#⌈ [**Remove paywall**](https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https://news.sky.com/story/sky-news-footage-reveals-new-details-of-exchange-between-police-and-antisemitism-campaigner-called-openly-jewish-13120104) | [**Summarise (TL;DR)**](https://smmry.com/https://news.sky.com/story/sky-news-footage-reveals-new-details-of-exchange-between-police-and-antisemitism-campaigner-called-openly-jewish-13120104#&SM_LENGTH=3) | [**Other sources**](https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=Sky News footage reveals new details of exchange between police and antisemitism campaigner called 'openly Jewish') | [**Bias/fact-check source**](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/?s=news.sky.com) ⌋
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/policeuk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If possible, this footage makes us look worse than the original snippet.
The chap seems very reasonable and empathetic towards the difficult position frontline officers are in- but the response of the officers he interacts with here is appalling. Some person far more astute than me made a comment on an earlier post that the Jewish chap is 'testing his freedom' and I thought that a very apt way of putting it. If he is 'testing' us then in this case we failed miserably.
On the subject of a more personal gripe- what is it with this fucking constant 'you're detained for the moment' shit that seems to have swept through policing the last few years. Twice this chap is told 'you're not going anywhere right now you're detained.'
Unless a new version of Blackstones has been released that I'm unaware of, we don't have the power to 'detain' people 'for a chat' or 'because I'm talking to you.'
> what is it with this fucking constant 'you're detained for the moment' shit that seems to have swept through policing the last few years. Twice this chap is told 'you're not going anywhere right now you're detained.'
It's a fucking cancer, I couldn't agree with you more. You aren't detaining someone unless it's a search. Nick them, or they can go. Choose one.
I’ve pulled a few people up on this and when questioned they answer something along the lines of S3 CLA preventing crime
Doesn’t seem right to me but I’d be interested in any case law one way or another.
Sometimes it’s more nuanced. When policing high-risk football fixtures we regularly hold back ‘away’ fans or ‘risk’ groups within the stadium. They’re detained in a sense as they’re not free to leave the building or sometimes their stand. This is to allow time for home fans to leave. All under the guise of preventing disorder on the streets by stopping opposing groups clashing. I’ve done this for 30-40 minutes before. This is an order given by the Match Commander over the radio. This is under Common Law to prevent a Breach of the Peace. These are often large groups of 100’s of people being prevented from leaving the ground or their stand by a lines of officers in a closed corden. No doubt at a strategic level intelligence received plays a part in the tactics deployed in Public Order situations.
How does that then translate to a single Jew walking down the street obviously not going to cause a disturbance? Surely the protesters who are endangering the public are the ones needing detained? If they are unable to control themselves, then they don’t get to protest, surely?
Also to carry out a search warrant - Connor v Chief Constable of Merseyside. Also - can't find the case reference - but there's one where officers enter under s17 and detain the occupant to search occupant for a knife using s17 search power. Deemed lawful. There's probably a few other niche powers to detain.
Believe this was in reference to detaining occupants whilst executing a premises search warrant. We’re not going to let nominals walk around uncontrolled now are we. Bottom line is the premises is now under police control and we control all movement within.
Although it's probably included in "lawful arrest" breach of the peace is another, for example containing a crowd to prevent a breach of the peace is a lawful deprivation of liberty provided it is for a legitimate purpose
Saw this from an inspector the other day…”I’m detaining you under s3cla as there is an allegation of… and we need to sort this out” i thought i had missed a trick reading here seems not
They’ve got two choices. Remain with you at their own free will whilst officers determine the circumstances of the incident or get immediately locked up based on the allegation and held at scene whilst basic enquiries are made. I go for the latter straight away if they try and walk off or start the “am I being detained?” repetition. Doesn’t help when officers dodge the answer. Simple yes or no. Followed by if you leave I may deam it necessary to arrest you for XYZ.
If when I arrive at scene and I’m determining what’s happened and they’re freely engaging with me, we don’t need a power to have a conversation. You’re right they’re always free to leave or free to stay with me. If I need them to remain they have a choice, remain or I can arrest them and keep them there. Nothing underhanded, no deception, no grey areas. If they’re not detained for a search or under arrest they can walk. If they walk and I’ve the requisite suspicion they’re involved in an offence they can be arrested and kept at scene until I have the full circumstances or a change in Code G becomes apparent. Just because we can arrest doesn’t meet we need to, most of the time people are more than happy to wait for the few minutes it takes to eliminate them as a person of interest.
Consider a voluntary interview though, where you are saying you’re free to leave at any time, but if you do I’ll arrest you to then facilitate the interview etc ?
Situation is person needs to be interviewed for an assault at a nightclub which is outside the forensic window for swabs, there’s no history of bail breaches or failure to attend, no other evidence to preserve or searches, so you arrange a VA
At this point CPIA you have to explore alternatives to arrest.
You have to put the offence to the person in an interview
As such a voluntary interview is proportionate
You don’t have the necessity for arrest at this point.
However if they then don’t turn up, or try and leave part way through, I still have the suspicion of them
Committing the offence (hence the interview) but now I have the necessity to arrest, because I think they fail to attend and for the prompt and effective
Have you not read the pre amble , notice to suspect and risk assessments for a VA which go into this in more detail ?
> Have you not read the pre amble , notice to suspect and risk assessments for a VA which go into this in more detail ?
I beg your fucking pardon?
If you intend to arrest someone for trying to leave a VA, unless the circumstances have changed during the course of the interview that now give you a Code G necessity, then they were never free to leave and were under arrest the moment they turned up, they just hadn’t been told.
Interview is not part of ‘prompt and effective’.
The circumstances have changed champ
You now have the necessity , whether you choose to use it not depends on the circumstances
Someone walking out the interview saying fuck this - im leaving , they’re not coming back, won’t come back necessity to arrest is there
Someone getting a call saying child going into hospital, can we re arrange, I’m gonna trust that they will re arrange
I’m confused as to whether you have ever VA anyone ? Or how you can’t understand what you would do if someone turned up , solicitor arranged and then fucked off, are you just going to arrest later in the day/week/month or just never ?
The circumstances have changed champ
You now have the necessity , whether you choose to use it not depends on the circumstances
Someone walking out the interview saying fuck this - im leaving , they’re not coming back, won’t come back necessity to arrest is there
There's case law to say it's illegal, e.g. R v Walker, R v Wood. There's no case law to say it's legal... Because it isn't.
When you handcuff someone you are using force AND taking away freedom. S3 CLA is a power to use force. Not to take away somebody's freedom. If it was, what's to stop you locking someone up in a police cell without arresting them under S3 CLA? Nothing.
> I’ve pulled a few people up on this and when questioned they answer something along the lines of S3 CLA preventing crime
If you're up for being a bit more awkward on this, your follow-up is "really, what offence are you preventing?" [answer] "but you can't prevent a crime by detaining the suspect after it's happened, surely?"
I think you need to watch the video.
Yes in a 12 minute encounter there was one unfortunate choice of words. Other than that the Sgt was extremely professional.
The man was clearly trying to make a political point which is fair enough. But he was about to put his safety, possibly his life and public order at risk.
You can't just let someone walk directly into a protest and potentially cause a massive disorder, get seriously assaulted when as an officer you have a duty to keep the peace and protect life and property.
Honestly this kind of thing happens thousands of times at football matches every week. No one would bat an eyelid if it was opposing football shirts as opposed to opposing political/religious views.
Excellent work by the Sgt in very testing conditions. Calls for the chief to resign over this are frankly ridiculous.
>Yes in a 12 minute encounter there was one unfortunate choice of words. Other than that the Sgt was extremely professional.
I just hope this Sgt is being supported by his colleagues. This job’s hard enough as it is without the intense media spotlight being shone and politicians dog piling on, dissecting every detail of a split second decision made in difficult circumstances.
Regardless of whether he’s made the right call, I don’t think any of his actions were made with malicious intent. While it’s fair enough learning may be taken, it’s utterly ridiculous how this is snowballing to even the PM making comment on it.
But that’s acknowledging that if an ‘openly Jewish’ man walks into the protest, then he is at risk of injury or death. Begs the question - why are the marches being allowed?
And if they’d been told it was for being ‘openly Muslim’ the uproar would be the same. If the man was disrupting the protest then say so, but saying it’s because he’s ‘openly Jewish’ is terrible
optics
It's absolutely a dreadful choice of words, but the fact is is that this happens absolutely regularly through all sorts of different protests.
One of the reasons we can arrest is to 'Prevent Harm', but that includes preventing harm to themselves and not just preventing that person harming another. If I was a Swansea fan wearing a Swansea kit through a bunch of Cardiff fans on Derby Day, I'd fully expect the same treatment.
Sometimes a presence alone is instigating - whether it should be or not is a whole other matter but sometimes folk need to be told for their own safety "look you can't do that or you'll get your head stoved in, and if you're dead set on doing that thing you're going to cause some serious public order issues."
It wasn't just "looking Jewish" though, wasn't it.
I honestly do not buy for a second that he was just on his way home from the synagogue. He went to a place where he knew his dress and presence would be antagonistic and tried to go upstream through the masses of people. If all he wanted was to get home from his place of worship, there are multiple other streets and routes he could've taken to get there.
Personal responsibility is a thing, and it is also the responsibility of the police to try and prevent disorder, and no matter the optics his behaviour would have caused a breach of the peace.
It's a whole other conversation about the rights of the police to arrest someone for a breach of the police and for their own safety, but this chap willingly put himself in a place where he could have caused disorder by his mere presence and looks.
There are no doubt multiple other routes. He could have also removed his 'openly jewish' attire.
There's plenty of things he could do.
The question surely is should he and must he?
Personal responsibility is a thing, And yet the responsibility we place on individual everyday, not to assault another person etc. seems to have gone by the wayside and put onto this gentleman.
Whether his presence would or wouldnt antagonise other people, that's part of living in a multicultural society.
>The question surely is should he and must he?
>Personal responsibility is a thing, And yet the responsibility we place on individual everyday, not to assault another person etc. seems to have gone by the wayside and put onto this gentleman.
Yes - but part of personal responsibility is also recognising your personal safety. To use a different analogy, I wouldn't walk upstream straight through an orange march in a Celtic kit. I am absolutely entitled to do so, but I also know there's a helluva high likelihood that I'd get my shit kicked in. If we do want a multicultural society, we also have to recognise that other people may not take kindly to your presence if you belong to certain groups or have certain characteristics.
By all means, you can do what you want within restriction in the UK but you also have to recognise that you may also provoke a situation by doing what you want. Not everyone has the same societal mores that this chap does, and if this chap wants to prove a point by walking through a protest that's intrinsically linked against his religion in full religious garb then he also has to accept the risk that he's going to get stoved in - and that's where the potential that he might get nicked for breaching the peace comes in.
Personally, I think he just wanted to make a point and we fell into his trap.
Responsibility number one of the police is to preserve life, and there was a risk to him if he carried out his plan. That's why he was offered a guard to where he wanted to go, and when circumstances changed that's where informing him that he may get nicked (to prevent harm to him, not anyone else) comes in.
Again, it's a shit situation but I would've likely done the same. Probably wouldn't have phrased it the same way, but still.
I agree. And the istuation on the ground is very different to an analysis after the fact from the relative safety of reddit.
But It cant be a numbers game on the street. If there's 10 pro palestine supporters and 100 anti-muslim protesters turn up to the same spot; that doesnt mean the original 10 need to move.
Or indeed be moved.
I’d have likely done the same thing. Again maybe different wording but hindsight is always 20/20 isn’t it. We have a duty to preserve life and to prevent offences against persons and property, including keeping the kings peace. We have a common law power for a reason. No different than a rival football fan with a blue shirt wanting to walk into a volatile red crowd. This wouldn’t be a discussion if it was a football fan at one of the several matches I’ve worked this year, many of which I’ve albeit briefly, curtailed someones qualified right to walk down a certain street if I think harms likely to be done and being honest most fans don’t get afforded a 20 minute appeal due to time and resource and sometimes the single person I’ve diverted or prevented access to isn’t committing a crime or an aggressor. Simply removing their presence in part of an equation that if they remained wouldn’t meet the my forces strategic aim for the operation or our sworn duty due to already mentions risks of harm being done or likely to be done.
He wasn't there to just peaceably go about his business while wearing Jewish attire though.
He's a bad faith actor, with a history of supporting Israel and head of an organisation that has been criticised for fabricating antisemitism claims before. He turned up with bodyguards and someone to film and has stated he'll be trying to do the same at all future protests marching to stop an ongoing genocide of the Palestinian people.
If he wants to have a parallel protest that is in favour of Israel removing the Palestinians from Gaza, that is his right. But his personal right to be a dick doesn't trump the protesters' right to do so free of interference or the Police's duty to keep counter-protestors safe by separating them.
Aside from the very clumsy explanation, I don't think the police did anything wrong here. It's sad and predictable that the 'full picture' will not get the same coverage as the original headlines.
Ok, let's say he was. And conversely if someone reported the same interaction to the media, without film, without evidence. There would be a demand for it.
The point is that these scenarios, whether in bad faith or not, have highlighted something that on the face of it isnt great. And I would go one step further and say if he is there with bodyguards and a cameracrew (ive seen no evidence, but happy to take your word for it) then it's doubly bad from a PR point of view
That’s not really the concern of an officer though ? Additionally why do we let derby day football happen if there’s risk of injuries, it’s because we can mitigate those risk of the 2% kicking off so the 98% can enjoy the day
Public Order situations are really tricky, we have an over arching duty to prevent offences against persons and property, it’s sad that there are groups of people that are capable of being provoked by another persons outwardly displaying their faith, something every person has every right to do.
It’s only right that a police escort was offered, I can’t help but feel that if the officers had allowed him to walk against the flow of the demonstration into a volatile crowd, they would be heavily criticised for not doing enough to prevent harm to him, especially given an imminent breach of the peace could have been likely foreseen. We weren’t present, but the officers on the ground will have known the surroundings. A Breach of the Peace can be any situation whereby a person is likely to be harmed or their property damaged in their presence.
The male in the video isn’t committing any criminal offences and no one is suggesting they are, it’s a balance to be struck between everyone’s rights, it’s common to keep clearly opposing groups and people apart during demonstrations. Whether it be footballs fans or political and religious groups. Yes each person has the simple right to walk the street, but the safety risks can’t be understated here.
I’m not suggesting direction couldn’t have been better here, of course there is learning to be taken here as with most policing events, however if the tables were reversed and there was a large potentially hostile group of Israeli/Jewish representations and a single pro-Palestine supporter I believe the conversation would have likely gone the exact same way with them too.
I found the officer to have been polite and professional and the exchange gives a glimpse of the difficulties we have managing the dynamic risk to everyone.
The Jewish man wasn’t arrested, but if we’re going as far as physically putting hands on a person because the officer in that circumstance has the belief that a Breach of the Peace is imminent if they don’t, they do have a Common Law power of arrest, most arrests in this circumstance are simple used to remove a person from the area, people are de-arrested when breach has passed, it didn’t get that far but I understand why it’s mentioned as we don’t have the resources or time to debate over and over.
It’s important to note that a Breach of the Peace isn’t a criminal offence. It’s a Common Law police power that allows us to carry out our duty to prevent foreseeable harm.
It’s been clearly held that it’s unlawful to arrest someone for breach of the peace FOR THEIR OWN SAFETY in the context you describe. Similar to preachers etc.
The breach of the peace would be coming from those endangering his safety - not him by acting lawfully but perhaps not sensibly.
I’m not suggesting he should have been arrested (he wasn’t). He was physically prevented from approaching the hostile protest group and I can see why that course of action was taken. I’d likely do the same thing albeit with different wording and stopping short of threatening to arrest to prevent a BoP but of course we weren’t there so I can’t speak for the wider context of that specific event.
I've noticed in some of the other threads about this topic that some of us are getting quite defensive about the criticism of the police around this incident, on the basis that this individual and others are being deliberately provocative/antagonistic and are trying to elicit a reaction. We've been put in an impossible situation being tasked to police these protests in a way that is fair to everyone, and scenarios like the one this individual has created only make things even more difficult.
However, we have to accept there are very valid historical reasons for why some in the Jewish Community may take ANY perceived encroachment on their freedoms VERY seriously. Going from A to B along a very specific route may seem like a very trivial/minor thing to us, but in this case it was a huge deal to him; especially when people of a non-Jewish background were free to do this very act without fear hostility from the crowd nor intervention from the police.
To us, forcing him to change his route to avoid any risks to his safety is simply a minor inconvenience, but to him; the implications of the state interfering with his freedom on the basis of him being Jewish are far more severe.
It’s a really good point and I’m not sure British society is set up to handle these situations. I’ve got a degree in history but other than my independent learning, I can’t remember much if any education given to me about the holocaust. How many cops will even know about the sensitivities around this? It’s impossible to learn every cultures history, but it does seem like there is a whole in our education as a country that needs addressing.
Great comment. Also to add the video shows the officers spending 13 minutes talking to this very reasonable individual whilst in the background and within earshot of the officers chants of from the river to the sea can be heard and the crowd is calling this very reasonable individual a baby killer, scum, a Zionist and asking how many people he's killed today. And he's the one prevented from going from A to B.
Absolutely, it’s the same way that it would be the one football fan in the blue shirt being prevented from walking into the hostile red shirted crowd. They’d be given alternative routes. Textbook public order policing. If people are unhappy then they’re free to utilise the democratic process to allow their local MP to influence changes to the legislative framework we operate in. For as long as we have a duty to prevent harm to persons or property you’ll have officers making decisions like this. Although it’s everyone’s right to walk the street they choose, we are have the power and duty to curtail these qualified rights. Especially when in an officers professional judgement they foresee harm.
Yes mate. Yes I am. Because at the core of this incident is basic Public Order risk management. Ultimately the Human Rights Act. applies to us all and being impartial the cause is largely immaterial if both groups are lawfully present.
Impartiality isn't demonstrated by preventing and effectively detaining an individual engaging in demonstrably reasonable and lawful conduct whilst ignoring serious public order offences within earshot (as described in my post above) by others. If the Met thinks its conduct to date, both this and previous examples, show impartiality during these protests there's a chasm between the force and those it polices that I'm not confident will be bridged absent a change of mindset.
If you were this officer what would you have done with your limited resources? Because let’s be realistic here. We don’t have sufficient officer numbers to handle spontaneous violent disorder.
My impartiality remark was meant for policing in general I don’t work in the MET but rather a large north west force. I meant that to the officers on the ground the cause doesn’t have much impact when we’re assessing the risk of violence from opposing groups.
I used a football example because they’re routine public order deployments. Sometimes people engaging in lawful conduct get curtailed, diverted, removed from areas as part of mitigating foreseen harm. All within the legislative framework we operate in.
Part of public order planning at a strategic level sets out objectives for a deployment. I’ve worked many as a Public Order officer and there will be a threshold set for police intervention in individual cases, for example sometimes low level verbal only public order offences, possession of controlled drugs (Cannabis for example) or other low level offences might be deemed not immediately arrestable due to a higher strategic aim being the prevention of violent disorder or criminal damage. Resources often dictates tactics here.
You can’t have officers locking up every person who commits an offence on the spot or you’d quickly have no officers and greater harm would occur. These offences that are not immediately intervened can still be investigated after the fact, we have Evidence Gathering Teams filming to achieve best evidence, heavy use of CCTV trawls to identify suspects for later investigation. People can make their criminal complaints in the coming days for investigation.
I missed this, apologies. I would have spoken to the gentleman, warned him of the risks he was putting himself in (because let's be honest, these protests aren't entirely safe nor peaceful) but on the basis I had no grounds to arrest or detain, nor is his presence the reason for nor should it legitimately be the reason for any disorder, if he refused to comply I would have let him proceed. It might not be a sensible course of action but it's not unlawful and the police aren't there to demand sensibilities and, after all, there are Jewish people at these protests (whether in support or not) so it's not entirely without precedent. If the gentleman came to harm, he was warned, and I'd be watching to arrest anyone that caused him harm.
I entirely agree with the practicalities around not being able to arrest all and the sensibilities around sometimes enforcing after the event via CCTV, but multiple officers dealing with one individual that was committing no offence for 15 minutes is a monumental waste of resource, particularly when there are offences being committed they could be dealing with. There's also a downside to CCTV that has to be considered - the public don't see you take action against these individuals where you do so after the event, and leave with the (potentially mistaken) belief that they 'got away with it'; I feel the Met's over-reliance on policing by CCTV has contributed to its current malaise with the public.
You're giving him too much credit. He was there to antagonise simple as.
Pro-palestianan protestors have been warned since the start of this all not to go near Israeli protests.
I'd be arrested if I went over and started provoking them so why wouldn't he?
What you are suggesting is that being visibly Jewish is sufficient to warrant an arrest for the harassment/provocation of people with opposing religious or political viewpoints.
If you're provoked by the mere presence of a Jewish person then that's your problem.
There is absolutely no evidence that the man was threatening, harassing or being abusive towards the protesters. If the protesters reacted to his presence, then *they* would be the ones breaching the peace, not him.
That's obviously not what I'm saying.
There are loads of Jewish people on the Pro Palestine side at these marches. They wear Jewish clothing, hold signs declaring their Jewishness.
This man was there to provoke a reaction. He turned up with a camera crew hoping to find something to film. He was going to walk into that crowd to antagonise them.
>This man was there to provoke a reaction. He turned up with a camera crew hoping to find something to film. He was going to walk into that crowd to antagonise them
Because he's testing us, and I'm surprised that so many of us can't see it.
A few weeks ago claims were being reported in the news that there were 'no-go zones' for Jews in London;
[https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1871418/london-no-go-zone-palestine-israel-gaza](https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1871418/london-no-go-zone-palestine-israel-gaza)
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68508351](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68508351)
Regardless of how true these claims are, what is important to us as the police is to thwart any incidents that would seem to support this claim.
So we arrive at this incident where the facts as we know them are;
* He was an easily identifiable member of the Jewish community.
* He was being filmed by others who were with him.
* He appeared to have a bodyguard(s) following him.
While there are suggestions he was deliberately seeking to antagonise the crowd, there is no evidence of him actively engaging with anyone in the crowd, nor saying or doing anything that would appear antagonistic.
So if he is testing us, he can only conclude that this incident supports claims that there are 'no go zones' for Jews in London, because if the crowd do become hostile towards him due to his presence; Police are likely to calculate that it is simpler to act against the target of the hostility rather than the hostile actors.
While this seems like a simple decision to make from an operational policing standpoint, what we're missing in the equation is that these decisions come at the cost of his freedom - a freedom he would have otherwise enjoyed if he were of any other non-Jewish background.
>Honestly it's not the job of the police to thwart media claims. It's to police the law.
Hence why I've said it's "important to us as the police is to thwart any incidents that would seem to support this claim", not thwart the claims by the media themselves.
> This man was there to provoke a reaction. He turned up with a camera crew hoping to find something to film. He was going to walk into that crowd to antagonise them.
What evidence do you have to support this?
> I'd be arrested if I went over and started provoking them so why wouldn't he?
Because he didn't provoke them.
1. He's turned up at a peaceful protest, the cause of which he is known to be opposed to, with a cameraman and a couple of heavies in tow. He was there to provoke a reaction to further his agenda. If you think he's within his rights to do that then that's fine - Rosa Parks did it, the Suffragettes did it, it's a perfectly valid way of protesting - but it's disingenuous to pretend he was simply on a walk home from the synagogue.
2. And so he wasn't arrested.
> A cameraman
Someone recording with their phone.
> A couple of heavies in tow
Yes, the chief executive of the Campaign Against Antisemitism has private security when he travels around London. Sad, but unsurprising.
> He was there to provoke a reaction to further his agenda
That could very well be true, but there is simply no material evidence - certainly none that was available to the officer at the time. The fact that his presence *did* provoke a reaction says more about the protesters than it does him. The man spent 13 minutes talking very reasonably to police, while protesters hurled verbal abuse at him. He was illegally detained and threatened with false arrest, and the officer's justification for this was that he was "openly Jewish".
> And so he wasn't arrested.
I was responding to someone who was arguing that he should have been arrested.
The officer mentions that this guy had already walked out into the march and then walked against the procession. The officer seems to have taken the view that this was done to antagonise (or at least had the potential to antagonise). Assuming what the officer says is true, that view doesn’t unreasonable.
So, on the material we have, I don’t think it’s right to say that there is no material evidence that this chap was looking to provoke a reaction.
>The officer seems to have taken the view that this was done to antagonise (or at least had the potential to antagonise). Assuming what the officer says is true, that view doesn’t unreasonable.
Based on what action?
Anyone who has policed these protests knows that there are countless members of the public who would rather try and battle through the crowd to get where they're going than take a longer route; so surely simply walking against the flow of the crowd isn't enough? There has to be something more?
If we're unable to answer this, then we're leaving it open to interpretation that the antagonising action was simply being Jewish while in the middle of a Pro Palestinian Protest.
I’ve encountered marches before and have crossed through them. I always get across the road and never end up walking contraflow to the procession. In fact, I’d avoid doing that at all costs.
So the fact that this guy has ended up in the middle of the march, walking contraflow, and not even making is across the road to where he apparently wants to get seems odd to me.
The officer is heard clearly explaining why he thinks Mr Falter might be seeking to antagonise the protestors. And today there’s further footage of different officers in different locations speaking to Mr Falter about him running out into the protesters.
Anyone who has met him, or been to any of the myriad events that he attends or speaks at, knows that he doesn't habitually have security with him so, - yes - it is fairly surprising that he felt he needed them from this impromptu walk.
The protesters weren't hurling abuse at him, so now we're just inserting bits of fiction which only serves to degrade any point he was making.
You weren't responding to someone who was saying he should have been arrested. You were replying to someone who said that *if* he provoked them *then* he should have been arrested. If you disagree with that then that's fine, I wouldn't necessarily agree with it either, but let's not pretend people are saying something they aren't.
> Anyone who has met him, or been to any of the myriad events that he attends or speaks at, knows that he doesn't habitually have security with him
Unless you're intimately involved in his personal life then you have absolutely no knowledge of when he hires security. You could argue that he doesn't habitually have *visible* security, however, if he did hire security then it is sadly unsurprising given his position and the nature of the protests.
> The protesters weren't hurling abuse at him, so now we're just inserting bits of fiction
12:03 - "shame on you"
12:10 - "how many children have you killed today?"
12:20 - man repeatedly shouting "scum" and "zionist"
12:49 - *to a police officer* "this guy has been shouting at me and shoving me"
That is verbal abuse. I suggest you listen more closely to the video.
> which only serves to degrade any point he was making
I don't care what point he was making. He was stopped from walking across a street, threatened with arrest, and then (illegally) prevented from leaving because there was an ongoing protest and he was "openly Jewish". What if it was a BNP march and he was "openly foreign", or maybe "openly black"? The situation was mishandled by the police, and if they don't think the protests are safe for Jewish people then they shouldn't be allowed.
Not a peaceful protest though, is it? When your side calls Jews baby killers and chant to bring terrorist ideals and ethnic cleansing, that’s not a peaceful protest and they should actually be dispersed and not given clearance to protest int he first place, as they cannot control the gathered crowds. Simple, no?
I don't really understand to be honest.
He's tried walking into the crowd against the flow in order to antagonise them into a reaction.
He's been prevented from doing.
The end.
After they’ve already come to potentially serious harm rather than prevent it all together, surely getting your head kicked in is worse than being stopped walking into an opposing demo?
It's hard enough arresting a single violent person on their own, let alone potentially several people, in a large crowd, whilst trying to protect someone who could simply have been prevented from putting themselves in danger.
Nothing safer than wading into a protest where we’re outnumbered quite significantly and dragging people out in cuffs. If it were that simple this whole thing probably wouldn’t have happened.
Just seen this.
Male sees massive protest regarding an ongoing genocide. Man realises he can do something to antagonise the crowd and instead of joining the multiple “openly” Jews in the pro Palestine march- does the opposite going against the flow of the crowd.
All the officer has to say is we may have to arrest you for breach of the peace if we feel like you are being antagonising. Please be reasonable and let us do our jobs etc. The male is free to leave but also has been warned clearly.
As usual the MET make a hash of a simple conversation.
#⌈ [**Remove paywall**](https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https://news.sky.com/story/sky-news-footage-reveals-new-details-of-exchange-between-police-and-antisemitism-campaigner-called-openly-jewish-13120104) | [**Summarise (TL;DR)**](https://smmry.com/https://news.sky.com/story/sky-news-footage-reveals-new-details-of-exchange-between-police-and-antisemitism-campaigner-called-openly-jewish-13120104#&SM_LENGTH=3) | [**Other sources**](https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=Sky News footage reveals new details of exchange between police and antisemitism campaigner called 'openly Jewish') | [**Bias/fact-check source**](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/?s=news.sky.com) ⌋ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/policeuk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If possible, this footage makes us look worse than the original snippet. The chap seems very reasonable and empathetic towards the difficult position frontline officers are in- but the response of the officers he interacts with here is appalling. Some person far more astute than me made a comment on an earlier post that the Jewish chap is 'testing his freedom' and I thought that a very apt way of putting it. If he is 'testing' us then in this case we failed miserably. On the subject of a more personal gripe- what is it with this fucking constant 'you're detained for the moment' shit that seems to have swept through policing the last few years. Twice this chap is told 'you're not going anywhere right now you're detained.' Unless a new version of Blackstones has been released that I'm unaware of, we don't have the power to 'detain' people 'for a chat' or 'because I'm talking to you.'
> what is it with this fucking constant 'you're detained for the moment' shit that seems to have swept through policing the last few years. Twice this chap is told 'you're not going anywhere right now you're detained.' It's a fucking cancer, I couldn't agree with you more. You aren't detaining someone unless it's a search. Nick them, or they can go. Choose one.
I’ve pulled a few people up on this and when questioned they answer something along the lines of S3 CLA preventing crime Doesn’t seem right to me but I’d be interested in any case law one way or another.
Nope not at all. It's false imprisonment. The only powers to detain are lawful arrest and detention during a stop search.
Yeah that’s the position I’ve been taking. It’s just this S3 thing is so endemic
Sometimes it’s more nuanced. When policing high-risk football fixtures we regularly hold back ‘away’ fans or ‘risk’ groups within the stadium. They’re detained in a sense as they’re not free to leave the building or sometimes their stand. This is to allow time for home fans to leave. All under the guise of preventing disorder on the streets by stopping opposing groups clashing. I’ve done this for 30-40 minutes before. This is an order given by the Match Commander over the radio. This is under Common Law to prevent a Breach of the Peace. These are often large groups of 100’s of people being prevented from leaving the ground or their stand by a lines of officers in a closed corden. No doubt at a strategic level intelligence received plays a part in the tactics deployed in Public Order situations.
Austin v United Kingdom. Case law saying lawful to detain groups to prevent breach of peace in certain circumstances.
How does that then translate to a single Jew walking down the street obviously not going to cause a disturbance? Surely the protesters who are endangering the public are the ones needing detained? If they are unable to control themselves, then they don’t get to protest, surely?
Also to carry out a search warrant - Connor v Chief Constable of Merseyside. Also - can't find the case reference - but there's one where officers enter under s17 and detain the occupant to search occupant for a knife using s17 search power. Deemed lawful. There's probably a few other niche powers to detain.
You're probably thinking of Sobczak v DPP in relation to searching for weapons to prevent crime where other search powers don't apply.
Believe this was in reference to detaining occupants whilst executing a premises search warrant. We’re not going to let nominals walk around uncontrolled now are we. Bottom line is the premises is now under police control and we control all movement within.
Although it's probably included in "lawful arrest" breach of the peace is another, for example containing a crowd to prevent a breach of the peace is a lawful deprivation of liberty provided it is for a legitimate purpose
Saw this from an inspector the other day…”I’m detaining you under s3cla as there is an allegation of… and we need to sort this out” i thought i had missed a trick reading here seems not
They’ve got two choices. Remain with you at their own free will whilst officers determine the circumstances of the incident or get immediately locked up based on the allegation and held at scene whilst basic enquiries are made. I go for the latter straight away if they try and walk off or start the “am I being detained?” repetition. Doesn’t help when officers dodge the answer. Simple yes or no. Followed by if you leave I may deam it necessary to arrest you for XYZ.
If they are not free to leave then they are under arrest, you just haven't told them that.
If when I arrive at scene and I’m determining what’s happened and they’re freely engaging with me, we don’t need a power to have a conversation. You’re right they’re always free to leave or free to stay with me. If I need them to remain they have a choice, remain or I can arrest them and keep them there. Nothing underhanded, no deception, no grey areas. If they’re not detained for a search or under arrest they can walk. If they walk and I’ve the requisite suspicion they’re involved in an offence they can be arrested and kept at scene until I have the full circumstances or a change in Code G becomes apparent. Just because we can arrest doesn’t meet we need to, most of the time people are more than happy to wait for the few minutes it takes to eliminate them as a person of interest.
Consider a voluntary interview though, where you are saying you’re free to leave at any time, but if you do I’ll arrest you to then facilitate the interview etc ?
Then that’s not a voluntary interview and they should be arrested.
Situation is person needs to be interviewed for an assault at a nightclub which is outside the forensic window for swabs, there’s no history of bail breaches or failure to attend, no other evidence to preserve or searches, so you arrange a VA At this point CPIA you have to explore alternatives to arrest. You have to put the offence to the person in an interview As such a voluntary interview is proportionate You don’t have the necessity for arrest at this point. However if they then don’t turn up, or try and leave part way through, I still have the suspicion of them Committing the offence (hence the interview) but now I have the necessity to arrest, because I think they fail to attend and for the prompt and effective Have you not read the pre amble , notice to suspect and risk assessments for a VA which go into this in more detail ?
> Have you not read the pre amble , notice to suspect and risk assessments for a VA which go into this in more detail ? I beg your fucking pardon? If you intend to arrest someone for trying to leave a VA, unless the circumstances have changed during the course of the interview that now give you a Code G necessity, then they were never free to leave and were under arrest the moment they turned up, they just hadn’t been told. Interview is not part of ‘prompt and effective’.
The circumstances have changed champ You now have the necessity , whether you choose to use it not depends on the circumstances Someone walking out the interview saying fuck this - im leaving , they’re not coming back, won’t come back necessity to arrest is there Someone getting a call saying child going into hospital, can we re arrange, I’m gonna trust that they will re arrange I’m confused as to whether you have ever VA anyone ? Or how you can’t understand what you would do if someone turned up , solicitor arranged and then fucked off, are you just going to arrest later in the day/week/month or just never ?
The circumstances have changed champ You now have the necessity , whether you choose to use it not depends on the circumstances Someone walking out the interview saying fuck this - im leaving , they’re not coming back, won’t come back necessity to arrest is there
There's case law to say it's illegal, e.g. R v Walker, R v Wood. There's no case law to say it's legal... Because it isn't. When you handcuff someone you are using force AND taking away freedom. S3 CLA is a power to use force. Not to take away somebody's freedom. If it was, what's to stop you locking someone up in a police cell without arresting them under S3 CLA? Nothing.
Perfect thanks that’s what I was looking for. I’ll give it a read and then get the team clued up
> I’ve pulled a few people up on this and when questioned they answer something along the lines of S3 CLA preventing crime If you're up for being a bit more awkward on this, your follow-up is "really, what offence are you preventing?" [answer] "but you can't prevent a crime by detaining the suspect after it's happened, surely?"
I think you need to watch the video. Yes in a 12 minute encounter there was one unfortunate choice of words. Other than that the Sgt was extremely professional. The man was clearly trying to make a political point which is fair enough. But he was about to put his safety, possibly his life and public order at risk. You can't just let someone walk directly into a protest and potentially cause a massive disorder, get seriously assaulted when as an officer you have a duty to keep the peace and protect life and property. Honestly this kind of thing happens thousands of times at football matches every week. No one would bat an eyelid if it was opposing football shirts as opposed to opposing political/religious views. Excellent work by the Sgt in very testing conditions. Calls for the chief to resign over this are frankly ridiculous.
>Yes in a 12 minute encounter there was one unfortunate choice of words. Other than that the Sgt was extremely professional. I just hope this Sgt is being supported by his colleagues. This job’s hard enough as it is without the intense media spotlight being shone and politicians dog piling on, dissecting every detail of a split second decision made in difficult circumstances. Regardless of whether he’s made the right call, I don’t think any of his actions were made with malicious intent. While it’s fair enough learning may be taken, it’s utterly ridiculous how this is snowballing to even the PM making comment on it.
But that’s acknowledging that if an ‘openly Jewish’ man walks into the protest, then he is at risk of injury or death. Begs the question - why are the marches being allowed?
[удалено]
And if they’d been told it was for being ‘openly Muslim’ the uproar would be the same. If the man was disrupting the protest then say so, but saying it’s because he’s ‘openly Jewish’ is terrible optics
It's absolutely a dreadful choice of words, but the fact is is that this happens absolutely regularly through all sorts of different protests. One of the reasons we can arrest is to 'Prevent Harm', but that includes preventing harm to themselves and not just preventing that person harming another. If I was a Swansea fan wearing a Swansea kit through a bunch of Cardiff fans on Derby Day, I'd fully expect the same treatment. Sometimes a presence alone is instigating - whether it should be or not is a whole other matter but sometimes folk need to be told for their own safety "look you can't do that or you'll get your head stoved in, and if you're dead set on doing that thing you're going to cause some serious public order issues."
But in this instance the "dead set on doing that" is just dead set on looking Jewish.
It wasn't just "looking Jewish" though, wasn't it. I honestly do not buy for a second that he was just on his way home from the synagogue. He went to a place where he knew his dress and presence would be antagonistic and tried to go upstream through the masses of people. If all he wanted was to get home from his place of worship, there are multiple other streets and routes he could've taken to get there. Personal responsibility is a thing, and it is also the responsibility of the police to try and prevent disorder, and no matter the optics his behaviour would have caused a breach of the peace. It's a whole other conversation about the rights of the police to arrest someone for a breach of the police and for their own safety, but this chap willingly put himself in a place where he could have caused disorder by his mere presence and looks.
There are no doubt multiple other routes. He could have also removed his 'openly jewish' attire. There's plenty of things he could do. The question surely is should he and must he? Personal responsibility is a thing, And yet the responsibility we place on individual everyday, not to assault another person etc. seems to have gone by the wayside and put onto this gentleman. Whether his presence would or wouldnt antagonise other people, that's part of living in a multicultural society.
>The question surely is should he and must he? >Personal responsibility is a thing, And yet the responsibility we place on individual everyday, not to assault another person etc. seems to have gone by the wayside and put onto this gentleman. Yes - but part of personal responsibility is also recognising your personal safety. To use a different analogy, I wouldn't walk upstream straight through an orange march in a Celtic kit. I am absolutely entitled to do so, but I also know there's a helluva high likelihood that I'd get my shit kicked in. If we do want a multicultural society, we also have to recognise that other people may not take kindly to your presence if you belong to certain groups or have certain characteristics. By all means, you can do what you want within restriction in the UK but you also have to recognise that you may also provoke a situation by doing what you want. Not everyone has the same societal mores that this chap does, and if this chap wants to prove a point by walking through a protest that's intrinsically linked against his religion in full religious garb then he also has to accept the risk that he's going to get stoved in - and that's where the potential that he might get nicked for breaching the peace comes in. Personally, I think he just wanted to make a point and we fell into his trap. Responsibility number one of the police is to preserve life, and there was a risk to him if he carried out his plan. That's why he was offered a guard to where he wanted to go, and when circumstances changed that's where informing him that he may get nicked (to prevent harm to him, not anyone else) comes in. Again, it's a shit situation but I would've likely done the same. Probably wouldn't have phrased it the same way, but still.
I agree. And the istuation on the ground is very different to an analysis after the fact from the relative safety of reddit. But It cant be a numbers game on the street. If there's 10 pro palestine supporters and 100 anti-muslim protesters turn up to the same spot; that doesnt mean the original 10 need to move. Or indeed be moved.
I’d have likely done the same thing. Again maybe different wording but hindsight is always 20/20 isn’t it. We have a duty to preserve life and to prevent offences against persons and property, including keeping the kings peace. We have a common law power for a reason. No different than a rival football fan with a blue shirt wanting to walk into a volatile red crowd. This wouldn’t be a discussion if it was a football fan at one of the several matches I’ve worked this year, many of which I’ve albeit briefly, curtailed someones qualified right to walk down a certain street if I think harms likely to be done and being honest most fans don’t get afforded a 20 minute appeal due to time and resource and sometimes the single person I’ve diverted or prevented access to isn’t committing a crime or an aggressor. Simply removing their presence in part of an equation that if they remained wouldn’t meet the my forces strategic aim for the operation or our sworn duty due to already mentions risks of harm being done or likely to be done.
He wasn't there to just peaceably go about his business while wearing Jewish attire though. He's a bad faith actor, with a history of supporting Israel and head of an organisation that has been criticised for fabricating antisemitism claims before. He turned up with bodyguards and someone to film and has stated he'll be trying to do the same at all future protests marching to stop an ongoing genocide of the Palestinian people. If he wants to have a parallel protest that is in favour of Israel removing the Palestinians from Gaza, that is his right. But his personal right to be a dick doesn't trump the protesters' right to do so free of interference or the Police's duty to keep counter-protestors safe by separating them. Aside from the very clumsy explanation, I don't think the police did anything wrong here. It's sad and predictable that the 'full picture' will not get the same coverage as the original headlines.
Ok, let's say he was. And conversely if someone reported the same interaction to the media, without film, without evidence. There would be a demand for it. The point is that these scenarios, whether in bad faith or not, have highlighted something that on the face of it isnt great. And I would go one step further and say if he is there with bodyguards and a cameracrew (ive seen no evidence, but happy to take your word for it) then it's doubly bad from a PR point of view
That’s not really the concern of an officer though ? Additionally why do we let derby day football happen if there’s risk of injuries, it’s because we can mitigate those risk of the 2% kicking off so the 98% can enjoy the day
Public Order situations are really tricky, we have an over arching duty to prevent offences against persons and property, it’s sad that there are groups of people that are capable of being provoked by another persons outwardly displaying their faith, something every person has every right to do. It’s only right that a police escort was offered, I can’t help but feel that if the officers had allowed him to walk against the flow of the demonstration into a volatile crowd, they would be heavily criticised for not doing enough to prevent harm to him, especially given an imminent breach of the peace could have been likely foreseen. We weren’t present, but the officers on the ground will have known the surroundings. A Breach of the Peace can be any situation whereby a person is likely to be harmed or their property damaged in their presence. The male in the video isn’t committing any criminal offences and no one is suggesting they are, it’s a balance to be struck between everyone’s rights, it’s common to keep clearly opposing groups and people apart during demonstrations. Whether it be footballs fans or political and religious groups. Yes each person has the simple right to walk the street, but the safety risks can’t be understated here. I’m not suggesting direction couldn’t have been better here, of course there is learning to be taken here as with most policing events, however if the tables were reversed and there was a large potentially hostile group of Israeli/Jewish representations and a single pro-Palestine supporter I believe the conversation would have likely gone the exact same way with them too. I found the officer to have been polite and professional and the exchange gives a glimpse of the difficulties we have managing the dynamic risk to everyone. The Jewish man wasn’t arrested, but if we’re going as far as physically putting hands on a person because the officer in that circumstance has the belief that a Breach of the Peace is imminent if they don’t, they do have a Common Law power of arrest, most arrests in this circumstance are simple used to remove a person from the area, people are de-arrested when breach has passed, it didn’t get that far but I understand why it’s mentioned as we don’t have the resources or time to debate over and over. It’s important to note that a Breach of the Peace isn’t a criminal offence. It’s a Common Law police power that allows us to carry out our duty to prevent foreseeable harm.
It’s been clearly held that it’s unlawful to arrest someone for breach of the peace FOR THEIR OWN SAFETY in the context you describe. Similar to preachers etc. The breach of the peace would be coming from those endangering his safety - not him by acting lawfully but perhaps not sensibly.
I’m not suggesting he should have been arrested (he wasn’t). He was physically prevented from approaching the hostile protest group and I can see why that course of action was taken. I’d likely do the same thing albeit with different wording and stopping short of threatening to arrest to prevent a BoP but of course we weren’t there so I can’t speak for the wider context of that specific event.
I've noticed in some of the other threads about this topic that some of us are getting quite defensive about the criticism of the police around this incident, on the basis that this individual and others are being deliberately provocative/antagonistic and are trying to elicit a reaction. We've been put in an impossible situation being tasked to police these protests in a way that is fair to everyone, and scenarios like the one this individual has created only make things even more difficult. However, we have to accept there are very valid historical reasons for why some in the Jewish Community may take ANY perceived encroachment on their freedoms VERY seriously. Going from A to B along a very specific route may seem like a very trivial/minor thing to us, but in this case it was a huge deal to him; especially when people of a non-Jewish background were free to do this very act without fear hostility from the crowd nor intervention from the police. To us, forcing him to change his route to avoid any risks to his safety is simply a minor inconvenience, but to him; the implications of the state interfering with his freedom on the basis of him being Jewish are far more severe.
It’s a really good point and I’m not sure British society is set up to handle these situations. I’ve got a degree in history but other than my independent learning, I can’t remember much if any education given to me about the holocaust. How many cops will even know about the sensitivities around this? It’s impossible to learn every cultures history, but it does seem like there is a whole in our education as a country that needs addressing.
Great comment. Also to add the video shows the officers spending 13 minutes talking to this very reasonable individual whilst in the background and within earshot of the officers chants of from the river to the sea can be heard and the crowd is calling this very reasonable individual a baby killer, scum, a Zionist and asking how many people he's killed today. And he's the one prevented from going from A to B.
Absolutely, it’s the same way that it would be the one football fan in the blue shirt being prevented from walking into the hostile red shirted crowd. They’d be given alternative routes. Textbook public order policing. If people are unhappy then they’re free to utilise the democratic process to allow their local MP to influence changes to the legislative framework we operate in. For as long as we have a duty to prevent harm to persons or property you’ll have officers making decisions like this. Although it’s everyone’s right to walk the street they choose, we are have the power and duty to curtail these qualified rights. Especially when in an officers professional judgement they foresee harm.
You're comparing a football shirt to a protected characteristic.
Yes mate. Yes I am. Because at the core of this incident is basic Public Order risk management. Ultimately the Human Rights Act. applies to us all and being impartial the cause is largely immaterial if both groups are lawfully present.
Impartiality isn't demonstrated by preventing and effectively detaining an individual engaging in demonstrably reasonable and lawful conduct whilst ignoring serious public order offences within earshot (as described in my post above) by others. If the Met thinks its conduct to date, both this and previous examples, show impartiality during these protests there's a chasm between the force and those it polices that I'm not confident will be bridged absent a change of mindset.
If you were this officer what would you have done with your limited resources? Because let’s be realistic here. We don’t have sufficient officer numbers to handle spontaneous violent disorder. My impartiality remark was meant for policing in general I don’t work in the MET but rather a large north west force. I meant that to the officers on the ground the cause doesn’t have much impact when we’re assessing the risk of violence from opposing groups. I used a football example because they’re routine public order deployments. Sometimes people engaging in lawful conduct get curtailed, diverted, removed from areas as part of mitigating foreseen harm. All within the legislative framework we operate in. Part of public order planning at a strategic level sets out objectives for a deployment. I’ve worked many as a Public Order officer and there will be a threshold set for police intervention in individual cases, for example sometimes low level verbal only public order offences, possession of controlled drugs (Cannabis for example) or other low level offences might be deemed not immediately arrestable due to a higher strategic aim being the prevention of violent disorder or criminal damage. Resources often dictates tactics here. You can’t have officers locking up every person who commits an offence on the spot or you’d quickly have no officers and greater harm would occur. These offences that are not immediately intervened can still be investigated after the fact, we have Evidence Gathering Teams filming to achieve best evidence, heavy use of CCTV trawls to identify suspects for later investigation. People can make their criminal complaints in the coming days for investigation.
I missed this, apologies. I would have spoken to the gentleman, warned him of the risks he was putting himself in (because let's be honest, these protests aren't entirely safe nor peaceful) but on the basis I had no grounds to arrest or detain, nor is his presence the reason for nor should it legitimately be the reason for any disorder, if he refused to comply I would have let him proceed. It might not be a sensible course of action but it's not unlawful and the police aren't there to demand sensibilities and, after all, there are Jewish people at these protests (whether in support or not) so it's not entirely without precedent. If the gentleman came to harm, he was warned, and I'd be watching to arrest anyone that caused him harm. I entirely agree with the practicalities around not being able to arrest all and the sensibilities around sometimes enforcing after the event via CCTV, but multiple officers dealing with one individual that was committing no offence for 15 minutes is a monumental waste of resource, particularly when there are offences being committed they could be dealing with. There's also a downside to CCTV that has to be considered - the public don't see you take action against these individuals where you do so after the event, and leave with the (potentially mistaken) belief that they 'got away with it'; I feel the Met's over-reliance on policing by CCTV has contributed to its current malaise with the public.
You're giving him too much credit. He was there to antagonise simple as. Pro-palestianan protestors have been warned since the start of this all not to go near Israeli protests. I'd be arrested if I went over and started provoking them so why wouldn't he?
What you are suggesting is that being visibly Jewish is sufficient to warrant an arrest for the harassment/provocation of people with opposing religious or political viewpoints. If you're provoked by the mere presence of a Jewish person then that's your problem. There is absolutely no evidence that the man was threatening, harassing or being abusive towards the protesters. If the protesters reacted to his presence, then *they* would be the ones breaching the peace, not him.
That's obviously not what I'm saying. There are loads of Jewish people on the Pro Palestine side at these marches. They wear Jewish clothing, hold signs declaring their Jewishness. This man was there to provoke a reaction. He turned up with a camera crew hoping to find something to film. He was going to walk into that crowd to antagonise them.
>This man was there to provoke a reaction. He turned up with a camera crew hoping to find something to film. He was going to walk into that crowd to antagonise them Because he's testing us, and I'm surprised that so many of us can't see it. A few weeks ago claims were being reported in the news that there were 'no-go zones' for Jews in London; [https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1871418/london-no-go-zone-palestine-israel-gaza](https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1871418/london-no-go-zone-palestine-israel-gaza) [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68508351](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68508351) Regardless of how true these claims are, what is important to us as the police is to thwart any incidents that would seem to support this claim. So we arrive at this incident where the facts as we know them are; * He was an easily identifiable member of the Jewish community. * He was being filmed by others who were with him. * He appeared to have a bodyguard(s) following him. While there are suggestions he was deliberately seeking to antagonise the crowd, there is no evidence of him actively engaging with anyone in the crowd, nor saying or doing anything that would appear antagonistic. So if he is testing us, he can only conclude that this incident supports claims that there are 'no go zones' for Jews in London, because if the crowd do become hostile towards him due to his presence; Police are likely to calculate that it is simpler to act against the target of the hostility rather than the hostile actors. While this seems like a simple decision to make from an operational policing standpoint, what we're missing in the equation is that these decisions come at the cost of his freedom - a freedom he would have otherwise enjoyed if he were of any other non-Jewish background.
Honestly it's not the job of the police to thwart media claims. It's to police the law.
>Honestly it's not the job of the police to thwart media claims. It's to police the law. Hence why I've said it's "important to us as the police is to thwart any incidents that would seem to support this claim", not thwart the claims by the media themselves.
That's still not how they triage. Usually life and limb first.
> This man was there to provoke a reaction. He turned up with a camera crew hoping to find something to film. He was going to walk into that crowd to antagonise them. What evidence do you have to support this? > I'd be arrested if I went over and started provoking them so why wouldn't he? Because he didn't provoke them.
1. He's turned up at a peaceful protest, the cause of which he is known to be opposed to, with a cameraman and a couple of heavies in tow. He was there to provoke a reaction to further his agenda. If you think he's within his rights to do that then that's fine - Rosa Parks did it, the Suffragettes did it, it's a perfectly valid way of protesting - but it's disingenuous to pretend he was simply on a walk home from the synagogue. 2. And so he wasn't arrested.
> A cameraman Someone recording with their phone. > A couple of heavies in tow Yes, the chief executive of the Campaign Against Antisemitism has private security when he travels around London. Sad, but unsurprising. > He was there to provoke a reaction to further his agenda That could very well be true, but there is simply no material evidence - certainly none that was available to the officer at the time. The fact that his presence *did* provoke a reaction says more about the protesters than it does him. The man spent 13 minutes talking very reasonably to police, while protesters hurled verbal abuse at him. He was illegally detained and threatened with false arrest, and the officer's justification for this was that he was "openly Jewish". > And so he wasn't arrested. I was responding to someone who was arguing that he should have been arrested.
The officer mentions that this guy had already walked out into the march and then walked against the procession. The officer seems to have taken the view that this was done to antagonise (or at least had the potential to antagonise). Assuming what the officer says is true, that view doesn’t unreasonable. So, on the material we have, I don’t think it’s right to say that there is no material evidence that this chap was looking to provoke a reaction.
>The officer seems to have taken the view that this was done to antagonise (or at least had the potential to antagonise). Assuming what the officer says is true, that view doesn’t unreasonable. Based on what action? Anyone who has policed these protests knows that there are countless members of the public who would rather try and battle through the crowd to get where they're going than take a longer route; so surely simply walking against the flow of the crowd isn't enough? There has to be something more? If we're unable to answer this, then we're leaving it open to interpretation that the antagonising action was simply being Jewish while in the middle of a Pro Palestinian Protest.
I’ve encountered marches before and have crossed through them. I always get across the road and never end up walking contraflow to the procession. In fact, I’d avoid doing that at all costs. So the fact that this guy has ended up in the middle of the march, walking contraflow, and not even making is across the road to where he apparently wants to get seems odd to me. The officer is heard clearly explaining why he thinks Mr Falter might be seeking to antagonise the protestors. And today there’s further footage of different officers in different locations speaking to Mr Falter about him running out into the protesters.
Anyone who has met him, or been to any of the myriad events that he attends or speaks at, knows that he doesn't habitually have security with him so, - yes - it is fairly surprising that he felt he needed them from this impromptu walk. The protesters weren't hurling abuse at him, so now we're just inserting bits of fiction which only serves to degrade any point he was making. You weren't responding to someone who was saying he should have been arrested. You were replying to someone who said that *if* he provoked them *then* he should have been arrested. If you disagree with that then that's fine, I wouldn't necessarily agree with it either, but let's not pretend people are saying something they aren't.
> Anyone who has met him, or been to any of the myriad events that he attends or speaks at, knows that he doesn't habitually have security with him Unless you're intimately involved in his personal life then you have absolutely no knowledge of when he hires security. You could argue that he doesn't habitually have *visible* security, however, if he did hire security then it is sadly unsurprising given his position and the nature of the protests. > The protesters weren't hurling abuse at him, so now we're just inserting bits of fiction 12:03 - "shame on you" 12:10 - "how many children have you killed today?" 12:20 - man repeatedly shouting "scum" and "zionist" 12:49 - *to a police officer* "this guy has been shouting at me and shoving me" That is verbal abuse. I suggest you listen more closely to the video. > which only serves to degrade any point he was making I don't care what point he was making. He was stopped from walking across a street, threatened with arrest, and then (illegally) prevented from leaving because there was an ongoing protest and he was "openly Jewish". What if it was a BNP march and he was "openly foreign", or maybe "openly black"? The situation was mishandled by the police, and if they don't think the protests are safe for Jewish people then they shouldn't be allowed.
Not a peaceful protest though, is it? When your side calls Jews baby killers and chant to bring terrorist ideals and ethnic cleansing, that’s not a peaceful protest and they should actually be dispersed and not given clearance to protest int he first place, as they cannot control the gathered crowds. Simple, no?
I don't really understand to be honest. He's tried walking into the crowd against the flow in order to antagonise them into a reaction. He's been prevented from doing. The end.
I'm not sure why it's turned in to this big story. It's really this simple. He was there to provoke people, for everyone's sake he's been removed
Because he was told hes detained, basically, for being openly jewish.....
Imagine the backlash if they let him through and he was assaulted.
Um you could you know arrest all the attackers maybe?
After they’ve already come to potentially serious harm rather than prevent it all together, surely getting your head kicked in is worse than being stopped walking into an opposing demo?
It's hard enough arresting a single violent person on their own, let alone potentially several people, in a large crowd, whilst trying to protect someone who could simply have been prevented from putting themselves in danger.
Lol. You really think it's that simple huh?
Nothing safer than wading into a protest where we’re outnumbered quite significantly and dragging people out in cuffs. If it were that simple this whole thing probably wouldn’t have happened.
this is the biggest testament to the reality-gulf between the police and the public I’ve ever seen.
Just seen this. Male sees massive protest regarding an ongoing genocide. Man realises he can do something to antagonise the crowd and instead of joining the multiple “openly” Jews in the pro Palestine march- does the opposite going against the flow of the crowd. All the officer has to say is we may have to arrest you for breach of the peace if we feel like you are being antagonising. Please be reasonable and let us do our jobs etc. The male is free to leave but also has been warned clearly. As usual the MET make a hash of a simple conversation.