Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2024 18:38:55 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? 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? I have noticed that these people would be happier within the confines of hardline Sharia law. Perhaps we should give this to them. I nominate Scotland to become Sharia and invite Islamists to live in Sharia Scotland. I am sure Morayloon will not object. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Apr 22, 2024 18:52:54 GMT
Thank you, it does not change my point from the last post above I made about an hour ago. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2024 18:52:55 GMT
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! The same Jew haters that ran out into the streets to celebrate when your friends entered Israel and slaughtered Israeli civilians. An act of terrorism which is still being celebrated by the death cult that you support. |
|
|
|
Post by morayloon on Apr 22, 2024 19:02:43 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? The rallies are peaceful events. You seem to have some difficulty with that. But faced with a man, obviously intent on trouble, the peaceful Pro-Palestinians might have changed their tune. On the other hand, they might well have met him with jeering and ridicule, just as the YES marchers react, at their marches, to the presence of Unionists along the route: a small band, it is true, but the police would have arrested any of them who dared get in amongst the marchers. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2024 19:11:58 GMT
And, Bingo. So why did the police allow these very dangerous, hostile marches (which you and they apparently acknowledge as such) to take place? The rallies are peaceful events. You seem to have some difficulty with that. But faced with a man, obviously intent on trouble, the peaceful Pro-Palestinians might have changed their tune. On the other hand, they might well have met him with jeering and ridicule, just as the YES marchers react, at their marches, to the presence of Unionists along the route: a small band, it is true, but the police would have arrested any of them who dared get in amongst the marchers. That is a lie demonstrated by the fact that a single Jew was in so much danger that he was to be forcefully removed by the police. War is not peace, despite what your Orwellian masters say. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Apr 22, 2024 19:16:04 GMT
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! If a Jew crossing the road antagonises a group then the group should not be allowed to gather . You are not differentiating between a Jew and the Jewish government . You are the Jew hater . The man wasn’t antagonisng the group even though he might have been in danger . The danger was from the grouo. This was not what the police told him . No matter how many times the Jew haters are told , it just bounces off the bias. |
|
|
|
Post by morayloon on Apr 22, 2024 19:43:34 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? I have never mentioned no go areas. I used the imaginary Celtic fan analogy to show the utter stupidity of contemplating walking into, what COULD have been a hostile environment (in the Celtic example the supporter WOULD definitely be met with hostility). The police officer did not know how things would have worked out so he was within his rights to prevent any possibility of a negative reaction. Did the police recognise "the march was hostile to Jews"? If they had, wouldn't they have put pressure on the London authority, the Home Office or whomever to have these marches banned. What rankles with you, and your ilk, is that the marches have been peaceful, hence no need for bans to be imposed. Did it contain "clear anti-Jewish elements"? Are you another apologist who deliberately misleads with the attempt to conflate Jew and Zionist? The Netanyahu regime has shown itself to be worse than Hamas! The IDFs bombardment, resulting in the murder of over30,000 civilians and total destruction of swathes of the strip puts the Hamas atrocity in the shade. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Apr 22, 2024 19:51:57 GMT
And, Bingo. So why did the police allow these very dangerous, hostile marches (which you and they apparently acknowledge as such) to take place? The rallies are peaceful events. You seem to have some difficulty with that. But faced with a man, obviously intent on trouble, the peaceful Pro-Palestinians might have changed their tune. On the other hand, they might well have met him with jeering and ridicule, just as the YES marchers react, at their marches, to the presence of Unionists along the route: a small band, it is true, but the police would have arrested any of them who dared get in amongst the marchers. You claim the lefty/Muslim pro Hamas/Palestine demonstrators are peaceful. Well clearly the police disagree. They threatened to arrest someone because he looked Jewish. That doesn't sound very peaceful to me. Do you think Isis flags are acceptable? What about Hamas flags or swastikas or projecting hate chants onto Big Ben? The police have ignored them all. But they did order the removal of a perfectly legal Israeli flag in Trafalgar Square. Two tier policing has had two major effects: 1) It has emboldened left wing demonstrators who see the police as weak. 2) Public support for the police is now at an all time low. With a sense of urgency very senior police officers should be replaced. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Apr 22, 2024 19:52:34 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? I have never mentioned no go areas. I used the imaginary Celtic fan analogy to show the utter stupidity of contemplating walking into, what COULD have been a hostile environment (in the Celtic example the supporter WOULD definitely be met with hostility). The police officer did not know how things would have worked out so he was within his rights to prevent any possibility of a negative reaction. Did the police recognise "the march was hostile to Jews"? If they had, wouldn't they have put pressure on the London authority, the Home Office or whomever to have these marches banned. What rankles with you, and your ilk, is that the marches have been peaceful, hence no need for bans to be imposed. Did it contain "clear anti-Jewish elements"? Are you another apologist who deliberately misleads with the attempt to conflate Jew and Zionist? The Netanyahu regime has shown itself to be worse than Hamas! The IDFs bombardment, resulting in the murder of over30,000 civilians and total destruction of swathes of the strip puts the Hamas atrocity in the shade. By now if you don't know you are dealing with agitators you never will on behalf of the murderous Israeli regime, some of us have seen it all before. I don't blame them losing the plot, they never thought we would be ready for them this time, because it is the same every time they start murdering in the name of Jews. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2024 19:55:01 GMT
If the police do not have the resources to ensure the rights of people are not breached, further pro-Palestinian marches should be banned. They did it in other countries as they recognised the hatred that would spew onto the streets as people who are something else (Jew haters) masquerade as pro-Palestinians. So, you push people's rights of peaceful protests aside, because you don't like what they are saying, because there might be a few haters or might not. I don't think so, by peaceful protest the only people still getting murdered is in Gaza. I might go as far as say I don't think you are the type, but it might turn to other means which some would be gleeful about. I've tried to understand sheeplingo for a long time, but this takes the biscuit for murdering the English language. However on 7th October you posted: That was quite a wise thing to say. But then you have been providing your semi-literate input ever since. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Apr 22, 2024 19:57:38 GMT
So, you push people's rights of peaceful protests aside, because you don't like what they are saying, because there might be a few haters or might not. I don't think so, by peaceful protest the only people still getting murdered is in Gaza. I might go as far as say I don't think you are the type, but it might turn to other means which some would be gleeful about. I've tried to understand sheeplingo for a long time, but this takes the biscuit for murdering the English language. However on 7th October you posted: That was quite a wise thing to say. But then you have been providing your semi-literate input ever since. You would be very unwise to make enemies of the populists, but then you actually know that. |
|
|
|
Post by morayloon on Apr 22, 2024 20:00:53 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? Where did I say there was a threat to his life. His safety, yes. |
|
|
|
Post by morayloon on Apr 22, 2024 20:12:07 GMT
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! If a Jew crossing the road antagonises a group then the group should not be allowed to gather . You are not differentiating between a Jew and the Jewish government . You are the Jew hater . The man wasn’t antagonisng the group even though he might have been in danger . The danger was from the grouo. This was not what the police told him . No matter how many times the Jew haters are told , it just bounces off the bias. Jew hater? Prove it! Your statement is as stupid as those on here who call me anti-English. They wouldn't have known he was there, so he definitely wasn't antagonising the marchers. Had he gone through, the situation might have turned very sour. He was the one attempting to put himself in danger! The policeman should have arrested him for breaching the peace, and verbal assault of a police officer (if there is such a crime) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2024 20:23:40 GMT
I've tried to understand sheeplingo for a long time, but this takes the biscuit for murdering the English language. However on 7th October you posted: That was quite a wise thing to say. But then you have been providing your semi-literate input ever since. You would be very unwise to make enemies of the populists, but then you actually know that. This sounds like something you'd expect to hear from a National Socialist in the 1930s. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Apr 22, 2024 20:26:01 GMT
You would be very unwise to make enemies of the populists, but then you actually know that. This sounds like something you'd expect to hear from a National Socialist in the 1930s. Just telling him the truth Eistein I rather like him, but he does get easily misguided and throw his lot in a real bunch of savages. |
|
