|
|
Post by sandypine on Apr 22, 2024 16:14:18 GMT
I would agree the police have a duty to prevent crime occurring and so the argument is two tier. There is an argument to say he should have been stopped. The big question is though why would the left march with, side with and form groups with those who contained such elements when there is supposed to be a zero tolerance to racism when they support kick it out, hopenothate, stophateuk, race equality first and a host of other groups built on the zero tolerance to racism agenda. And to be clear zero tolerance means no matter what the mitigating circumstances are and no matter how big the cause is any form of racism is unacceptable, but it seems this is all just baloney. We don't live in a perfect world where everyone can be packaged and labelled into neat groups. No we do not but the law does exactly that by presenting groups as little packages of protected characteristics and where zero tolerance is expected those packages are clearly fixed and neatly presented. |
|
|
|
Post by morayloon on Apr 22, 2024 16:14:55 GMT
I don't know what the police are telling the Jewish communities. However, if you have someone hell-bent on causing a disturbance, if not a riot, that person should be arrested. What leads you to believe he was intent on causing a riot? - all he wanted to do was walk home after visiting the Synagogue. It seems that any claim is valid to avoid acknowledging the threat from the pro-hamas protestors.  It was a stupid thing to even consider doing. The argument that he only wanted to cross the road is too simplistic. As you well know, they were not "pro-Hamas" protestors, they were pro-Palestinian supporters. Your attempts to lump all critics of the Netanyahu regime as pro-Hamas is revealing in itstotal lack of credibility. "All he wanted to do?" Consider this: a Celtic supporter walks on to the Ibrox pitch, from the area set aside for hoops fans. He is intent on getting to the other end: full of Rangers fans. The police wrestle him to the ground, and arrest him for a breach of the peace. Were they right to stop him, given that the man was about to put himself in a very dangerous, hostile environment? Or, were they infringing his right to wander freely and to meet up with fellow fitba fans. Would that be seen as an anti-Catholic action? |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Apr 22, 2024 16:18:10 GMT
They're all mad and clearly deranged. Zionism is a thing from well over a century ago. A home for Jewish folk, which the UK supported. It was done before any of us were born. So why was the: 32nd Zionist Congress held in 1992
33rd Zionist Congress held in 1997
34th Zionist Congress held in 2003
35th Zionist Congress held in 2006
36th Zionist Congress held in 2010
37th Zionist Congress held in 2015
38th Zionist Congress held in 2020
Almost like it is still a thing eh? Maybe time stop pontificating on things you don't even understand the basics of? All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Apr 22, 2024 16:20:12 GMT
Were they right to stop him, given that the man was about to put himself in a very dangerous, hostile environment?... And, Bingo. So why did the police allow these very dangerous, hostile marches (which you and they apparently acknowledge as such) to take place? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Apr 22, 2024 16:21:34 GMT
What leads you to believe he was intent on causing a riot? - all he wanted to do was walk home after visiting the Synagogue. It seems that any claim is valid to avoid acknowledging the threat from the pro-hamas protestors. It was a stupid thing to even consider doing. The argument that he only wanted to cross the road is too simplistic. As you well know, they were not "pro-Hamas" protestors, they were pro-Palestinian supporters. Your attempts to lump all critics of the Netanyahu regime as pro-Hamas is revealing in itstotal lack of credibility. "All he wanted to do?" Consider this: a Celtic supporter walks on to the Ibrox pitch, from the area set aside for hoops fans. He is intent on getting to the other end: full of Rangers fans. The police wrestle him to the ground, and arrest him for a breach of the peace. Were they right to stop him, given that the man was about to put himself in a very dangerous, hostile environment? Or, were they infringing his right to wander freely and to meet up with fellow fitba fans. Would that be seen as an anti-Catholic action? Why would any environment in the UK be hostile to a Jew? Your analogy only works if you accept that the march was hostile to Jews, which the police also recognised, so the question remains why did they allow a march that contained clear anti Jewish elements to take place and continue even when it was recognised? |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Apr 22, 2024 16:32:02 GMT
It was a stupid thing to even consider doing. The argument that he only wanted to cross the road is too simplistic. As you well know, they were not "pro-Hamas" protestors, they were pro-Palestinian supporters. Your attempts to lump all critics of the Netanyahu regime as pro-Hamas is revealing in itstotal lack of credibility. "All he wanted to do?" Consider this: a Celtic supporter walks on to the Ibrox pitch, from the area set aside for hoops fans. He is intent on getting to the other end: full of Rangers fans. The police wrestle him to the ground, and arrest him for a breach of the peace. Were they right to stop him, given that the man was about to put himself in a very dangerous, hostile environment? Or, were they infringing his right to wander freely and to meet up with fellow fitba fans. Would that be seen as an anti-Catholic action? Why would any environment in the UK be hostile to a Jew? Your analogy only works if you accept that the march was hostile to Jews, which the police also recognised, so the question remains why did they allow a march that contained clear anti Jewish elements to take place and continue even when it was recognised? It isn't it is hostile to an agitator lying through his back teeth using the oldest trick in the book of agitating a peaceful protest for the sake of getting headlines for the Israeli government and their genocidal quest, there were jews in that protest, so no you cannot use it was just hostile towards Jews. It is based on a total lie in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Apr 22, 2024 16:42:31 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Apr 22, 2024 16:58:29 GMT
Why would any environment in the UK be hostile to a Jew? Your analogy only works if you accept that the march was hostile to Jews, which the police also recognised, so the question remains why did they allow a march that contained clear anti Jewish elements to take place and continue even when it was recognised? It isn't it is hostile to an agitator lying through his back teeth using the oldest trick in the book of agitating a peaceful protest for the sake of getting headlines for the Israeli government and their genocidal quest, there were jews in that protest, so no you cannot use it was just hostile towards Jews. It is based on a total lie in the first place. Even if all that is true the police recognised as presenting himself as a Jew in the situation of the march was a dangerous undertaking so they must have known, or suspected, there were strong anti Jewish marchers mixed in with the peaceful protestors. If that element was not present he was not in danger from the peaceful majority. We are back to being openly Jewish is a problem for some protestors so why would the left align themselves with such protest groups, zero tolerance means zero tolerance not oh well we are marching in a good cause so we have to be tolerant. It is hypocrisy writ large. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Apr 22, 2024 17:04:45 GMT
Maybe I missed it in the link but where are the photos he shared? |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Apr 22, 2024 17:11:18 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Apr 22, 2024 17:31:57 GMT
What leads you to believe he was intent on causing a riot? - all he wanted to do was walk home after visiting the Synagogue. It seems that any claim is valid to avoid acknowledging the threat from the pro-hamas protestors. It was a stupid thing to even consider doing. The argument that he only wanted to cross the road is too simplistic. As you well know, they were not "pro-Hamas" protestors, they were pro-Palestinian supporters. Your attempts to lump all critics of the Netanyahu regime as pro-Hamas is revealing in itstotal lack of credibility. "All he wanted to do?" Consider this: a Celtic supporter walks on to the Ibrox pitch, from the area set aside for hoops fans. He is intent on getting to the other end: full of Rangers fans. The police wrestle him to the ground, and arrest him for a breach of the peace. Were they right to stop him, given that the man was about to put himself in a very dangerous, hostile environment? Or, were they infringing his right to wander freely and to meet up with fellow fitba fans. Would that be seen as an anti-Catholic action? Are you claiming that the protest was a very dangerous hostile environment for Jews? - if not, where was the threat to his life coming from? |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Apr 22, 2024 17:39:55 GMT
It was a stupid thing to even consider doing. The argument that he only wanted to cross the road is too simplistic. As you well know, they were not "pro-Hamas" protestors, they were pro-Palestinian supporters. Your attempts to lump all critics of the Netanyahu regime as pro-Hamas is revealing in itstotal lack of credibility. "All he wanted to do?" Consider this: a Celtic supporter walks on to the Ibrox pitch, from the area set aside for hoops fans. He is intent on getting to the other end: full of Rangers fans. The police wrestle him to the ground, and arrest him for a breach of the peace. Were they right to stop him, given that the man was about to put himself in a very dangerous, hostile environment? Or, were they infringing his right to wander freely and to meet up with fellow fitba fans. Would that be seen as an anti-Catholic action? Are you claiming that the protest was a very dangerous hostile environment for Jews? - if not, where was the threat to his life coming from? Other Jews have already confirmed that the march was NOT dangerous to Jews. Of course that might change if an agent provocateur enters play. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Apr 22, 2024 17:53:24 GMT
Take it as a present because I am so sick of complete morons trying to convince me they know better, which I have told them several times not to go there.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Apr 22, 2024 18:20:27 GMT
If a Jew walks across the street whilst a pro-Hamas hate march is on the Met will arrest them... This is what London has come to. [br If a BNP party member walked off a pavement towards a left wing protest they would have been arrested No ifs No buts If a bunch of lefty bastards had walked towards a BNP westminster candidate’s pitch with pickaxe handles the police would have been instructed by their political masters to do fuck all I speak from experience As to this fucking arsehole, he puts on a jewish fucking skull cap and strides out into the road to stir itcwoth a bunch of arabs orobably related to the ones his mstes in tbe IDF are slaughtering And YOU want to let him stir it. I’d let him get butchered which is what he DESERVES while his mates are doing the same But that wouldn’t go down too well with Rishi's pals in Goldman Sachs and Rothschilds would it. |
|
|
|
Post by morayloon on Apr 22, 2024 18:34:21 GMT
It was a pro-Palestinian rally which the person wanted to infiltrate. As doing so would possibly create a reaction from the marchers, surely, the policeman was correct in standing firm to a publicity seeking individual. Not only was the policeman attempting to prevent any escalation from peacefulness to hostility, he was preventing the man from putting himself in danger. Thepolice officer ought to receive a commendation for his patience in dealing with 5that person. Penalising? Do you mean that preventing a man from putting himself in harms way is somehow "penalising" that person? I would say that the policeman did what every right thinking person would have done in that situation. The police told him that was antagonising the group and would be arrested if he stayed . They did NOT tell him that he was in the presence of Jew haters and for his own protection they needed to take him away from danger. .Do you see the difference? The man should have been arrested for a breach of the peace AND for wasting a police officer's time. A publicity stunt if ever there was one. I wonder what he would have done if the policeman had called his bluff, and let him through. I think he would have shit himself and not gone on to the road. It was all bravado on his part. "Jew haters"? They were pro-Palestinians protesting against the warmongering, genocidal actions of the Zionist Netanyahu regime. You obviously have difficulty with reality! |
|
