|
|
Post by sandypine on Apr 19, 2024 19:31:53 GMT
Is it now illegal to display signs of being a Jew? Do you apply the same criteria to other religious and ethnic groups? No, but it is stupid to use it as a base to create division and likely to get you hurt for the sake of creating headlines. I think the police on this occasion were doing the idiot a favour. If his name was Robinson he would be facing extra charges. Then you have to ask what makes declaring Jewishness a base for division and why would that declaration likely get you hurt? There was a time the left would stand shoulder to shoulder with Jews to protect them from those who were supposedly out to do them harm. Where did it all go wrong? |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Apr 19, 2024 19:49:19 GMT
No, but it is stupid to use it as a base to create division and likely to get you hurt for the sake of creating headlines. I think the police on this occasion were doing the idiot a favour. If his name was Robinson he would be facing extra charges. Then you have to ask what makes declaring Jewishness a base for division and why would that declaration likely get you hurt? There was a time the left would stand shoulder to shoulder with Jews to protect them from those who were supposedly out to do them harm. Where did it all go wrong? The working man( and woman) sussed them out . |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Apr 19, 2024 20:24:50 GMT
Then you have to ask what makes declaring Jewishness a base for division and why would that declaration likely get you hurt? There was a time the left would stand shoulder to shoulder with Jews to protect them from those who were supposedly out to do them harm. Where did it all go wrong? The working man( and woman) sussed them out . No Bentley, what's changed is demographics. In 1980 there were 500,000 Muslims in this country. In 2000 that number had increased to 1.5 million, and today there are 4 million Muslims in this non Islamic country, that's the official fig, god knows what the actual fig might be. And compared to 270,000 Jews who have integrated and contribute to this country who never demonstrate or complain and don't claim benefits for four wifes, Muslims are a demanding pain in the arse who consistently complain and refuse to integrate. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Apr 19, 2024 20:38:22 GMT
The working man( and woman) sussed them out . No Bentley, what's changed is demographics. In 1980 there were 500,000 Muslims in this country. In 2000 that number had increased to 1.5 million, and today there are 4 million Muslims in this non Islamic country, that's the official fig, god knows what the actual fig might be. And compared to 270,000 Jews who have integrated and contribute to this country who never demonstrate or complain and don't claim benefits for four wifes, Muslims are a demanding pain in the arse who consistently complain and refuse to integrate. Lefties used to stand for the common man , the working class, the underdog . Thats up until the 60s when the Leftie elites was more interested in counterculture. They despised the working class so they concentrated on ‘ oppressed minority groups ‘ . By the time Blair got in they couldn’t hide it .. 1950s to early 60s Labour politicians were interested in better council homes and school milk for kids. 1980s Labour politicians were interested in immigrants and homosexuals . 2000s Labour politicians are interested in mass immigration, trans ..whatever and demonising white people ,especially working class white people. |
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Apr 19, 2024 20:43:11 GMT
Hard to imagine why black people would choose to walk through a KKK march. Equally hard to fathom why a Jewish man would go out of his way to walk across a pro-Palestinian protest and then invite people to join him at the next opportunity to do it again. Hard not to see that as deliberate provocation. Why, the pro Palestinians are not anti-Jew they are anti Zionist as is pointed out by the left continuously so he was in no danger unless he declared Zionist support. Let's not delude ourselves here. The police know, and the Jewish man certainly knows that to walk into the middle of such a protest wearing a kippah and stars of David on his bag was almost certain to invite violent confrontation. The police knew they wouldn't be able to cope with a riot, so they asked the man to refrain from inviting confrontation, which is something that most sane people would not need to be directed to do. He could so easily have avoided trouble, but it is clear that he intended to invite it and ignite a riot. We know that because he went home, took off his kippah and made a video presentation in which he invited people to gather for the next available opportunity to interrupt a protest by walking through it wearing symbols of the regime being protested. And he did this - he claimed his freedom of speech rights- with a straight face whilst strongly suggesting that those opposed to the Zionist regime should lose their freedom of speech rights, when he said that such protest marches should be curtailed or banned altogether. If this man and his friends were to stage a pro-Zionist march, he would be first to cry foul if the police didn't eject any Palestinian wearing religious symbols who showed up looking for confrontation. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Apr 19, 2024 21:05:55 GMT
Lefties used to stand for the common man , the working class, the underdog . Thats up until the 60s when the Leftie elites was more interested in counterculture. They despised the working class so they concentrated on ‘ oppressed minority groups ‘ . By the time Blair got in they couldn’t hide it .. 1950s to early 60s Labour politicians were interested in better council homes and school milk for kids. 1980s Labour politicians were interested in immigrants and homosexuals . 2000s Labour politicians are interested in mass immigration, trans ..whatever and demonising white people ,especially working class white people Yes you're right. As a result of Victorian working conditions the Labour party were born from the trade union movement and at that time they were very needed. But things have moved on a lot over the past 100 years. People like Ramsay McDonald and Clem Atlee wouldn't recognise todays Labour party. And that's the problem Labour have. You're right, Labour used to speak for the working man, those days are gone, long gone. These days the champagne socialists at the top of the Labour party couldn't give a toss for the working man, they are far more concerned with ingratiating themselves to the supranational EU, woke and minority causes like BLM. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Apr 19, 2024 21:41:04 GMT
Lefties used to stand for the common man , the working class, the underdog . Thats up until the 60s when the Leftie elites was more interested in counterculture. They despised the working class so they concentrated on ‘ oppressed minority groups ‘ . By the time Blair got in they couldn’t hide it .. 1950s to early 60s Labour politicians were interested in better council homes and school milk for kids. 1980s Labour politicians were interested in immigrants and homosexuals . 2000s Labour politicians are interested in mass immigration, trans ..whatever and demonising white people ,especially working class white people Yes you're right. As a result of Victorian working conditions the Labour party were born from the trade union movement and at that time they were very needed. But things have moved on a lot over the past 100 years. People like Ramsay McDonald and Clem Atlee wouldn't recognise today’s Labour party. And that's the problem Labour have. You're right, Labour used to speak for the working man, those days are gone, long gone. These days the champagne socialists at the top of the Labour party couldn't give a toss for the working man, they are far more concerned with ingratiating themselves to the supranational EU, woke and minority causes like BLM. Exactly . Whereas the aspirations of the vast majority of working class ( especially white ones) are no different from the 1950s. A nice warm home , an occasional bunk up , a couple if kids and free from crippling debt . They are not interested in the Marxist utopia . Therefore they are the enemy , the oppressor, the bigoted dinosaur that needs to be extinct. Which makes lefties sucking up to Muslims hypocritical but understandable. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Apr 19, 2024 21:41:11 GMT
Is it now illegal to display signs of being a Jew? Do you apply the same criteria to other religious and ethnic groups? No, but it is stupid to use it as a base to create division and likely to get you hurt for the sake of creating headlines. I think the police on this occasion were doing the idiot a favour. If his name was Robinson he would be facing extra charges. Who is creating division? - the guy only wanted to cross the road. If a Muslim in a Hijab had been told to to remove it or a black guy had been told to stop looking black would that have been acceptable? |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Apr 19, 2024 21:43:51 GMT
Why, the pro Palestinians are not anti-Jew they are anti Zionist as is pointed out by the left continuously so he was in no danger unless he declared Zionist support. Let's not delude ourselves here. The police know, and the Jewish man certainly knows that to walk into the middle of such a protest wearing a kippah and stars of David on his bag was almost certain to invite violent confrontation. So these pro-Hamas marches are prone to violence then. If that is the case then they should be banned. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Apr 19, 2024 21:47:31 GMT
No, but it is stupid to use it as a base to create division and likely to get you hurt for the sake of creating headlines. I think the police on this occasion were doing the idiot a favour. If his name was Robinson he would be facing extra charges. Who is creating division? - the guy only wanted to cross the road. If a Muslim in a Hijab had been told to to remove it or a black guy had been told to stop looking black would that have been acceptable? Once again either you are naive or think everyone else is. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Apr 19, 2024 21:50:57 GMT
Who is creating division? - the guy only wanted to cross the road. If a Muslim in a Hijab had been told to to remove it or a black guy had been told to stop looking black would that have been acceptable? Once again either you are naive or think everyone else is. It's naive not to want double standards now?  |
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Apr 19, 2024 21:55:44 GMT
Let's not delude ourselves here. The police know, and the Jewish man certainly knows that to walk into the middle of such a protest wearing a kippah and stars of David on his bag was almost certain to invite violent confrontation. So these pro-Hamas marches are prone to violence then. If that is the case then they should be banned. It was a pro-Palestinian march, not a pro-Hamas march. I know of no violence that occurred, and that's because the police were not letting people interrupt the march with intent to inflame tensions and invite confrontation. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Apr 19, 2024 22:06:57 GMT
So these pro-Hamas marches are prone to violence then. If that is the case then they should be banned. It was a pro-Palestinian march, not a pro-Hamas march. I know of no violence that occurred, and that's because the police were not letting people interrupt the march with intent to inflame tensions and invite confrontation. On previous 'Pro Palestine' marches police have ignored Hamas flags, Isis, flags, and swastikas. They have however ordered the removal of an Israeli flag (In Trafalgar Square) and threatened to arrest a Jewish man for looking Jewish. Is anyone familiar with 1930's Germany?.. |
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on Apr 19, 2024 22:10:51 GMT
It was a pro-Palestinian march, not a pro-Hamas march. I know of no violence that occurred, and that's because the police were not letting people interrupt the march with intent to inflame tensions and invite confrontation. On previous 'Pro Palestine' marches police have ignored Hamas flags, Isis, flags, and swastikas. They have however ordered the removal of an Israeli flag (In Trafalgar Square) and threatened to arrest a Jewish man for looking Jewish. Is anyone familiar with 1930's Germany?.. They threatened to arrest the man for his own safety and because he was intent on looking for trouble, inviting confrontation that he could easily have chosen to avoid, and the police did not have the manpower to cope with the riot that would have ensued. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Apr 19, 2024 22:28:06 GMT
They threatened to arrest the man for his own safety and because he was intent on looking for trouble, inviting confrontation that he could easily have chosen to avoid, and the police did not have the manpower to cope with the riot that would have ensued. Ripley, we appear to moving in circles. If the KKK were marching in London should the police tell a black person to disappear or face arrest? It seems the modern British police tend side with the biggest mob. And as my son who lives in France tells me, it's not a good look. |
|
