|
Post by cobhamstokey on Mar 14, 2024 19:07:56 GMT
Not saying there’s not a place for it but it’d be naive to think that there’s not a good few out there with an axe to grind who’ll be looking on this as an opportunity to cause grief for officers who’ve done nothing wrong purely because they’ve arrested them in the past or they just don’t like the police. I would have thought the good coppers would welcome any initiative would speed up the removal of their bent or incompetent colleagues. Surely a little short term stress and inconvenience is a price worth paying. I guess it depends on what you’d count as a little bit of stress. Being falsely accused of stuff you haven’t done and going through an investigation, potentially suspended. Worrying about losing your job and home when you’re innocent can’t be much fun. I’d imagine most people would think that’s a bit more than a little bit of stress. Agree with you re weeding the corrupt ones out though.
|
|
|
Post by roylandstoke on Mar 14, 2024 22:07:30 GMT
I would have thought the good coppers would welcome any initiative would speed up the removal of their bent or incompetent colleagues. Surely a little short term stress and inconvenience is a price worth paying. I guess it depends on what you’d count as a little bit of stress. Being falsely accused of stuff you haven’t done and going through an investigation, potentially suspended. Worrying about losing your job and home when you’re innocent can’t be much fun. I’d imagine most people would think that’s a bit more than a little bit of stress. Agree with you re weeding the corrupt ones out though. No copper is ever really going to be trusted until the public really believes all of them want the bad cops gone. Being investigated is obviously incredibly stressful, and probably unfair in many cases, but if things remain as they are all police officers will have to suffer the stress of being seen as enemies; , as corrupt ; as people who don’t actually give a shit. I would see that as totally intolerable. Most coppers are decent, hardworking people who want to make the world a better place. Until the general public sees and believed there is a concerted effort from every single police officer to eliminate and prosecute officers who abuse their positions of power and privilege, everyone of them will continue to be viewed with suspicion and distrust. A few years of serious purge, investigation, and yes, stress, has to be worth it in the long run. Good officers deserve our respect and support; they don’t get that right now because there is a perceived lack of will to change, and to get rid of of the “bad apples”. The reputation of the police is sadly in the toilet right now. That will not change without drastic change.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Mar 23, 2024 15:07:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Mar 26, 2024 7:40:05 GMT
Not the Met but it needs to be seen to be believed www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626704How so many officers can fail to realise they do and did have a power to enter that property is beyond me. Even the thickest Police officer knows what power to use is this circumstance and to walk away is just scandalous. Section 17 of PACE ffs get in there and you could have helped her.
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Mar 26, 2024 7:46:26 GMT
Not the Met but it needs to be seen to be believed www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626704How so many officers can fail to realise they do and did have a power to enter that property is beyond me. Even the thickest Police officer knows what power to use is this circumstances and to walk away is just scandalous. Section 17 of PACE ffs get in there and you could have helped her. Not just them but what was the Sargent on duty thinking? Surely, if there had been multiple call-outs, one of the idiots that preceded the next set would have clarified why they went to the door and just wandered off? Could a senior officer not have seen this and demanded that they enter? Surely, someone had to have seen it or they wouldn’t have gone back out to check.
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Mar 26, 2024 7:58:20 GMT
Not the Met but it needs to be seen to be believed www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68626704How so many officers can fail to realise they do and did have a power to enter that property is beyond me. Even the thickest Police officer knows what power to use is this circumstances and to walk away is just scandalous. Section 17 of PACE ffs get in there and you could have helped her. Not just them but what was the Sargent on duty thinking? Surely, if there had been multiple call-outs, one of the idiots that preceded the next set would have clarified why they went to the door and just wandered off? Could a senior officer not have seen this and demanded that they enter? Surely, someone had to have seen it or they wouldn’t have gone back out to check. Honestly I wouldn't have asked anyone I'd have been inside in 2mins I'd have smashed whatever I needed to gain entry because I know the powers I have at my disposal, policing 101 to preserve life it really is that simple even if the house was empty you can still justify smashing your way in.
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Mar 26, 2024 8:06:39 GMT
Not just them but what was the Sargent on duty thinking? Surely, if there had been multiple call-outs, one of the idiots that preceded the next set would have clarified why they went to the door and just wandered off? Could a senior officer not have seen this and demanded that they enter? Surely, someone had to have seen it or they wouldn’t have gone back out to check. Honestly I wouldn't have asked anyone I'd have been inside in 2mins I'd have smashed whatever I needed to gain entry because I know the powers I have at my disposal, policing 101 to preserve life it really is that simple even if the house was empty you can still justify smashing your way in. Oh, I’m not saying that the officers who responded aren’t in the wrong - they are. I’m wondering why senior officers aren’t better overseeing their callouts. Surely, whoever is on charge of the shift(s) should have ordered them in, especially at the second attempt. Officers who don’t know the law and who are too scared of being sued to uphold it shouldn’t be relied upon to uphold it.
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Mar 26, 2024 8:14:50 GMT
Honestly I wouldn't have asked anyone I'd have been inside in 2mins I'd have smashed whatever I needed to gain entry because I know the powers I have at my disposal, policing 101 to preserve life it really is that simple even if the house was empty you can still justify smashing your way in. Oh, I’m not saying that the officers who responded aren’t in the wrong - they are. I’m wondering why senior officers aren’t better overseeing their callouts. Surely, whoever is on charge of the shift(s) should have ordered them in, especially at the second attempt. I don't get what the issues were its 100% a Section 17 entry but and it's just my opinion the people "running" things or so risk averse its pathetic probably worried about a window or door and getting in the shit if the house turned out to be empty but you have to know what to do given the circumstances, a call/info somebody is/has been attacked at the house that's all you need to know no way would anyone get even a telling off in any way for acting on that info. I'd argue its neglect of duty and I'm as pro police as they come but thats embarrassing and an incredible failure. Edit: even if that wasn't "my job" I'd have got involved and if needed I'd have sorted it myself by intervening and making it my job my baton has smashed more glass than I've had chips when I wasn't in possession of a big red key.
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Apr 19, 2024 18:40:03 GMT
What's this all about then?
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Apr 19, 2024 18:59:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by knype on Apr 19, 2024 19:46:07 GMT
Imagine the uproar if this kind of thing was said and done to a Muslim man, there would be riots on the streets.
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Apr 19, 2024 19:59:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Apr 19, 2024 20:02:39 GMT
Let’s all be offended, let’s all be offended, Na na na na na na na na..
|
|
|
Post by xchpotter on Apr 19, 2024 21:45:24 GMT
Another example of how policing has lost any sense of neutrality.It was always built on policing without fear nor favour, now it is openly biased. No wonder confidence continues to dwindle.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Apr 19, 2024 22:22:42 GMT
Will probably get slaughtered for this but weren't the Police trying to use common sense here?
From what I can see there was the usual weekly pro Palestine March taking place in London and the chap in question Gideon Falter was trying to cross the street in the middle of the March. The Police decided if he did so there was a potential if he did, it could cause a disturbance. Surely their function is to prevent confrontation
Now Gideon just happens to be Cheif Executive of Campaign against Antisemitism and I'm sure he would be well aware these Marches take place at that location each week at that time. Only he will know if he was trying to make a point that "The Streets of London aren't safe for Jews" Instead the apparent point he claims to have made is a dual Policing Policy
Opening myself to further abuse for whataboutery, if the March was a Pro Israel March and a lady in a Hijab or carrying a Palestinian Flag was intending to cross the road in the middle of it I'd expect the Police using common sense ask her to wait until the March had passed
Both Gideon and the imaginary Hijab wearing or flag carrying Lady of course should have been able to cross the road without hindrance, but we don't live in a perfect World
As for the Police Officer who described Gideon as "Obviously Jewish" as he was wearing a Kippah it was clumsy but who hasn't said something clumsy that they later regret
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Apr 20, 2024 5:45:52 GMT
Will probably get slaughtered for this but weren't the Police trying to use common sense here? From what I can see there was the usual weekly pro Palestine March taking place in London and the chap in question Gideon Falter was trying to cross the street in the middle of the March. The Police decided if he did so there was a potential if he did, it could cause a disturbance. Surely their function is to prevent confrontation Now Gideon just happens to be Cheif Executive of Campaign against Antisemitism and I'm sure he would be well aware these Marches take place at that location each week at that time. Only he will know if he was trying to make a point that "The Streets of London aren't safe for Jews" Instead the apparent point he claims to have made is a dual Policing Policy Opening myself to further abuse for whataboutery, if the March was a Pro Israel March and a lady in a Hijab or carrying a Palestinian Flag was intending to cross the road in the middle of it I'd expect the Police using common sense ask her to wait until the March had passed Both Gideon and the imaginary Hijab wearing or flag carrying Lady of course should have been able to cross the road without hindrance, but we don't live in a perfect World As for the Police Officer who described Gideon as "Obviously Jewish" as he was wearing a Kippah it was clumsy but who hasn't said something clumsy that they later regret This. The officer would have been looking to arrest the chap for breach of the peace to protect him from getting potentially assaulted by the crowd. He has every right to be there however I’m pretty sure he knew exactly what he was doing and like others have done in the past he’s manipulated the situation to get a story at the expense of the police (it’s no surprise that the incident was videoed). I have no doubt whatsoever that if the officer had allowed him to go into the crowd he would have been seriously assaulted and that then there would have been a story saying that the police had stood around and allowed the male to be assaulted. I’m pretty sure that if the officer had arrested or did arrest the male for Breach of the Peace he would have been dearrested once the risk had gone he’d have been released immediately. Yes the officer was clumsy in the language he used but in my opinion his actions came from a good place. If the resources were there potentially the matter may have been dealt with differently but that’s on Theresa May for making all the cuts. There will always be activists left and right looking to manipulate marches and protests by filming stuff like this whether it’s Tommy Robinson or Patsy Stevenson and often the police are used as there stooge. It must be pretty difficult knowing that what ever you do it’s going to be posted and manipulated on social media for political reasons and thay you’ll be identified to the whole of the country without you having a say and that your bosses may look to make an example of you to gain some political points. Back to the original point. Yes he has every right to cross the road and he shouldn’t have others preventing him from doing so and why should they call the shots but sometimes life isn’t fair and common sense has to come into play. I have to say if the roles were reversed and it was a Jewish march with a Palestinian crossing the actions of the police would have been the same.
|
|
|
Post by deeside2 on Apr 20, 2024 6:27:49 GMT
Will probably get slaughtered for this but weren't the Police trying to use common sense here? From what I can see there was the usual weekly pro Palestine March taking place in London and the chap in question Gideon Falter was trying to cross the street in the middle of the March. The Police decided if he did so there was a potential if he did, it could cause a disturbance. Surely their function is to prevent confrontation Now Gideon just happens to be Cheif Executive of Campaign against Antisemitism and I'm sure he would be well aware these Marches take place at that location each week at that time. Only he will know if he was trying to make a point that "The Streets of London aren't safe for Jews" Instead the apparent point he claims to have made is a dual Policing Policy Opening myself to further abuse for whataboutery, if the March was a Pro Israel March and a lady in a Hijab or carrying a Palestinian Flag was intending to cross the road in the middle of it I'd expect the Police using common sense ask her to wait until the March had passed Both Gideon and the imaginary Hijab wearing or flag carrying Lady of course should have been able to cross the road without hindrance, but we don't live in a perfect World As for the Police Officer who described Gideon as "Obviously Jewish" as he was wearing a Kippah it was clumsy but who hasn't said something clumsy that they later regret This. The officer would have been looking to arrest the chap for breach of the peace to protect him from getting potentially assaulted by the crowd. He has every right to be there however I’m pretty sure he knew exactly what he was doing and like others have done in the past he’s manipulated the situation to get a story at the expense of the police (it’s no surprise that the incident was videoed). I have no doubt whatsoever that if the officer had allowed him to go into the crowd he would have been seriously assaulted and that then there would have been a story saying that the police had stood around and allowed the male to be assaulted. I’m pretty sure that if the officer had arrested or did arrest the male for Breach of the Peace he would have been dearrested once the risk had gone he’d have been released immediately. Yes the officer was clumsy in the language he used but in my opinion his actions came from a good place. If the resources were there potentially the matter may have been dealt with differently but that’s on Theresa May for making all the cuts. There will always be activists left and right looking to manipulate marches and protests by filming stuff like this whether it’s Tommy Robinson or Patsy Stevenson and often the police are used as there stooge. It must be pretty difficult knowing that what ever you do it’s going to be posted and manipulated on social media for political reasons and thay you’ll be identified to the whole of the country without you having a say and that your bosses may look to make an example of you to gain some political points. Back to the original point. Yes he has every right to cross the road and he shouldn’t have others preventing him from doing so and why should they call the shots but sometimes life isn’t fair and common sense has to come into play. I have to say if the roles were reversed and it was a Jewish march with a Palestinian crossing the actions of the police would have been the same. There is a second page to that police statement - it's visible at 0:43 in this video. My reading of it is that the police are saying that the counter-protestors are likely to be prevented from protesting as the police now feel it may be provocative to the main march. Surely that's stopping free speech. These damned marches have been going on for months now (and achieved precisely nothing apart from disrupting London) and as far as I know there hasn't been any "altercations", just the use of provocative chanting "from the river to the sea", "Hamas are terrorists" etc. Seems like the police are intent on shutting down counter opinion.
|
|
|
Post by tuum on Apr 20, 2024 6:31:56 GMT
Genuine question. What is so offensive about saying that someone is "obviously Jewish"? If they had said that person is "Jewish" would that have been better? I genuinely don't understand what the issue is here. Are we now expected to use deliberately vague and ambiguous language when we are not 100% certain of our facts to avoid offending someone. We shouldn't use our judgment anymore based on what we see before us in case we are wrong 1% of the time. I am an engineer. I make judgments all the time based on what I perceive to be the situation. If I refused to make a decision until all the facts were known I would not last a week. Admittedly, when I make a mistake it doesn't get posted all over Twitter. If anyone can explain the nuances of this issue I would be grateful.
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Apr 20, 2024 6:56:08 GMT
Genuine question. What is so offensive about saying that someone is "obviously Jewish"? If they had said that person is "Jewish" would that have been better? I genuinely don't understand what the issue is here. Are we now expected to use deliberately vague and ambiguous language when we are not 100% certain of our facts to avoid offending someone. We shouldn't use our judgment anymore based on what we see before us in case we are wrong 1% of the time. I am an engineer. I make judgments all the time based on what I perceive to be the situation. If I refused to make a decision until all the facts were known I would not last a week. Admittedly, when I make a mistake it doesn't get posted all over Twitter. If anyone can explain the nuances of this issue I would be grateful. There isn’t really in my opinion the only word perhaps is “obviously” which of course he is however unfortunately we’re living in a society now where every word id scrutinised and against you. It’s a sad state of affairs.
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Apr 20, 2024 7:03:04 GMT
There's historically hundreds of Met Police at Hyde Park for 420, doubt today will be any different.
I understand why they're there, it's a large gathering of people after all (although I wish the authorities would recognise this fact with some toilet facilities as well as law enforcement 🙂) but it must be the easiest gig of the year for them, I suspect mainly because very little alcohol is consumed 😀
I'll observe and report back 😎
Happy 420 everyone 💚
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Apr 20, 2024 7:14:22 GMT
Genuine question. What is so offensive about saying that someone is "obviously Jewish"? If they had said that person is "Jewish" would that have been better? I genuinely don't understand what the issue is here. Are we now expected to use deliberately vague and ambiguous language when we are not 100% certain of our facts to avoid offending someone. We shouldn't use our judgment anymore based on what we see before us in case we are wrong 1% of the time. I am an engineer. I make judgments all the time based on what I perceive to be the situation. If I refused to make a decision until all the facts were known I would not last a week. Admittedly, when I make a mistake it doesn't get posted all over Twitter. If anyone can explain the nuances of this issue I would be grateful. I did wonder that myself but decided to leave it alone in case I was missing something There have obviously been antisemic caricatures in the past where facial features have been exaggerated to emphasis a particular trope but I'm sure the Police Officer was referring to the wearing of a Kippah
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Apr 20, 2024 7:21:59 GMT
This. The officer would have been looking to arrest the chap for breach of the peace to protect him from getting potentially assaulted by the crowd. He has every right to be there however I’m pretty sure he knew exactly what he was doing and like others have done in the past he’s manipulated the situation to get a story at the expense of the police (it’s no surprise that the incident was videoed). I have no doubt whatsoever that if the officer had allowed him to go into the crowd he would have been seriously assaulted and that then there would have been a story saying that the police had stood around and allowed the male to be assaulted. I’m pretty sure that if the officer had arrested or did arrest the male for Breach of the Peace he would have been dearrested once the risk had gone he’d have been released immediately. Yes the officer was clumsy in the language he used but in my opinion his actions came from a good place. If the resources were there potentially the matter may have been dealt with differently but that’s on Theresa May for making all the cuts. There will always be activists left and right looking to manipulate marches and protests by filming stuff like this whether it’s Tommy Robinson or Patsy Stevenson and often the police are used as there stooge. It must be pretty difficult knowing that what ever you do it’s going to be posted and manipulated on social media for political reasons and thay you’ll be identified to the whole of the country without you having a say and that your bosses may look to make an example of you to gain some political points. Back to the original point. Yes he has every right to cross the road and he shouldn’t have others preventing him from doing so and why should they call the shots but sometimes life isn’t fair and common sense has to come into play. I have to say if the roles were reversed and it was a Jewish march with a Palestinian crossing the actions of the police would have been the same. There is a second page to that police statement - it's visible at 0:43 in this video. My reading of it is that the police are saying that the counter-protestors are likely to be prevented from protesting as the police now feel it may be provocative to the main march. Surely that's stopping free speech. These damned marches have been going on for months now (and achieved precisely nothing apart from disrupting London) and as far as I know there hasn't been any "altercations", just the use of provocative chanting "from the river to the sea", "Hamas are terrorists" etc. Seems like the police are intent on shutting down counter opinion. Tousi does make the occasional good point however his views are quite blinkered and he does have a political slant so he’s always going to give an account which has some bias to it. I’m sure there isn’t an issue with a pro Jewish march (or there certainly shouldn’t be) however the main role of police is to keep the peace and to ensure that there’s the minimum disturbance or violence at them so they have to occasionally police in a way that won’t please everyone. I’m sure if there were 2 protests on the same day they’d have bigger numbers to manage them and keep them separated than with a single march which is easier to handle. Nothing wrong with free speech but it’s the response to it that’s the issue and if it’s going to cause a riot action has to be taken to prevent that taking place or there’d be wide spread disorder and potentially far more damage / injuries. I have to say I can’t really see what they’re achieving now with these marches (but I think that a lot re strikes and activism) and I do agree that perhaps there hasn’t been a strong enough line in the sand drawn at the start however I do think a lot of that is down to the police not having the numbers to deal more robustly with the protests and that it’s more about damage limitation and looking at the bigger picture. I believe the main reason it may seem one way is that the pro palestine movement is more vocal and bigger in number than there actually being “sides” being taken. Ultimately the police are not going to be able to please everyone and there’ll always be arguments and counter arguments but I can see why from some of the social media reports people are getting frustrated but I think sometimes that’s down to reporting bias rather than the policing being 2 tier.
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Apr 20, 2024 7:23:03 GMT
There's historically hundreds of Met Police at Hyde Park for 420, doubt today will be any different. I understand why they're there, it's a large gathering of people after all (although I wish the authorities would recognise this fact with some toilet facilities as well as law enforcement 🙂) but it must be the easiest gig of the year for them, I suspect mainly because very little alcohol is consumed 😀 I'll observe and report back 😎 Happy 420 everyone 💚 Have a good day
|
|
|
Post by roylandstoke on Apr 20, 2024 8:32:19 GMT
Will probably get slaughtered for this but weren't the Police trying to use common sense here? From what I can see there was the usual weekly pro Palestine March taking place in London and the chap in question Gideon Falter was trying to cross the street in the middle of the March. The Police decided if he did so there was a potential if he did, it could cause a disturbance. Surely their function is to prevent confrontation Now Gideon just happens to be Cheif Executive of Campaign against Antisemitism and I'm sure he would be well aware these Marches take place at that location each week at that time. Only he will know if he was trying to make a point that "The Streets of London aren't safe for Jews" Instead the apparent point he claims to have made is a dual Policing Policy Opening myself to further abuse for whataboutery, if the March was a Pro Israel March and a lady in a Hijab or carrying a Palestinian Flag was intending to cross the road in the middle of it I'd expect the Police using common sense ask her to wait until the March had passed Both Gideon and the imaginary Hijab wearing or flag carrying Lady of course should have been able to cross the road without hindrance, but we don't live in a perfect World As for the Police Officer who described Gideon as "Obviously Jewish" as he was wearing a Kippah it was clumsy but who hasn't said something clumsy that they later regret This. The officer would have been looking to arrest the chap for breach of the peace to protect him from getting potentially assaulted by the crowd. He has every right to be there however I’m pretty sure he knew exactly what he was doing and like others have done in the past he’s manipulated the situation to get a story at the expense of the police (it’s no surprise that the incident was videoed). I have no doubt whatsoever that if the officer had allowed him to go into the crowd he would have been seriously assaulted and that then there would have been a story saying that the police had stood around and allowed the male to be assaulted. I’m pretty sure that if the officer had arrested or did arrest the male for Breach of the Peace he would have been dearrested once the risk had gone he’d have been released immediately. Yes the officer was clumsy in the language he used but in my opinion his actions came from a good place. If the resources were there potentially the matter may have been dealt with differently but that’s on Theresa May for making all the cuts. There will always be activists left and right looking to manipulate marches and protests by filming stuff like this whether it’s Tommy Robinson or Patsy Stevenson and often the police are used as there stooge. It must be pretty difficult knowing that what ever you do it’s going to be posted and manipulated on social media for political reasons and thay you’ll be identified to the whole of the country without you having a say and that your bosses may look to make an example of you to gain some political points. Back to the original point. Yes he has every right to cross the road and he shouldn’t have others preventing him from doing so and why should they call the shots but sometimes life isn’t fair and common sense has to come into play. I have to say if the roles were reversed and it was a Jewish march with a Palestinian crossing the actions of the police would have been the same. Agree. Apart from your certainty that the deliberately, provocative man would have been assaulted.
|
|
|
Post by knype on Apr 20, 2024 10:26:31 GMT
A report from a Muslim group.... 😁
|
|
|
Post by Eggybread on Apr 20, 2024 10:36:51 GMT
But wasn’t just crossing the road was he as the second video showed as he was still “hanging “ around.
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Apr 20, 2024 10:42:27 GMT
This. The officer would have been looking to arrest the chap for breach of the peace to protect him from getting potentially assaulted by the crowd. He has every right to be there however I’m pretty sure he knew exactly what he was doing and like others have done in the past he’s manipulated the situation to get a story at the expense of the police (it’s no surprise that the incident was videoed). I have no doubt whatsoever that if the officer had allowed him to go into the crowd he would have been seriously assaulted and that then there would have been a story saying that the police had stood around and allowed the male to be assaulted. I’m pretty sure that if the officer had arrested or did arrest the male for Breach of the Peace he would have been dearrested once the risk had gone he’d have been released immediately. Yes the officer was clumsy in the language he used but in my opinion his actions came from a good place. If the resources were there potentially the matter may have been dealt with differently but that’s on Theresa May for making all the cuts. There will always be activists left and right looking to manipulate marches and protests by filming stuff like this whether it’s Tommy Robinson or Patsy Stevenson and often the police are used as there stooge. It must be pretty difficult knowing that what ever you do it’s going to be posted and manipulated on social media for political reasons and thay you’ll be identified to the whole of the country without you having a say and that your bosses may look to make an example of you to gain some political points. Back to the original point. Yes he has every right to cross the road and he shouldn’t have others preventing him from doing so and why should they call the shots but sometimes life isn’t fair and common sense has to come into play. I have to say if the roles were reversed and it was a Jewish march with a Palestinian crossing the actions of the police would have been the same. Agree. Apart from your certainty that the deliberately, provocative man would have been assaulted. I think that’s fair to say yes. I guess we’ll never know but sometimes it’s best to not take that chance. There’s certainly been an increase amp.theguardian.com/news/2024/feb/15/huge-rise-in-antisemitic-abuse-in-uk-since-hamas-attack-says-charity
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Apr 20, 2024 10:50:42 GMT
There is a second page to that police statement - it's visible at 0:43 in this video. My reading of it is that the police are saying that the counter-protestors are likely to be prevented from protesting as the police now feel it may be provocative to the main march. Surely that's stopping free speech. These damned marches have been going on for months now (and achieved precisely nothing apart from disrupting London) and as far as I know there hasn't been any "altercations", just the use of provocative chanting "from the river to the sea", "Hamas are terrorists" etc. Seems like the police are intent on shutting down counter opinion. Tousi does make the occasional good point however his views are quite blinkered and he does have a political slant so he’s always going to give an account which has some bias to it. I’m sure there isn’t an issue with a pro Jewish march (or there certainly shouldn’t be) however the main role of police is to keep the peace and to ensure that there’s the minimum disturbance or violence at them so they have to occasionally police in a way that won’t please everyone. I’m sure if there were 2 protests on the same day they’d have bigger numbers to manage them and keep them separated than with a single march which is easier to handle. Nothing wrong with free speech but it’s the response to it that’s the issue and if it’s going to cause a riot action has to be taken to prevent that taking place or there’d be wide spread disorder and potentially far more damage / injuries. I have to say I can’t really see what they’re achieving now with these marches (but I think that a lot re strikes and activism) and I do agree that perhaps there hasn’t been a strong enough line in the sand drawn at the start however I do think a lot of that is down to the police not having the numbers to deal more robustly with the protests and that it’s more about damage limitation and looking at the bigger picture. I believe the main reason it may seem one way is that the pro palestine movement is more vocal and bigger in number than there actually being “sides” being taken. Ultimately the police are not going to be able to please everyone and there’ll always be arguments and counter arguments but I can see why from some of the social media reports people are getting frustrated but I think sometimes that’s down to reporting bias rather than the policing being 2 tier. It comes to something when crossing the road could cause a riot. For the life of me how I've been treated as a football supporter, away from home for years, I cannot understand why that same treatment isn't applied to these events which are far more deliberately provocative and antagonisic? If the people of London are happy for public money being spent dealing with this nonsense weekly then that's their business I guess.
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Apr 20, 2024 11:13:45 GMT
Tousi does make the occasional good point however his views are quite blinkered and he does have a political slant so he’s always going to give an account which has some bias to it. I’m sure there isn’t an issue with a pro Jewish march (or there certainly shouldn’t be) however the main role of police is to keep the peace and to ensure that there’s the minimum disturbance or violence at them so they have to occasionally police in a way that won’t please everyone. I’m sure if there were 2 protests on the same day they’d have bigger numbers to manage them and keep them separated than with a single march which is easier to handle. Nothing wrong with free speech but it’s the response to it that’s the issue and if it’s going to cause a riot action has to be taken to prevent that taking place or there’d be wide spread disorder and potentially far more damage / injuries. I have to say I can’t really see what they’re achieving now with these marches (but I think that a lot re strikes and activism) and I do agree that perhaps there hasn’t been a strong enough line in the sand drawn at the start however I do think a lot of that is down to the police not having the numbers to deal more robustly with the protests and that it’s more about damage limitation and looking at the bigger picture. I believe the main reason it may seem one way is that the pro palestine movement is more vocal and bigger in number than there actually being “sides” being taken. Ultimately the police are not going to be able to please everyone and there’ll always be arguments and counter arguments but I can see why from some of the social media reports people are getting frustrated but I think sometimes that’s down to reporting bias rather than the policing being 2 tier. It comes to something when crossing the road could cause a riot. For the life of me how I've been treated as a football supporter, away from home for years, I cannot understand why that same treatment isn't applied to these events which are far more deliberately provocative and antagonisic? If the people of London are happy for public money being spent dealing with this nonsense weekly then that's their business I guess. Couldn’t agree more Cranny. I guess it’s the sign of the times. Things have got way to political and there’s to much fear around policing robustly because officers don’t feel supported and know they’ll be hung out to dry as soon as someone’s homemade video hits social media and there management get wind of it. Of course there’s no place for over use of force or corruption but it feels like it’s gone beyond that and almost everything is under the microscope. Add to that the officers and tactics to deal with footy Id imagine are very different to the protests. Don’t think there’s actually an answer because there’s too big a divide politically in this country and they’ll always have those hammering them for either being too soft or another side saying they’re being too aggressive. Doesn’t help when you have politicians wading in too. The problem now is everyone has an opinion and those opinions if they’re public just cause mass confusion and can be twisted to what ever side people support. You only have to come on here to see that.
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Apr 20, 2024 17:19:41 GMT
A report from a Muslim group.... 😁 The point being that it was reported and people didn’t riot. You suggested that if they were mistreated, there would have been riots. This article highlights accusations that were not met with riots. Again, it’s almost like you believe that people care more, in particular, for Muslims than they actually do. It’s strange.
|
|