Certainly inferring it, as many have done! based on
the fact of his activism
his publicising of the event
the nature of the exchange
what was said
the apparent confection of injury where none was intended
4 Likes
Hmmm… I’ve read and re-read… and watched the video…
Strikes me that if I wanted to cross a road/place and in order to do so… I would need to push through an authorised massed-crowd of people… and a policeman pointed-out/offered to escort me via another route (thus no need to force my way through the massed-crowd)… I would accept the kind offer and give the policeman one of my dazzling smiles… 
But that’s just me… other people might not be so reasonable.
3 Likes
Although I would agree that the mere presence of someone of the Jewish faith should not provoke hatred in pro-Palestinians the police do have a duty to keep the peace so it is not unreasonable of them to keep the two groups apart.
A pity the Israeli government hasn’t heard of that principle.
6 Likes
I can’t decide if you’re choosing to be naive or simply disingenuous. Are you seriously suggesting that he took a camera operator and decided that he wanted to cross in the face of the march because he was out for a casual stroll?
Again, you seem to be suggesting that he just happened to be there and playing right into his narrative. I don’t have any skin in the game but as someone who quite enjoys being constructively awkward, I completely recognise what he was doing there.
3 Likes
I agree entirely, I saw the man involved several times push against more than one policeman. You’re not allowed to do that, democracy has nothing to with it, and the patience of the officer concerned was pushed almost beyond endurance when doing his duty in preventing an authorised protest being possibly upset by this agent provocateur. I have no doubt that he would loved to have caused an incident in order to see protestors carted off to the poky.
5 Likes
I think there is a misunderstanding regarding ‘rights’ in society. The rights of any individual does not measure higher than those of another.
An attempt to provoke strong reactions should not be seen as a ‘right’ any more than insulting someone else’s religion is a right to our own freedom of speech. In Common Law, provocation is when a person is considered to have committed a criminal act partly because of a preceding set of events that might cause a reasonable individual to lose self control. The police in this case were correctly preventing a Jewish man attempting to provoke a reaction during a pro-Palestine march. Provoking others into committing a crime is a crime in itself.
There is no actual ‘right’ to wander freely anywhere. Members of society, particularly women, take care to note that it may be unwise to insist upon using dark alleyways at night on the basis of a ‘right’ to wander wherever they like.
This is why the pro-Palestine marches are legally permitted.
3 Likes
Netanyahu has called those protesting at American universities against the Israeli actions in Gaza anti semitic terrorists.
No acceptance of any other point of view there and yet another instance of calling anyone who doesn’t agree with Israel antisemitic.
1 Like
Lol your slightly condescending tone aside, as a lawyer I understand the concept of provocation. The key concept your argument turns on is ‘that might cause a reasonable individual to lose self control’. Would a reasonable person lose control at the sight of someone from a different religion at a pro-rights rally?! Irrespective of whether this bloke was trying to make a point, from what I saw, he wasn’t inciting violence nor being disrespectful, just being stupid.
For me, the core issue here is that someone wearing religious garb shouldn’t be told to leave because it’s unsafe (in the same way that the police shouldn’t tell women not to wear provocative clothing to avoid sexual harassment), the police should be taking steps to ensure he is also able to exercise his rights, that’s their job.
Women do in fact have the right to use a city at any time of day or night. The issue of men’s violence towards women stands as a serious threat to their ability to exercise that right in practice. While women have very reasonably taken steps to adapt to that misogyny by taking precautions, this doesn’t negate the fact that women, like Jewish or Muslim members of our society, have that right. The conceptual differentiation between rights and protections versus the exercise of those freedoms in practice is important.
The police are there to protect all citizens, including those who wish to behave irresponsibly.
There’s a second matter you’re ignoring: the assaults on police.
I agree with you (if you’re saying what I think you’re saying): the question of “provocation” is a red herring.
He was not told to leave in any of the clips I have seen or heard - merely advised that trying to walk straight through the middle of a legal march would be unsafe.
Just wondering in which country you work as a Lawyer ??
1 Like
Exactly. I think this point escapes the pc do-gooder brigade.
A really unpleasant and unnecessary turn of phrase.
I do not entirely disagree with you, but it was blatantly obvious what as happening in this case - just pure unnecessary provocation, yet there are always some ready to defend.
Had a flat beside South Norwood lake on Avenue Road in '74/'75. Does that count?
2 Likes
Preferable not to confuse the two…
Our first flat after marrying in '81 was in Auckland road, just across from the lake. Small world indeed.
2 Likes
Bit of a throw away comment SJ, what sort of “lawyer”, a solicitor, a barrister, some other variety? What’s your area of expertise? 
Plus, where do you practice, if at all?
I’ve no idea why you’ve launched off on a tangent about women’s safety when the matter under discussion is the provocative actions of the man in question. He was there to cause trouble and sadly he succeeded.
With all due respect, based on past experience, you sound like you may be an Israeli troll to me. 
I’m surprised you guys took so long to get here. Too busy misinforming and defending the indefensible elsewhere perhaps Anyway, welcome.
Meanwhile (and I apologise for including a link to the Mail) a “pro Palestine” man has been convicted, not because he offended anybody but because he didn’t include a sword on his headband. The judges logic and, indeed, ignorance is unbelievable. It is yet another example that there is a Government driven pro Israel sentiment in the UK (added and abetted by the powerful Jewish lobby). No less so in the US.
“Hamas is the most notable Palestinian group associated with the colour green … He was wearing the headband at the pro-Palestinian march, where there would be no reasons for someone to wear the headband of a Saudi flag.
“It clearly did not have the Saudi sword on it.
“I find the defendant guilty of the offence.”
Saudi flag including script and missing sword 
Meanwhile II, Protesters against the war are called antisemites by war criminal and child murderer Netanyahu.
I think this pro Palestine vs pro Isreal terminology is very misleading and being propagated by those with an agenda. The correct term IMO is anti war and pro war. Hopefully this term will spread.
1 Like
Goodness me John, settle down there with your aggressive accusations and unnecessary grilling! Not only are you coming off as unhinged but you’re also contributing nothing intellectually. Not everyone who has a different view to you is part of some wild Israeli disinformation campaign. You’ve ruined what was quite an interesting debate!