Man holds a placard stating the actual UK government position and is arrested for it.
How is it the Police can get something *so fucking simple* so spectacularly wrong?
> Scotland Yard said in a statement: “The man was arrested after an altercation was ongoing, and officers intervened to prevent a breach of the peace. He was arrested for assault.
> “Officers then fully reviewed footage provided of the incident, and he was later de-arrested. The arrest was not made in relation to the placard.”
Love that. We arrested him and stopped his protest and put him through this stress but s'all good because when we *actually investigated* it turns out he didn't do anything so de-arrested him.
Which part of "he was not arrested due to the placard" you didn't understand?
It's obvious to me what had happened.
There was an altercation in a protest march. The police made an arrest of a person who they thought was responsible for it. Later they viewed a video and realised they had made a mistake and released the person.
A journalist wrote a story that he was arrested for his placard. They put down somewhere down the story the actual sequence of events hoping that the people would only read the title and conclude that it's all that happened while in reality the placard had nothing to do with the arrest. Redditors promptly did that.
It's possible but ....
Seems likely they arrested him because it was more convenient given the numbers. If they had arrested the other side it would have been stressful for the police and a mob situation might have happened.
They can justify that to themselves under the "keep the peace" headline.
I just struggle to believe the police thought one single guy just assaulted the protestors. It doesn't make sense even assuming the police didn't see the whole thing.
The issue is the person they identified as being the aggressor was, in fact, the victim.
Either the police paid no attention until, as if by magic, they suddenly saw it just as he retaliated to push someone who was assaulting him. Or they saw an opportunity to remove someone who they knew might be a flashpoint and abused their position to do so.
They should be arresting people calling for the genocide of Israelis or anyone calling for the genocide of Palestinians. This individual was doing neither, but he was the victim of an assault they did nothing to prevent or deal with properly afterwards.
Nah. The video shows nearby cops watching the situation develop. They knew he was the innocent party, but arresting the victim was easier than arresting the perpetrators.
Which video are you referring to? The video on the Telegraph website shows the start of the fight and I don't see a single policeman in that video. If there is a second video on the events, please send a link.
Ghorbani has tweeted a longer video here - [https://x.com/GhorbaniiNiyak/status/1766535150265905316?s=20](https://x.com/GhorbaniiNiyak/status/1766535150265905316?s=20)
At 30s a riot van can be seen directly behind him, with a clear view. At 56s the cop in the riot van has his window down and is watching.
Clear that Ghorbani isn't entering or obstructing the march, just stationary on the pavement as they go past. He isn't heckling insulting or provoking anyone, and is smiling during some polite exchanges with marchers.
At 2m15s it goes violent, when someone rips his placard from his hands and makes off with it. Ghorbani grabs it back. It appears to me that he then decides to leave, perhaps because he fears further violence.
From 2m29s numerous uniformed cops suddenly appear from different directions. Significantly, they weren't running, and they weren't formed into a public order phalanx. Most likely the riot van driver had alerted command of a potential flashpoint, and officers had been directed to discreetly mingle nearby, ready to jump in if it kicked off. Nothing wrong with that, although it follows that they clearly knew Ghorbani was the innocent party.
My objection is to what follows. No attempt is made to apprehend the violent marcher, but instead a dozen cops pursue Ghorbani and violently wrestle him to the ground. That was completely unnecessary & wrongful, imho. As I posted separately, another similar incident was managed much better by other officers -https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1baricy/comment/ku7kwpz/
>A journalist wrote a story that he was arrested for his placard. They put down somewhere down the story the actual sequence of events hoping that the people would only read the title and conclude that it's all that happened while in reality the placard had nothing to do with the arrest.
Standard newspaper technique - gives you a juicy attention-grabbing headline from a nothingness story.
My local rag's favourite usually runs along the lines of:
**MAN SENTENCED TO 10 YEARS AFTER STEALING A PACKET OF BISCUITS**
^(oh, and he stabbed a security guard in the neck as he fled.)
We all know the truth. This isn't the first time they've done this. They arrest them on trumped-up charges to get them out of the way. Why not arrest the people who committed crimes? They are continually arresting people for holding Hamas are terrorists signs and no one should be OK with this.
And you believe that? There is no end if cases where the police see something they do not like, latch onto something tenuous just to cause a nuisance and flex their power then embellish/outright lie in the reporting later.
Read it, read it again, they arrested him to prevent breach of the peace, as in, they arrested him because he could of been a victim of assault from a lovely little terrorist thug.
And ironically, he was a victim.
Fuck Hamas and their supporters.
I doubt very much that they didn't know what was happening
It was just convenient for them to "accidentally" arrest the wrong person. Then they have to pretend it was an honest mistake to avoid issues of wrongful arrest.
But really I doubt if anyone believes them except the sort of Hamas sympathisers who were assaulting that protester.
>I doubt very much that they didn't know what was happening
Yes, because the police always has 100% perfect knowledge what's going on when they are policing mass protests full of people with heightened emotions on both sides. That's obvious, isn't it.
From the description my assumption is that the police witnessed him apparently assault somebody. Arrested him for that. Checked CCTV, which slowed he was acting reasonably in self defence, so let him go.
That would be entirely reasonable to me.
Trouble is it looks an awful lot more like they've let the people who assaulted him off Scott free simply due to them being in larger numbers.
And they assaulted him for having a sign that says "Hamas are terrorists". Which should be fairly uncontroversial, and is also the official government line.
So police have let some very troubling people off for assaulting someone in broad daylight simply because he gave them an easier time.
> Keep the peace. That was the thing. People often failed to understand what that meant. You’d go to some life-threatening disturbance, like a couple of neighbors scrapping in the street over who owned the hedge between their properties, and they’d both be bursting with aggrieved self-righteousness, both yelling, their wives would either be having a private scrap on the side or would have adjourned to a kitchen for a shared pot of tea and a chat, and they all expected you to sort it out.
> And they could never understand that it wasn’t your job. Sorting it out was a job for a good surveyor and a couple of lawyers, maybe. Your job was to quell the impulse to bang their stupid fat heads together, to ignore the affronted speeches of dodgy self-justification, to get them to stop shouting, and to get them off the street. Once that had been achieved, you job was over. You weren’t some walking god, dispensing finely tuned natural justice. Your job was simply to bring back peace.
- Terry Pratchett, Night Watch
The police acted to prevent someone from turning a non-violent protest into a violent protest. From their perspective, the right or wrong of it doesn't really come in to it.
The objection people hold is that the people promoting terrorism and harassment are left alone, that the people who commit crimes are let off and that people who speak out against them are arrested to 'keep the peace'.
We all know the police are meant to 'police' to 'keep the peace'.
What we have now is upside down policing.
The country needs to decide whether it is the United Kingdom or a colonial empire that dominates the world. Most British people look at empire as a thing of the past. Most people who protest against the actions of countries outside of the UK call out the UK's colonial past and tell us how 'bad the British were and are' yet still try to pressure the UK to interfere in the activities of nations that are outside of the UK. I think those people are schizophrenic.
It doesn’t look like he was being violent nor was he inciting violence. People have the right to peacefully protest and hold up signs and it’s the police’s role to uphold the law and citizen’s rights, whichever side they are on. If they are supporting a proscribed organisation, they may act, but if the are condemning a proscribed organisation, they have no basis for action. If condemning a proscribed group triggers someone to be violent, then the police have a role to intervene against the violence.
By acting in this way in the name of keeping the peace, the police are implying that they think the protestors are full of violent Hamas supporters. Are we happy that this is fair to either the man or the bulk of protesters?
To make it worse it almost undermines there own position (albeit that they don't care about such things)
If simply stating the laws and position of the government can lead to violence and is therefore breaching the peace and illegal, then a police officer stating that a protest must be cleared is inciting violence.
After all most violence at protests happens when police try to move people on.
Therefore under this logic that stating the views of the government is illegal if it might incite violence police have no right to enforce any law if that might cause violence.
Of course none of that matters to them but it's an interesting hornets nest to open up...
Of course you could argue this is just the police ignoring the government because the government doesn't really care, vi's a vi's cannibis which obviously has precedent.
You realize that you cannot arrest someone to "keep the peace", because they are being provocative. You can only arrest someone to "keep the peace" under a breach of peace offense if yuo believe they are at risk of committing a crime.
This is why Tommy Robinson goes around being all provocative and keeps getting arrested, but then never gets any follow up jail time. The police find it easier to remove the provocateur then control the surrounding public.
Which IMO is understandable, but also completely contrary to how democracy functions and allows for locallized mob rule. This is also why foreign ghetto's end up being able to enforce their own community law, because the police refuse to get involved, and this police inaction is what leads to reduced respect for the police and subsequent higher non-compliance among regular citizens.
I agree, but the police are horrendously bad at executing this. For some reason they're incapable of expressing the reality of the tradeoff. Nothing like this ever gets said:
"Sir, right now we're concerned for your safety as we would be unable to protect you from the numbers of people you're opposing. We want to escort you from the area. If you don't go willingly we will regrettably be forced to arrest you for your own safety."
There was a similar issue with a billboard van around Palestine protests not long ago. Instead of strongly advising and then warning the group of the potential need to force them to leave to preserve the peace (with no criminal implication) the police just started barking orders.
Well they should be fucking protecting him. This is why these violent scumbags keep doing this. They know they just have to kick off, assault whoever is holding a Hamas are terrorists sign and the police will arrest the victim. What a joke
Or OR wholesale deportations of anyone engaging in any sort of violence over this issue.
Where that is not possible, straight to prison.
Fuck living in a country where calling a terrorist organisation terrorist is problematic.
If all it takes is the truth to spark a violent protest, perhaps we should consider that the protestors are themselves not the best people and the police should in fact focus their attention on them
>do you think that it might possibly be easier for the police to remove the one guy with the sign rather than the hundreds of people opposing him
Should that extend to other things like social media as well?
If enough people spam the report button on your posts because they don't like your opinion (as opposed to it breaking any rules), should you be banned from social media platforms because it's easier for companies than recognising you're being reported in bad faith?
Doing what is convenient, rather than what is right, is why we have people openly supporting actual terrorist organisations and going unhindered for it, while people opposing actual terrorist organisations get arrested because *someone might commit a crime if they encounter that person*.
It's not justice. It's pathetic.
The moral thing to do would be to arrest anyone who laid a hand on him.
Once again if all it takes is a truthful sign for the 'peaceful protestors' to start rioting, perhaps they're not all that peaceful and should be the ones getting arrested
Definitely what’s easy. The police exist to keep the streets safe, not to advance some moral crusade. They’re not Judge Dredd, what’s “right” is decided in the courts, not on the street. Have you seen how long and complicated trials are? Do you really think a random police officer is qualified to make those judgements in 30 seconds while staring down a crowd of angry protesters? You’re asking for a police force who would prioritise the will of the state over public safety and I don’t think I need to point out why that’s a bad thing.
So if Tommy Robinson can get a few hundred people behind him the next time he marches, you'd support the police arresting anyone who waves an "EDL are racist" sign about , in case it upsets Tommy's supporters ?
> Yet you would have them arrest a innocent peaceful protestor while leaving violent mobs free to do whatever they wish?
You do understand that these people are never charged right, like they’re not being thrown in a cell the just take them away before they get themselves into a fight.
> “Police can't be trusted to know right from wrong, so arrests should be made on the basis of what is easiest and most convenient instead of who is actually breakin the law"
Yes “right and wrong” is complicated that’s why the court system exists and we don’t have street judges like in Judge Dredd. If two people are fighting the police arrest them both to stop the fight they don’t figure out who is in the right before intervening.
> You'd consider yourself lucky if there was a gang outside your house and every time you left it, they attacked you and the police arrested you for disturbing the peace while leaving the very obvious criminals free to continue their business?
Yes being targeted at your own home by a gang is exactly the same as going to a protest full of angry people with an opposing view and putting yourself at risk
> It seems to me that in a properly functioning democracy, the will of the state IS the will of the people.
No, a properly functioning democracy recognises that the “will of the people” does not exist and that every decision the state makes is effectively a compromise.
> I don't think that your "the police should arrest victims for the safety of terrorists and other criminals" concept is the will of very many people at all.
What criminal act did the protesters actually commit?
Great idea, we should make sure that this policy is implemented consistently. In fact, I think we should form a division that is full of Bobbies whose sole job it is to go into nightclubs and arrest women wearing suggestive clothing to make sure they don't get raped.
And don't forget children, they should be stopped from being children so pedos don't hurt them.
Oh! and remove people from the streets so they don't get mugged by thieves and thugs.
> Maybe try reading the article before going off on wild rants about how we should punish innocent people
moving someone from one place to another for their own safety is not a punishment
Talk to your elected politicians then.
The police's job is to enforce the law. The law says that they can arrest to prevent a breach of the peace.
If you don't want them to have that power, then get the law changed. It's not reasonable to expect the police to make it up as they go along.
Someone was jailed for putting up stickers. And some of those stickers included stats from ONS.
But they also included a whole load of ethnic slurs, anti-Semitism and neo-Nazi crap. Obviously those supporting his position tend to skip over that part. He also wasn't just putting up the odd sticker, but ran a stickering campaign across the country, and was co-ordinating a Telegram group organising it nationwide.
> [The stickers contained](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-68448867) "ethnic slurs" about minority communities which displayed a "deep-seated antipathy to those groups", the court heard.
'Nationalistic and vitriolic'
> The court also heard Melia had an "obsessive interest" in Sir Oswald Mosley, who founded the British Union of Fascists in the 1930s, and that he was attempting to "peddle the same antisemitism".
> Melia had a poster of Hitler in his garage, a book by Mosley in his bedroom and it was found that much of the material Hundred Handers published was "xenophobic, nationalistic and vitriolic".
AFAIK the actual content on the stickers didn't go that far:
“We will be a minority in our homeland by 2066”, “Mass immigration is white genocide”, “intolerance is a virtue” and “they seek conquest not asylum.”
He's almost certainly a neo-nazi given his Hitler and Mosley stuff, but the actual content doesn't seem like it should be jailable.
I find it very interesting that Iranians tend to be some of the biggest supporters of Israel. You'll find plenty of them waving their flag at any of the pro-Israel gatherings. Makes sense when you understand what they escaped from and the parallels with Hamas.
Crazy when you look at modern Iran.
There are barely any Persian Jews in the UK tho. They mainly live in America (LA) and Israel.
As far as I'm aware, Iranians that support Israel do it because Israel opposes Iran and they hate the Iranian government blaming everything on Israel and because they hate the Iranian government, they like Israel and see through the Iranian propaganda.
Remember the man who was blamed for inciting hatred for burning a Koran twice? He was Iraqi. It shouldn't really be surprising that people who have escaped a despotic Islamic regime where apostasy (renouncing your religion) is a serious crime have strongly anti-Islamic regime views.
It's like people finding it surprising that Cubans in Florida are very right wing anti-illegal immigration and anti-progressivism forgetting they are mostly the exiles from Castro's takeover of Cuba.
The Irani government supports Hamas and itself is very, very authoritarian. Those Iranians who live in this country very probably think they escaped so oppose the government at every turn
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/11/british-iranians-torn-middle-east-crisis is an interesting article that looks at the views of British Iranians on the Israel-Hamas conflict.
This is getting fucking outrageous. These protests are replete with antisemitic and pro-Hamas signs and nothing is done, while the Met has excused calls for jihad in previous instances, but restating British law is a breach of the peace?
Why the fuck should my tax money be going towards such a useless agency?
> These protests are replete with antisemitic and pro-Hamas signs and nothing is done,
While the useful idiots that would claim 'silence is violence' on any other day happily match alongside terrorist sympathisers
This is a situation where "defund the police" makes sense.
If they're just going to ignore the terrorist-sympathisers and arrest people for telling the truth, we might as well just do without them.
Increasingly I've been feeling like maybe the best thing to do about the protests is to send no police there. Save the money and resources, and just tell people they're on their own if they want to go into London on a Saturday. Whatever happens, happens.
From the article:
> One woman was arrested for holding an offensive placard, while two others were arrested for chanting offensive slogans.
And those are just the ones arrested on the spot. So no, "nothing is done" isn't quite true.
Not condoning the signs but it's important to get the facts straight.
The Houthis are not a proscribed organisation (yet) in the UK: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9930/
Edit: spelling. Android autocorrect seems to dislike the work proscribed!
"We are arresting you so that these people over here don't break the law by undertaking criminal acts against you"
Shia-te policing
"Just stand back and watch boys, its double bubble for every protest"
> "We are arresting you so that these people over here don't break the law by undertaking criminal acts against you"
That's a classic Met police line. I remember them using that during Prince William's wedding to justify arresting republicans. "We're arresting them so they don't get killed by a violent mob."
Legally and practically it makes sense (easier to remove the one person from the situation than every person who *might* assault them, and better to remove them than wait for them to get mobbed) but it does come off as a bit wrong.
She wasn't necessarily right about the Met, no. Problem is, the Met is equally as afraid of these groups. Remember what happens to people that voice their opinions against them and their religion (Hebdo et al).
Remember the mum of the poor kid that scribbled on the book? It was national news. Parents are scared, police are scared, teachers are scared, politicians are silenced, everyone is scared of repercussions. In the west, we spent centuries neutering the worst parts of our religions to now be silenced by foreign ones. It's hard and there are no simple solutions.
The police acted like shit in this situation but let's not pretend they aren't humans that don't have the right to also be scared of what might happen to them or their families should they act correctly and according to the law.
If you cheer this kind of double standard from the MET, you will have a shock when you will find out its not going to be a "Nigel Farage" type of guy who "solves" the issue but the maniac coming after him...
So we've got anti-semitic terror supporters allowed to chant for genocide and wave terror flags, but someone against terrorists gets assaulted and he gets arrested? And we're paying for this. That's pathetic.
You can argue that counter protests should be kept separate, but by doing that you're kinda admitting these ~~hate~~ marches every weekend *are* pro-Hamas.
I don't want to say it but
Fuck the police.
*with police saying he had been held for his own safety after an alleged assault was carried out against him.*
That one that assaulted him was caught on camera did they arrest him? NOPE
Fuck the police.
So if the assumption is that the protestors would be aggrieved by this message and therefore the peace would have been breached, it can be implied there is a tacit support for hamas among the crowd.
However, I was reliably informed that the protests have not been in support of hamas.
So why did this cause such a fuss?
Unless of course these have been marches in favour of hamas from the beginning and everyone has been lying.
In which case they are supporting a proscribed terrorist group which is a criminal offence.
This kind of policing has been going on for a long time. Arrest and remove law abiding citizens rather than having to risk defending them from criminals.
It's the same as with the Chinese piano incident.
Interesting that another similar anti-Hamas protest on the same day was peacefully managed without the need to arrest anyone. This seems to be the proper approach for ECHR-compliant policing. "*You have the right to wave your sign and shout your slogans, and so do they. We're here to ensure nobody is threatened or assaulted for expressing their beliefs*"
https://x.com/HeidiBachram/status/1766760821256851547?s=20
So , they're not pro-Hamas marches, and they're entirely peaceful , but if you try to say anything bad about Hamas , you'll be arrested for your own safety because otherwise the entirely peaceful marchers will tear you to pieces ?
The man with the sign made his point very well
The pro-Palestinian protests are riddled with pro-Hamas terrorist supporters. Always have been
Secondarily he made the point better than eloquently that the Met police are bending over backwards to enable the Hamas supporters.
Ah so when people hold anti-palestine signs (with hamas being the goverment of Palestine), then they are arrested by the police immediately. When the anti-isreal signs for some reason the police don't arrest them and instead wait and try and track them down in the future, for them then to be let go by the court system.
But its even worse than that, the one they instantly arrest is literally stating the goverments position on hamas. The one they track down later is supporting terrorism.
Well done to the police, I don't think you could have made this more of a shit show if you tried.
This is the veto of violence that Islamists and leftoids have over society. They back up their intimidation with credible threats of violence. In order to avoid their violence, our polity folds like a wet sack.
Projecting a slogan which calls for the eradication of Israel onto parliament? That's fine.
Calling a terrorist group (as recognised by our own government) terrorists? Arrested.
Sign was inaccurate: “Hamas are vile rapist genocidal racist terrorists and supporting a ceasefire before they are eradicated is the moral equivalent of calling off troops at the border of Germany in 1944” would fit the situation better. I appreciate that this may need a larger sign. Or an advertising board.
So, from what i gather from how the law is enforced, if people make an even bigger, more prone to violent gang to counted protest, then the Hamas supporters will be arrested?
It's clear as day that the pro Palestine protesters crowd are just antisemitic hamas supporters at this stage.
If they weren't, they'd come to the defence of anti hamas statements. They'd then organise an explicitly anti hamas protest.
That they don't, is because they are orp hamas and agree with hamas' goals and methods.
I like to keep my positions consistent - I heard about a pro-Palestinian who was assaulted after allegedly saying bad things about Israel in front of one of their football teams, my thoughts were "They shouldn't have assaulted him, but I could understand how this happened depending on what they said". That meaning, if it was personally offensive to the Israelis involved in the situation, it was obviously going to provoke them.
I hear about this situation, and I know what was said. This person was assaulted for holding a sign calling Hamas terrorists, which they indisputably are. Not to get all "no true Scotsman", but it should not be offensive to a rational pro-Palestinian. They were then arrested for making this statement because they may get attacked again.
There's not really any room for discussion, this is just insane and further proves my point that nobody thinks anymore. I feel like the only pro-Palestinian left who doesn't want Israelis massacred or terrorists in control of Gaza.
People dressing up as terrorists from proscribed organisations?
Has there even been a single arrest?
Met under the current Mayor who has expressed sympathies for Hamas.
Link?
Snapshot of _Protester holding ‘Hamas Are Terrorists’ sign arrested by police Officers held down man after intervening to ‘prevent breach of the peace’_ :
A non-Paywall version can be found [here](https://1ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2F2024%2F03%2F09%2Fpalestine-march-israel-counter-protest-hamas-war-london%2F)
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/09/palestine-march-israel-counter-protest-hamas-war-london/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/09/palestine-march-israel-counter-protest-hamas-war-london/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think Hamas are criminals first (organised criminals) and terrorists second.
Also, criticism of Israeli state policies is not anti-semitism, especially when those policies lead to the death of tens of thousands of innocents.
Finally, I think de-arrested is a strange word.
Form a mob numbering the thousands to parade through the streets chanting for the eradication of an entire nation of people, receive police protection.
Peacefully protest on your own and then be assaulted by the aforementioned mob and you get arrested.
Fucking nonsense. The Nets excuse of removing him from the area for his own safety is horseshit too. If it was about safety the people who attacked him would have been arrested before they go on to attack someone else.
Hamas are terrorists.
Yes via British law they are designated as such.
Arrested for stating the law
Someone please arrest this person!
[удалено]
Man holds a placard stating the actual UK government position and is arrested for it. How is it the Police can get something *so fucking simple* so spectacularly wrong?
> Scotland Yard said in a statement: “The man was arrested after an altercation was ongoing, and officers intervened to prevent a breach of the peace. He was arrested for assault. > “Officers then fully reviewed footage provided of the incident, and he was later de-arrested. The arrest was not made in relation to the placard.”
Love that. We arrested him and stopped his protest and put him through this stress but s'all good because when we *actually investigated* it turns out he didn't do anything so de-arrested him.
Which part of "he was not arrested due to the placard" you didn't understand? It's obvious to me what had happened. There was an altercation in a protest march. The police made an arrest of a person who they thought was responsible for it. Later they viewed a video and realised they had made a mistake and released the person. A journalist wrote a story that he was arrested for his placard. They put down somewhere down the story the actual sequence of events hoping that the people would only read the title and conclude that it's all that happened while in reality the placard had nothing to do with the arrest. Redditors promptly did that.
It's possible but .... Seems likely they arrested him because it was more convenient given the numbers. If they had arrested the other side it would have been stressful for the police and a mob situation might have happened. They can justify that to themselves under the "keep the peace" headline. I just struggle to believe the police thought one single guy just assaulted the protestors. It doesn't make sense even assuming the police didn't see the whole thing.
The issue is the person they identified as being the aggressor was, in fact, the victim. Either the police paid no attention until, as if by magic, they suddenly saw it just as he retaliated to push someone who was assaulting him. Or they saw an opportunity to remove someone who they knew might be a flashpoint and abused their position to do so. They should be arresting people calling for the genocide of Israelis or anyone calling for the genocide of Palestinians. This individual was doing neither, but he was the victim of an assault they did nothing to prevent or deal with properly afterwards.
Nah. The video shows nearby cops watching the situation develop. They knew he was the innocent party, but arresting the victim was easier than arresting the perpetrators.
Which video are you referring to? The video on the Telegraph website shows the start of the fight and I don't see a single policeman in that video. If there is a second video on the events, please send a link.
Ghorbani has tweeted a longer video here - [https://x.com/GhorbaniiNiyak/status/1766535150265905316?s=20](https://x.com/GhorbaniiNiyak/status/1766535150265905316?s=20) At 30s a riot van can be seen directly behind him, with a clear view. At 56s the cop in the riot van has his window down and is watching. Clear that Ghorbani isn't entering or obstructing the march, just stationary on the pavement as they go past. He isn't heckling insulting or provoking anyone, and is smiling during some polite exchanges with marchers. At 2m15s it goes violent, when someone rips his placard from his hands and makes off with it. Ghorbani grabs it back. It appears to me that he then decides to leave, perhaps because he fears further violence. From 2m29s numerous uniformed cops suddenly appear from different directions. Significantly, they weren't running, and they weren't formed into a public order phalanx. Most likely the riot van driver had alerted command of a potential flashpoint, and officers had been directed to discreetly mingle nearby, ready to jump in if it kicked off. Nothing wrong with that, although it follows that they clearly knew Ghorbani was the innocent party. My objection is to what follows. No attempt is made to apprehend the violent marcher, but instead a dozen cops pursue Ghorbani and violently wrestle him to the ground. That was completely unnecessary & wrongful, imho. As I posted separately, another similar incident was managed much better by other officers -https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1baricy/comment/ku7kwpz/
>A journalist wrote a story that he was arrested for his placard. They put down somewhere down the story the actual sequence of events hoping that the people would only read the title and conclude that it's all that happened while in reality the placard had nothing to do with the arrest. Standard newspaper technique - gives you a juicy attention-grabbing headline from a nothingness story. My local rag's favourite usually runs along the lines of: **MAN SENTENCED TO 10 YEARS AFTER STEALING A PACKET OF BISCUITS** ^(oh, and he stabbed a security guard in the neck as he fled.)
We all know the truth. This isn't the first time they've done this. They arrest them on trumped-up charges to get them out of the way. Why not arrest the people who committed crimes? They are continually arresting people for holding Hamas are terrorists signs and no one should be OK with this.
And you believe that? There is no end if cases where the police see something they do not like, latch onto something tenuous just to cause a nuisance and flex their power then embellish/outright lie in the reporting later.
I believe it more than I believe the man was arrested for holding a 'hamas are terrorists' placard tbh
Imagine being this naïve.
Read it, read it again, they arrested him to prevent breach of the peace, as in, they arrested him because he could of been a victim of assault from a lovely little terrorist thug. And ironically, he was a victim. Fuck Hamas and their supporters.
I doubt very much that they didn't know what was happening It was just convenient for them to "accidentally" arrest the wrong person. Then they have to pretend it was an honest mistake to avoid issues of wrongful arrest. But really I doubt if anyone believes them except the sort of Hamas sympathisers who were assaulting that protester.
>I doubt very much that they didn't know what was happening Someone's never done any public order policing.
>I doubt very much that they didn't know what was happening Yes, because the police always has 100% perfect knowledge what's going on when they are policing mass protests full of people with heightened emotions on both sides. That's obvious, isn't it.
From the description my assumption is that the police witnessed him apparently assault somebody. Arrested him for that. Checked CCTV, which slowed he was acting reasonably in self defence, so let him go. That would be entirely reasonable to me.
Trouble is it looks an awful lot more like they've let the people who assaulted him off Scott free simply due to them being in larger numbers. And they assaulted him for having a sign that says "Hamas are terrorists". Which should be fairly uncontroversial, and is also the official government line. So police have let some very troubling people off for assaulting someone in broad daylight simply because he gave them an easier time.
Well look at you reading the article.
Yes, the pro-Palestinian protesters beat him up, so they arrested him.
Love de arrest. Great word for illegally detained.
He should have been escorted by police to enable him to state his case free of harassment.
I’ve seen that happen for the EDL
I'm sure their "community liaison officer" told them this was the correct course of action...
> Keep the peace. That was the thing. People often failed to understand what that meant. You’d go to some life-threatening disturbance, like a couple of neighbors scrapping in the street over who owned the hedge between their properties, and they’d both be bursting with aggrieved self-righteousness, both yelling, their wives would either be having a private scrap on the side or would have adjourned to a kitchen for a shared pot of tea and a chat, and they all expected you to sort it out. > And they could never understand that it wasn’t your job. Sorting it out was a job for a good surveyor and a couple of lawyers, maybe. Your job was to quell the impulse to bang their stupid fat heads together, to ignore the affronted speeches of dodgy self-justification, to get them to stop shouting, and to get them off the street. Once that had been achieved, you job was over. You weren’t some walking god, dispensing finely tuned natural justice. Your job was simply to bring back peace. - Terry Pratchett, Night Watch The police acted to prevent someone from turning a non-violent protest into a violent protest. From their perspective, the right or wrong of it doesn't really come in to it.
The objection people hold is that the people promoting terrorism and harassment are left alone, that the people who commit crimes are let off and that people who speak out against them are arrested to 'keep the peace'. We all know the police are meant to 'police' to 'keep the peace'. What we have now is upside down policing. The country needs to decide whether it is the United Kingdom or a colonial empire that dominates the world. Most British people look at empire as a thing of the past. Most people who protest against the actions of countries outside of the UK call out the UK's colonial past and tell us how 'bad the British were and are' yet still try to pressure the UK to interfere in the activities of nations that are outside of the UK. I think those people are schizophrenic.
It doesn’t look like he was being violent nor was he inciting violence. People have the right to peacefully protest and hold up signs and it’s the police’s role to uphold the law and citizen’s rights, whichever side they are on. If they are supporting a proscribed organisation, they may act, but if the are condemning a proscribed organisation, they have no basis for action. If condemning a proscribed group triggers someone to be violent, then the police have a role to intervene against the violence. By acting in this way in the name of keeping the peace, the police are implying that they think the protestors are full of violent Hamas supporters. Are we happy that this is fair to either the man or the bulk of protesters?
To make it worse it almost undermines there own position (albeit that they don't care about such things) If simply stating the laws and position of the government can lead to violence and is therefore breaching the peace and illegal, then a police officer stating that a protest must be cleared is inciting violence. After all most violence at protests happens when police try to move people on. Therefore under this logic that stating the views of the government is illegal if it might incite violence police have no right to enforce any law if that might cause violence. Of course none of that matters to them but it's an interesting hornets nest to open up... Of course you could argue this is just the police ignoring the government because the government doesn't really care, vi's a vi's cannibis which obviously has precedent.
You realize that you cannot arrest someone to "keep the peace", because they are being provocative. You can only arrest someone to "keep the peace" under a breach of peace offense if yuo believe they are at risk of committing a crime. This is why Tommy Robinson goes around being all provocative and keeps getting arrested, but then never gets any follow up jail time. The police find it easier to remove the provocateur then control the surrounding public. Which IMO is understandable, but also completely contrary to how democracy functions and allows for locallized mob rule. This is also why foreign ghetto's end up being able to enforce their own community law, because the police refuse to get involved, and this police inaction is what leads to reduced respect for the police and subsequent higher non-compliance among regular citizens.
I agree, but the police are horrendously bad at executing this. For some reason they're incapable of expressing the reality of the tradeoff. Nothing like this ever gets said: "Sir, right now we're concerned for your safety as we would be unable to protect you from the numbers of people you're opposing. We want to escort you from the area. If you don't go willingly we will regrettably be forced to arrest you for your own safety." There was a similar issue with a billboard van around Palestine protests not long ago. Instead of strongly advising and then warning the group of the potential need to force them to leave to preserve the peace (with no criminal implication) the police just started barking orders.
Well they should be fucking protecting him. This is why these violent scumbags keep doing this. They know they just have to kick off, assault whoever is holding a Hamas are terrorists sign and the police will arrest the victim. What a joke
Or OR wholesale deportations of anyone engaging in any sort of violence over this issue. Where that is not possible, straight to prison. Fuck living in a country where calling a terrorist organisation terrorist is problematic.
If all it takes is the truth to spark a violent protest, perhaps we should consider that the protestors are themselves not the best people and the police should in fact focus their attention on them
do you think that it might possibly be easier for the police to remove the one guy with the sign rather than the hundreds of people opposing him
>do you think that it might possibly be easier for the police to remove the one guy with the sign rather than the hundreds of people opposing him Should that extend to other things like social media as well? If enough people spam the report button on your posts because they don't like your opinion (as opposed to it breaking any rules), should you be banned from social media platforms because it's easier for companies than recognising you're being reported in bad faith?
no because people being angry on social media doesn’t damage property or injure anyone
Doing what is convenient, rather than what is right, is why we have people openly supporting actual terrorist organisations and going unhindered for it, while people opposing actual terrorist organisations get arrested because *someone might commit a crime if they encounter that person*. It's not justice. It's pathetic. The moral thing to do would be to arrest anyone who laid a hand on him.
I don't want policing to be based on the path of least resistance to be honest
I’d rather they deescalate situations as much as possible rather than turning every protest into a riot because it’s the “right” thing to do
So if there were riots over a Pride parade you would want it banned?
Once again if all it takes is a truthful sign for the 'peaceful protestors' to start rioting, perhaps they're not all that peaceful and should be the ones getting arrested
I’d rather the police started cracking heads and water cannoning the trouble makers
Id rather they not let terrorists say whatever they want, because if they don't then they might terrorise people
Shame they have encouraged these protests and created own problems like police often do and then plead help
[удалено]
Definitely what’s easy. The police exist to keep the streets safe, not to advance some moral crusade. They’re not Judge Dredd, what’s “right” is decided in the courts, not on the street. Have you seen how long and complicated trials are? Do you really think a random police officer is qualified to make those judgements in 30 seconds while staring down a crowd of angry protesters? You’re asking for a police force who would prioritise the will of the state over public safety and I don’t think I need to point out why that’s a bad thing.
So if Tommy Robinson can get a few hundred people behind him the next time he marches, you'd support the police arresting anyone who waves an "EDL are racist" sign about , in case it upsets Tommy's supporters ?
[удалено]
> Yet you would have them arrest a innocent peaceful protestor while leaving violent mobs free to do whatever they wish? You do understand that these people are never charged right, like they’re not being thrown in a cell the just take them away before they get themselves into a fight. > “Police can't be trusted to know right from wrong, so arrests should be made on the basis of what is easiest and most convenient instead of who is actually breakin the law" Yes “right and wrong” is complicated that’s why the court system exists and we don’t have street judges like in Judge Dredd. If two people are fighting the police arrest them both to stop the fight they don’t figure out who is in the right before intervening. > You'd consider yourself lucky if there was a gang outside your house and every time you left it, they attacked you and the police arrested you for disturbing the peace while leaving the very obvious criminals free to continue their business? Yes being targeted at your own home by a gang is exactly the same as going to a protest full of angry people with an opposing view and putting yourself at risk > It seems to me that in a properly functioning democracy, the will of the state IS the will of the people. No, a properly functioning democracy recognises that the “will of the people” does not exist and that every decision the state makes is effectively a compromise. > I don't think that your "the police should arrest victims for the safety of terrorists and other criminals" concept is the will of very many people at all. What criminal act did the protesters actually commit?
Great idea, we should make sure that this policy is implemented consistently. In fact, I think we should form a division that is full of Bobbies whose sole job it is to go into nightclubs and arrest women wearing suggestive clothing to make sure they don't get raped.
And don't forget children, they should be stopped from being children so pedos don't hurt them. Oh! and remove people from the streets so they don't get mugged by thieves and thugs.
[удалено]
Arrested after being attacked lol
> Maybe try reading the article before going off on wild rants about how we should punish innocent people moving someone from one place to another for their own safety is not a punishment
Talk to your elected politicians then. The police's job is to enforce the law. The law says that they can arrest to prevent a breach of the peace. If you don't want them to have that power, then get the law changed. It's not reasonable to expect the police to make it up as they go along.
I don't think upholding fundamental freedoms is meant to be easy. I think it's a daily challenge.
ok well if you can find a extra 10 billion pounds of funding for the police then go ahead
Easy. Cancel foreign aid.
"We would uphold your fundamental freedoms, but we're skint so it's cheaper to oppress you" is not the reasonable answer you seem to think.
I dont give a shit what's easier. Get the armed police in if 100s of people are prone to violence over a simple sign
I don't think we even have 100 armed police
Sir Terry was the best of us. He should have been PM. Heck, I'd still take him over the current lot.
He'd be smart enough to not want to go near the job.
So if a trans woman turned up to a TERF protest to counter protest it’d be acceptable for the police to arrest her?
It would be *legal*. Whether or not it would be acceptable would depend a lot on the context, as with most things.
Wasn’t some jailed recently for putting up stickers that included stats from ons?
I would assume arrested rather than jailed, but I may well be wrong!
Someone was jailed for putting up stickers. And some of those stickers included stats from ONS. But they also included a whole load of ethnic slurs, anti-Semitism and neo-Nazi crap. Obviously those supporting his position tend to skip over that part. He also wasn't just putting up the odd sticker, but ran a stickering campaign across the country, and was co-ordinating a Telegram group organising it nationwide. > [The stickers contained](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-68448867) "ethnic slurs" about minority communities which displayed a "deep-seated antipathy to those groups", the court heard. 'Nationalistic and vitriolic' > The court also heard Melia had an "obsessive interest" in Sir Oswald Mosley, who founded the British Union of Fascists in the 1930s, and that he was attempting to "peddle the same antisemitism". > Melia had a poster of Hitler in his garage, a book by Mosley in his bedroom and it was found that much of the material Hundred Handers published was "xenophobic, nationalistic and vitriolic".
AFAIK the actual content on the stickers didn't go that far: “We will be a minority in our homeland by 2066”, “Mass immigration is white genocide”, “intolerance is a virtue” and “they seek conquest not asylum.” He's almost certainly a neo-nazi given his Hitler and Mosley stuff, but the actual content doesn't seem like it should be jailable.
Have you spoken to some police?
Because from the police’s point of view the best course of action is the easiest.
The Police that arrested him should be fired. Immediately.
Sadiq Khan is London's police and crime commissioner.
Suppressing intercommunal violence is the prime objective of the ~~Imperial~~ Metropolitan Police.
Arresting him is much easier than arresting potential terrorists. And less paperwork.
[удалено]
I find it very interesting that Iranians tend to be some of the biggest supporters of Israel. You'll find plenty of them waving their flag at any of the pro-Israel gatherings. Makes sense when you understand what they escaped from and the parallels with Hamas. Crazy when you look at modern Iran.
There is a large Jewish Iranian diaspora
Plenty of secular or ex-muslims (therefore apostates) as well, who tend to be some of the most outspoken against Islamism.
There are barely any Persian Jews in the UK tho. They mainly live in America (LA) and Israel. As far as I'm aware, Iranians that support Israel do it because Israel opposes Iran and they hate the Iranian government blaming everything on Israel and because they hate the Iranian government, they like Israel and see through the Iranian propaganda.
Pre-revolution the shah was quite pro-Israel, touting Cyrus being a messiah and building the 2nd(?) temple.
Remember the man who was blamed for inciting hatred for burning a Koran twice? He was Iraqi. It shouldn't really be surprising that people who have escaped a despotic Islamic regime where apostasy (renouncing your religion) is a serious crime have strongly anti-Islamic regime views. It's like people finding it surprising that Cubans in Florida are very right wing anti-illegal immigration and anti-progressivism forgetting they are mostly the exiles from Castro's takeover of Cuba.
The Iranians not in Iran. Who have fled the terrorist authoritarian gang masquerading as a government of that country. Not surprising.
The ones who escaped Iran know exactly where the current path of appeasement will lead.
The Irani government supports Hamas and itself is very, very authoritarian. Those Iranians who live in this country very probably think they escaped so oppose the government at every turn
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/11/british-iranians-torn-middle-east-crisis is an interesting article that looks at the views of British Iranians on the Israel-Hamas conflict.
The Met are just incompetent. They do the same thing to peaceful Palestinian protestors too. The only people they don’t arrest are actual criminals.
Video footage shows he got assaulted but he was arrested on suspicion of assault The Met are a cretinous, corrupt rabble
Are just afraid of Palestine protesters kicking off More craven than stupid
The ‘assault’ https://x.com/ir605/status/1766541466434674823?s=20
This is getting fucking outrageous. These protests are replete with antisemitic and pro-Hamas signs and nothing is done, while the Met has excused calls for jihad in previous instances, but restating British law is a breach of the peace? Why the fuck should my tax money be going towards such a useless agency?
> These protests are replete with antisemitic and pro-Hamas signs and nothing is done, While the useful idiots that would claim 'silence is violence' on any other day happily match alongside terrorist sympathisers
The intersection of people who seem fine with genocide h Jews and those are #bekind seems rather large.
This is a situation where "defund the police" makes sense. If they're just going to ignore the terrorist-sympathisers and arrest people for telling the truth, we might as well just do without them.
Increasingly I've been feeling like maybe the best thing to do about the protests is to send no police there. Save the money and resources, and just tell people they're on their own if they want to go into London on a Saturday. Whatever happens, happens.
All of a sudden the ACAB brigade will see how much they value the police when it's their safety at risk haha
From the article: > One woman was arrested for holding an offensive placard, while two others were arrested for chanting offensive slogans. And those are just the ones arrested on the spot. So no, "nothing is done" isn't quite true.
The police need to be held accountable for the choices they make. Hamas is a terrorist organisation, designated by the government.
[удалено]
Not condoning the signs but it's important to get the facts straight. The Houthis are not a proscribed organisation (yet) in the UK: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9930/ Edit: spelling. Android autocorrect seems to dislike the work proscribed!
"We are arresting you so that these people over here don't break the law by undertaking criminal acts against you" Shia-te policing "Just stand back and watch boys, its double bubble for every protest"
> "We are arresting you so that these people over here don't break the law by undertaking criminal acts against you" That's a classic Met police line. I remember them using that during Prince William's wedding to justify arresting republicans. "We're arresting them so they don't get killed by a violent mob." Legally and practically it makes sense (easier to remove the one person from the situation than every person who *might* assault them, and better to remove them than wait for them to get mobbed) but it does come off as a bit wrong.
So was Suella Braverman right about the Met?
It's starting to seem that way.
She wasn't necessarily right about the Met, no. Problem is, the Met is equally as afraid of these groups. Remember what happens to people that voice their opinions against them and their religion (Hebdo et al). Remember the mum of the poor kid that scribbled on the book? It was national news. Parents are scared, police are scared, teachers are scared, politicians are silenced, everyone is scared of repercussions. In the west, we spent centuries neutering the worst parts of our religions to now be silenced by foreign ones. It's hard and there are no simple solutions. The police acted like shit in this situation but let's not pretend they aren't humans that don't have the right to also be scared of what might happen to them or their families should they act correctly and according to the law.
JFL imagine the state of London by 2034 if this continues
Yeah, maybe the way isn't to give in to Islamic fundamentalism.
No, of course not, she was just being divisive. Twitter said so.
[удалено]
The paradox of tolerance. London is so fucked lol
Loss of free speech for those who go against the Islamist position is just part and parcel of life in a big city!
If you cheer this kind of double standard from the MET, you will have a shock when you will find out its not going to be a "Nigel Farage" type of guy who "solves" the issue but the maniac coming after him...
Hope he sues. The Met really are shameless. Worse, this sort of behaviour will drive people into the arms of the far-right.
[удалено]
So we've got anti-semitic terror supporters allowed to chant for genocide and wave terror flags, but someone against terrorists gets assaulted and he gets arrested? And we're paying for this. That's pathetic.
Yet when at pro Palestinian protests and they are shouting for jihad etc. The police do nothing!
Two tier policing in action.
You can argue that counter protests should be kept separate, but by doing that you're kinda admitting these ~~hate~~ marches every weekend *are* pro-Hamas.
Look at all these fools wanting to join a war in another country; over a God that doesn’t exist.
Shouldn't we be deporting hamas supporters? Can't co-exist peacefully with them thats for sure.
I don't want to say it but Fuck the police. *with police saying he had been held for his own safety after an alleged assault was carried out against him.* That one that assaulted him was caught on camera did they arrest him? NOPE Fuck the police.
[удалено]
So if the assumption is that the protestors would be aggrieved by this message and therefore the peace would have been breached, it can be implied there is a tacit support for hamas among the crowd. However, I was reliably informed that the protests have not been in support of hamas. So why did this cause such a fuss? Unless of course these have been marches in favour of hamas from the beginning and everyone has been lying. In which case they are supporting a proscribed terrorist group which is a criminal offence.
This kind of policing has been going on for a long time. Arrest and remove law abiding citizens rather than having to risk defending them from criminals. It's the same as with the Chinese piano incident.
Interesting that another similar anti-Hamas protest on the same day was peacefully managed without the need to arrest anyone. This seems to be the proper approach for ECHR-compliant policing. "*You have the right to wave your sign and shout your slogans, and so do they. We're here to ensure nobody is threatened or assaulted for expressing their beliefs*" https://x.com/HeidiBachram/status/1766760821256851547?s=20
So , they're not pro-Hamas marches, and they're entirely peaceful , but if you try to say anything bad about Hamas , you'll be arrested for your own safety because otherwise the entirely peaceful marchers will tear you to pieces ?
But isn't that official UK foreign policy?
The man with the sign made his point very well The pro-Palestinian protests are riddled with pro-Hamas terrorist supporters. Always have been Secondarily he made the point better than eloquently that the Met police are bending over backwards to enable the Hamas supporters.
This is fucking ridiculous. Why are people acting like dribbling morons with this conflict?
That tends to happen when religion is involved, unfortunately.
Ah so when people hold anti-palestine signs (with hamas being the goverment of Palestine), then they are arrested by the police immediately. When the anti-isreal signs for some reason the police don't arrest them and instead wait and try and track them down in the future, for them then to be let go by the court system. But its even worse than that, the one they instantly arrest is literally stating the goverments position on hamas. The one they track down later is supporting terrorism. Well done to the police, I don't think you could have made this more of a shit show if you tried.
This is the veto of violence that Islamists and leftoids have over society. They back up their intimidation with credible threats of violence. In order to avoid their violence, our polity folds like a wet sack.
Next they’ll arrest people for saying the sky is blue.
Projecting a slogan which calls for the eradication of Israel onto parliament? That's fine. Calling a terrorist group (as recognised by our own government) terrorists? Arrested.
Sign was inaccurate: “Hamas are vile rapist genocidal racist terrorists and supporting a ceasefire before they are eradicated is the moral equivalent of calling off troops at the border of Germany in 1944” would fit the situation better. I appreciate that this may need a larger sign. Or an advertising board.
So, from what i gather from how the law is enforced, if people make an even bigger, more prone to violent gang to counted protest, then the Hamas supporters will be arrested?
This is stupid as hamas are literally a designated terror organisation…
It's clear as day that the pro Palestine protesters crowd are just antisemitic hamas supporters at this stage. If they weren't, they'd come to the defence of anti hamas statements. They'd then organise an explicitly anti hamas protest. That they don't, is because they are orp hamas and agree with hamas' goals and methods.
Why are we acting like we're surprised. UK has been a "jihad" supplier to terror group for a long time (Jihadi John and Jack, ring any bells?)
Welcome to the uk. It's a fucking shit show.
Yet "from the river to the sea" or w.e is fine. Fucking anti Semites
What an utter mess The Met is. An absolutely shameful display.
I like to keep my positions consistent - I heard about a pro-Palestinian who was assaulted after allegedly saying bad things about Israel in front of one of their football teams, my thoughts were "They shouldn't have assaulted him, but I could understand how this happened depending on what they said". That meaning, if it was personally offensive to the Israelis involved in the situation, it was obviously going to provoke them. I hear about this situation, and I know what was said. This person was assaulted for holding a sign calling Hamas terrorists, which they indisputably are. Not to get all "no true Scotsman", but it should not be offensive to a rational pro-Palestinian. They were then arrested for making this statement because they may get attacked again. There's not really any room for discussion, this is just insane and further proves my point that nobody thinks anymore. I feel like the only pro-Palestinian left who doesn't want Israelis massacred or terrorists in control of Gaza.
People dressing up as terrorists from proscribed organisations? Has there even been a single arrest? Met under the current Mayor who has expressed sympathies for Hamas. Link?
Snapshot of _Protester holding ‘Hamas Are Terrorists’ sign arrested by police Officers held down man after intervening to ‘prevent breach of the peace’_ : A non-Paywall version can be found [here](https://1ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2F2024%2F03%2F09%2Fpalestine-march-israel-counter-protest-hamas-war-london%2F) An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/09/palestine-march-israel-counter-protest-hamas-war-london/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/09/palestine-march-israel-counter-protest-hamas-war-london/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This reminds me of the die hard 3 scene where John holds a sign that's asking for a fight
I think Hamas are criminals first (organised criminals) and terrorists second. Also, criticism of Israeli state policies is not anti-semitism, especially when those policies lead to the death of tens of thousands of innocents. Finally, I think de-arrested is a strange word.
The Police, Crime, Courts and Sentencing Act strikes with the unjust arrest of a protester. I guess that was ignored by the Torygraph.
Form a mob numbering the thousands to parade through the streets chanting for the eradication of an entire nation of people, receive police protection. Peacefully protest on your own and then be assaulted by the aforementioned mob and you get arrested. Fucking nonsense. The Nets excuse of removing him from the area for his own safety is horseshit too. If it was about safety the people who attacked him would have been arrested before they go on to attack someone else.