Oh dear 
I regret you found my tone condescending. It prejudices my argument.
You suggest the police should have allowed a Jewish man, and his cameraman, declaratively wearing a kippah to walk through a march of anti-Israeli war protestors, because a Jewish man has a right, as any other resident in UK, to walk anywhere in public.
It is part of a policeman’s job to see and predict public behaviours that may result in violence.
An “openly Jewish” dressed man wading against the flow of marchers would have incited some in the crowd to verbal exchange. This would likely have quickly escalated , given the inevitable presence on the march of at least one who speaks with their fists. A punch thrown in a crowd can quickly escalate into a punching melee. Into this placard waving churn the police would then be expected to wade and extract the Jewish man from harm?
Multiple arrests for affray. Anti-semitic soundbites caught in handy phonecams. All designed to prove Britain’s society, and police, is anti-semitic.
The police in this case were proactive and correctly prevented violence.
The ‘right’ of one person to do as they wish does not trump the rights of others. One person’s freedom (and a handy cameraman or two) was compromised for the peace and protection of many.
The real story here may lie in why such a provocative action was attempted at all. What did they hope to gain?
5 Likes
It may have been very convenient to find your tone condescending, such are the tools and weapons of debate.
I have noticed a tendency in many people when arguing about hot-button topics to find something in the words used that was clearly not there, then require that person to waste time unpicking or ‘proving’ their point. An example might be the precise numbers of Palestinians killed in the conflict, where the focus is repeatedly shifted onto the unreliability of numbers provided by Hamas, rather than the fact that a very large number of civilians have been killed.
Just like politics, often debate is not won by facts or truth, but the way in which personalities wield words.
8 Likes
But look at the state of the pool !
2 Likes
Thats not it I believe.
Oh, when I zoomed in to Street View it shows it’s called Fairways. The chimney stack and Velux windows look to be the same in both images. Anyway, it’s a nice-looking house even if it isn’t his 
I think you are right, its been masively extended, it wasnt that wide before.
I guess it didn’t need to be as tall either
2 Likes
You are quite right.
Seems more information about the event is emerging to inform on context
Certainly, not behaviour likely to win friends!
As more events in Gaza reach the news, whining about the injustice of not being able to wander in London while declaring Israel “has a right to defend itself” with the death of Palestinian children as necessary collateral damage will look increasingly distasteful
2 Likes
Personally I think Falter is a troublemaking little shit, and needs to be called out as such. Of course, that could accurately said of anybody Braverman approves of, or indeed herself 
3 Likes
I wonder if MI5 (Security Service today) or MI6 (SIS) & GCHQ would have had something negative to say about his appointment?
3 Likes
It seems Falter is planning to cause more trouble today. I hope he’s arrested this time if he does.
BTW looks like @SJCooper , the mystery “lawyer”, has run away 
This video is a real hoot. It shows a photo of Falter harassing the police (blue arrow) saying Jewish people don’t feel safe only yards away from elderly Jewish people, who obviously feel safe
3 Likes
To be fair sons and daughters of holocaust survivors are not necessarily Jewish - the Nazis killed 6 million Jews, but you can add to that eleven million non-Jews.
2 Likes
True.
that will be it
4 Likes
There is a good point in this. People should not be afraid to be on the streets because of their religion, race, sexuality etc. Therefore an “openly Jewish” person should be able to walk close to a march that has a reputation for having some anti-semitic aspects to it. That is essentially the crux of the issue that Falter was trying to put before the media.
However, he’s not just a Jewish bloke minding his own business. He’s the leader of campaign group who’s aim is to expose anti-semitism in all its guises (nothing wrong in that) and attack MPs and organisations that it deems not just anti-semitic but politically biased against Israel and pro Palestinian (eg. Jeremy Corbyn).
It was fairly obvious from the first video that he intended to cause trouble. Either to record things said to him by the marchers or, more likely, to provoke a physical reaction. Both are intended increase pressure to end the marches and to portray the protests as illegally anti-semitic. Further videos and testimonies have backed up that intent.
What are the police supposed to be doing during the marches? They are there to keep the peace and protect the public from harm. No different to any other political or ethical march. The police always try to keep protestors and counter-protestors apart. Falter is in fact a counter-protestor but has not asked for permission, is not carrying any counter-protest placards. The police were right to prevent him from barging his way through the march, saying whatever he liked and filming the protestors, surrounded by his bodyguards.
The officer who used the words “openly Jewish” was trying to avoid accusing him of provocation, organising an unauthorised counter-protest or other actions designed to break the peace. That phrase was cleverly used by Falter and pro-Israel factions to portray the Met as anti-semitic. The Met were quite right to apologise only for the choice of words, not their attempts to keep Falter and his cohort away from the march.
Falter was not at risk of verbal or physical abuse because he was wearing his kippah and just being on the street. He was at risk because of his actions and intentions to disrupt the authorised march. The cop realised that and did his job.
10 Likes