intelligence about pro-Palestinian supporters wanting to drive vehicle convoys, waving flags, through Jewish areas in north London.
Now, there’s nothing illegal about them doing that.
There’s nothing that’s not peaceful about those Jewish communities. But it’s clearly likely to spark some sort of conflict and we prevented them doing it."
Just shows how well the Met know the law!
Countdown said:
Who_Goes_Blue said:
No this is about a chap appearing "overtly jewish"
As has been said numerous times there are people who are "overtly jewish" who are actually taking part in the marches. being jewish (overtly or otherwise) has nothing to do with it. It's his "behaving like a tt and trying to provoke a reaction" that the Police were trying to curtail.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff