To think that London, or anywhere else for that matter, does not belong to any one demographic

So you are still saying the innocent should be arrested for their own protection in case their presence causes others to attack them?

And of course it was because of what he was wearing.

Racism was the ‘in word’ , this disgusts me

You seem to know he was innocent? How?

Anniebach

Racism was the ‘in word’ , this disgusts me

People bandy words about to be insulting. I hate racism and I have suffered from antisemitism and some of the comments on here are disgusting.

To think that London, or anywhere else for that matter, does not belong to any one demographic

It does not, hence two apologies from the police. The first one was withdrawn because it said looking Jewish was provocative.

There was not one, but two officers involved. The first told him he looked openly Jewish . The second threatened to arrest him if he did not leave.

AGAA4

You seem to know he was innocent? How?

How do you know he was guilty? Of what?

Ridiculous comment!

AGAA4

Anniebach

Racism was the ‘in word’ , this disgusts me

People bandy words about to be insulting. I hate racism and I have suffered from antisemitism and some of the comments on here are disgusting.

some of the comments on here are disgusting

Yes. They are.
They are blaming the wrong person.

Guilty of being a Jew ! ! ! !

Another shocking incident. Callistemon suggests the officer might be sent for training. Unlikely given the governments sneery criticism of any public organisation trying to help its staff understand diversity - waste if money they say. It isn’t but it’s very difficult training to deliver for obvious reasons

What of the officer who spoke of the swastika being in the right
context

AGAA4

You seem to know he was innocent? How?

Everyone in this country is innocent until proved guilty.

Suggesting we take people away for their own protection is sinister and revolting. That’s how ghettos begin.

The 'openly Jewish' man, Gideon Falter, had left his synagogue, which on the Jewish Sabbath seems a perfectly reasonably explanation for his presence.

'How do you know he was innocent?
Of what do you consider him to be guilty? .
Is appearing at the side of a public highway while a demonstration is passing, and being openly Jewish' to be considered to be a offence?

The Police were completely wrong in their handling of their situation, and they need to be sent for training, not for diversity but how to deal with all members of the public.

Assistant Commissioner Matt Twist also needs training to understand that stating 'being present when marches were taking place could be provocative.' is an unacceptable comment. An urgent review of how the police force are handling these protests should be undertaken.

One of the things which the Campaign Against Antisemitism, of which this man is CEO, has been doing is ‘making video exposes from within anti-Israel marches’ - see below. He wanted to cross the street when the march was taking place and someone was there filming. He had his prayer shawl in a carrier bag - who’s to say it would have stayed there?
www.thejc.com/lets-talk/we-built-caa-to-defend-british-jewry-oifz9y6s

How was a prayer shawl in a carrier bag seen, is it against the
law see them in public

Germanshepherdsmum

One of the things which the Campaign Against Antisemitism, of which this man is CEO, has been doing is ‘making video exposes from within anti-Israel marches’ - see below. He wanted to cross the street when the march was taking place and someone was there filming. He had his prayer shawl in a carrier bag - who’s to say it would have stayed there?
www.thejc.com/lets-talk/we-built-caa-to-defend-british-jewry-oifz9y6s

So you are presuming he had guilty intentions?

Not like you to presume guilty before being proved innocent

Wearing a kippah isn’t against the law.
Carrying a prayer shawl isn’t against the law.
Crossing the road isn’t against the law.
Being a Jew isn’t against the law.
Being the CEO of the Campaign Against Antisemitism isn’t against the law.

What law has he broken?

he wasn't arrested as he had not broken any law of course. He was advised under the circumstances at the time! I believe that was right. he knew what he was doing!

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/19/police-threaten-jewish-man-arrest-palestine-protest-london/

I’m looking at the context, Callistemon, and at his background. I believe he hoped to cause disruption. He had someone with him to film - which is what his organisation does within these marches. It wouldn’t have taken long for trouble to erupt if some of the marchers considered him to be pro-Israel. All grist to his organisation’s mill, even if deliberately provoked.

lemsip

he wasn't arrested as he had not broken any law of course. He was advised under the circumstances at the time! I believe that was right. he knew what he was doing!

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/19/police-threaten-jewish-man-arrest-palestine-protest-london/

Advised that he would be arrested for not breaking any law?

The police were in the wrong, they have apologised in a way that was unacceptable and have issued a further apology.

Yet posters still think someone was guilty of looking Jewish and standing in a London street!

It is quite frightening.

So, if there is a protest going on anywhere, we must stay home if we disagree with it?

Well you’d be daft to deliberately provoke the protestors wouldn’t you?

Being daft isn't a crime, yet, is it?

No but breaching the peace is.

Crossing a road is not provoking, it’s how one gets from one side to the other.

So people can protest and take over public spaces, thus preventing other members of the public from accessing them?
Skewed logic.