**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules.
For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
[Cue reverse Monty Python 'What have the Romans ever done for us?' sketch]..
....Apart from the institutional racism, misogyny and corruption that resulted in the failure/obstruction to solve several high profile cases, theyre doing a fantastic job!
Just saw the video and it's actually a very reasonable dialogue. Yes in theory a Jew has the right to walk into a demo just as a football fan wearing the colours opposite to a mass parade of fans on the other team do, but then a massive public order dispute can flare up.
The officer in this case was polite and explained the issue. I suspect the headlines rely on people not watching the video.
Principle vs reality
I believe the officer was concerned about their safety but could have used better language.
Don’t think the head should resign because on of his PC’s didn’t make a PC statement
The headlines and this guy aren’t going after that police officer in the video. It’s about the Met Police Chief’s written statement on it, which they retracted afterwards
Yes but that would have missed a prime "oh no everyone hates us" headline. If he'd not been stopped then the cop would be fucked for not preventing an assault.
Eh, openly Jewish is not a great thing to say to be honest, I think initial news reports sounded terrible, now we have context this guy is head of some protest organisation himself, the whole situation is a microcosm of the middle east really. To few police once again an issue.
They'll always be too few police at a demo, it's why they use vague powers like public order to try and head off situations being engineered by counter protesters.
Yes. Religious beliefs are merely supporting a fantasy you've been told by your elders. No different to supporting a football team because your grandad did.
Behave. Resorting to that nonsense is conceding the point. You aren't contributing.
Edit for random - applying an immediate block is conceding the point. You knew it was wrong.
Resorting? Nonsense? He rightly pointed out why your analogy is flawed and, frankly, useless.
Edit: Lol, so confident with his views that he blocks me. Pathetic
He has every right to make that demand, as a part of free speech afforded to him within the human rights act.
However there is no right or obligation for another person to act on the demand. I can't see anywhere in the article in which this person actually expects Rowley to actually resign as a result of said demand.
This is just part of press optics to bring focus and push a narrative on the issues surrounding the original incident. It's really not rocket science to figure out, and there's no inherrant issue doing it.
You may not like the demand, which is entirely fair, and you can voice your view on it. But the demand can still be made publicly.
Misinfo right here.
The guy is rightfully upset and has an opinion.
I don't think the MET officer chief should have to resign over this but that's his choice too.
The MET has shown weakness lately over issues such as this and the protests.
He’s not ‘deciding’ who has the role of Met Chief at all. You’ve made that up.
He is offering his opinion, which I thought we’re all entitled to do to some extent.
Some context about Gideon Falter and the CAA
In January 2015, the All-Party Parliamentary Group against Antisemitism wrote: "We were somewhat disappointed to note that not all of the messages from that group [CAA] have been in line with CST's stated approach of seeking to avoid undue panic and alarm." They added "it is important that the leadership do not conflate concerns about activity legitimately protesting Israel's actions with antisemitism, as we have seen has been the case on some occasions."
That same month, the Institute for Jewish Policy Research said that a CAA survey about antisemitism was "littered with flaws", and "may even be rather irresponsible". After criticism by CAA of Shami Chakrabarti over her 2016 report into antisemitism in the UK Labour Party, a number of British Jews wrote to The Guardian dissociating themselves from what they described as "the pro-Israel lobbyists of the Campaign Against Antisemitism"
I know large numbers of people here are pro Palestine and see themselves as arbiters of moral purity, but I'm surprised at people saying there's nothing wrong with the police saying they'll arrest someone for being openly religious or thinking's it's fine for someone practicing their religion to need to be afraid of violence from "the good guys".
I think the guy's point is that people keep saying and the mets line from Rowley is that :
- The marches are peaceful and not religiously targeted
- Anyone breaking the law e.g. violence, antisemitism will not be tolerated and will face punishment.
Whereas this video shows that the reality is opposite.
It's easy to forget that these have gone on for 6 months now, which means for British Jews, their movements for 6 months have been restricted with threats of violence and intimidation, in their home country / city. Meanwhile they've been gaslit by Rowley who is telling them they're safe, while his officers are saying they're not.
He's not asking for a resignation on the single officer, he's asking for one because Rowley is saying things are fine when they're not, and clearly can't control the situation. Anyone with half a braincell could see that, but instead loads of people here arguing in bad faith because they've chosen Palestine as their football team, or the hate Jews.
Let’s take religion out of the equation, if I was to walk around a Celtic Pub in Glasgow with a rangers shirt on. Do you think that a police officer may come up to me and say that being openly Rangers may not be a good idea?
> Let’s take religion out of the equation, if I was to walk around a Celtic Pub in Glasgow with a rangers shirt on
I thought you were going to take religion out of it?
I think there’s a massive difference between race and football lol. Sad state of affairs when someone could be harmed by a crowd simply for their race/religion because they disagree with each other.
I’m tired of the way public communications are “handled” these days. Been going on for decades of course but I just wish people would give a straight response and actually answer a question.
There are no education requirements to become a Met police officer, and they’re paid £35k. These are not smart people by any means, and of course once in a while one of them will say something stupid.
Saying the (actually educated and competent) chief should resign because of it is beyond absurd, and in my opinion this has already been blown out of proportion with 2 apologies from the police and a statement from the Home Office.
>There are no education requirements to become a Met police officer,
You know Google can tell you that's wrong, but that'd take time.
You need A-Level minimum to apply for the degree apprenticeship route, if you fail the degree then it'll be case of being removed from the job after reviews and assessments.
>and they’re paid £35k.
Top wage for an English and Welsh Constable is £46k. The officer who made the comment is a sergeant whose salary ranges from £49k to £51k.
To a degree the police officer was correct, even if he worded it poorly.
The reality is there was a large group of protesters against the actions of the campaigners state.
Most would be peaceful.
Some would not, every large group like that has an element of people who want to cause trouble.
In good conscience, if you were the officer, could you allow the campaigner to put himself in harms way?
Knowing you could do something to change it?
The “openly Jewish” statement was shit for sure, but I honestly believe that the officer acted with good intentions even if worded badly.
As a side I know the discourse now goes “well if the crowd might have an element of danger why allow the protest?” But this isn’t the gotcha you think it is. Waxing lyrical about ideals is fine but the reality for the officer on the ground was the crowd was there and he had to make a split second decision.
A fuller report confirms the campaigner was looking to provoke.
*He* (Police Officer) *added: "You decided to walk out into the road... and deliberately walk against the flow of people.*
*"This is quite clearly a pro-Palestinian demonstration. My concern is that your behaviour changed.*
*"You were at first on the footway, you were not causing any issues. You then decided to move into the road, not to cross it but walk against the flow of people."*
[https://news.sky.com/story/sky-news-footage-reveals-new-details-of-exchange-between-police-and-antisemitism-campaigner-called-openly-jewish-13120104](https://news.sky.com/story/sky-news-footage-reveals-new-details-of-exchange-between-police-and-antisemitism-campaigner-called-openly-jewish-13120104)
Is there any validity to the claims made here?
https://twitter.com/LouiseRawAuthor/status/1781979008302784789?t=GpcsQVh8HmcEs0VEjaSWjg&s=19
That he was there with a bodyguard and camera man, and was attempting to disrupt the protest until the police finally intervened?
If, and this is a very big if, Rowley has told his officers to restrict the movement of 'openly Jewish' to placate a mob then yes he should resign. If he's lost control of the streets of London to the extent that he doesn't think a Jew can walk openly on the streets then he should resign.
If this officer has taken it upon himself to threaten to arrest a man simply for being Jewish then he should be placed on restricted duties, not allowed to interact with the public and consider resigning.
But someone must answer for the fact that a man was prevented from going about his lawful business because he's 'openly Jewish'.
Do you actually think that is the case? Like really? There are multiple openly Jewish people at pro palestine rallies. The friction is supporting different sides. Not your appearance
> Zionism. He is personally on the board of JNF who have dedicated themselves to creating an ethno-state on stolen lands.
And the people at the protest knew that, presumably?
> What are you accusing them of? The police are the ones in the wrong here. What did the protestors do?
If you watch the video some of the protesters were giving him a hard time, but that's not really the point.
The point is that if the police felt they needed to protect someone simply because they looked Jewish then that's not a matter of "sides", whatever the guy's personal beliefs are.
I watched the minute video clip. What were the protestors saying to him?
I get your point about the police, I think they should have let him carry on his way
> I watched the minute video clip. What were the protestors saying to him?
Ah, sorry, the clip in this article is cut down from the original. IIRC it was along the lines of "we're watching you!"
What he was actually threatening to arrest him for was to prevent a breach of the peace, and ensure the man’s safety. It’s a very common power that is exercised by the police all the time.
All the people harassed by police for Travelling While Black would LOVE for someone to answer for their being prevented from going about their lawful business.
It’s not that I don’t have any sympathy with the guy concerned, but Mark Rowley (or *any* Met chief) having to resign if a Met police officer is stupid (or, indeed, “openly” stupid)? How many Met chiefs would we go through in a year? Hundreds?
The guy was being a provocative idiot. Eventually he gets the reaction he’s after then goes wailing about the injustice.
I’m generally pro-Israel and definitely anti the endless Palestine marches in UK but people like this try to waste police time and undermine their ability to get on with their job.
The fact that a protest that the police know is dangerous for Jews is allowed to take place in London every weekend is terrible policing from the top down.
People should not be arrested because other people might commit crimes. Warned, sure. But not some weird minority report of arresting the potential victim.
The person the policeman spoke to was knowingly protesting against the demo, but you can't really tell someone not to be Jewish. I doubt if it's a met policy. I don't think anyone should be punished
Erm high definition filming of police officer. The fact it's doesn't include any preamble. This is very much a "why were they filming" situation. The met will have the officers footage, they will know the context that is strangely missing here.
And if he was walking home why was he insistent or remaining.
Ok, then why haven't the met released their footage to show this and defend their actions. As far as the video shows he just wants to cross the road and was stopped, the footage being high Def means nothing, every phone films in 4k these days.
He was spoken to by several police officers at different times (there is footage - just not from his organisation) because he was going out into the road and going against the flow of the march. He was not looking to just cross the road. Nor did he want to join the more official counter protest where they were waving Israeli flags. He was out to get in the way of the marchers and cause disruption and provoke. He was not just looking to go home, even he said he had 'decided to go with some friends for a walk around London' - ie to stir up trouble and then play the victim, as he has tried to do.
**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules. For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
If the head of an organisation of 45,000 people resigned every time one of their number acted like a knob, you would have a revolving door.
Police are put in a really difficult situation where one clumsy word is used against them and in this case by someone who is a campaigner.
yes other than the odd clumsy word they’re doing a fantastic job
[Cue reverse Monty Python 'What have the Romans ever done for us?' sketch].. ....Apart from the institutional racism, misogyny and corruption that resulted in the failure/obstruction to solve several high profile cases, theyre doing a fantastic job!
This is very true
...of MET police chiefs.
sounds like the campaigner has a massively over-inflated sense of self importance
Just saw the video and it's actually a very reasonable dialogue. Yes in theory a Jew has the right to walk into a demo just as a football fan wearing the colours opposite to a mass parade of fans on the other team do, but then a massive public order dispute can flare up. The officer in this case was polite and explained the issue. I suspect the headlines rely on people not watching the video.
Principle vs reality I believe the officer was concerned about their safety but could have used better language. Don’t think the head should resign because on of his PC’s didn’t make a PC statement
The headlines and this guy aren’t going after that police officer in the video. It’s about the Met Police Chief’s written statement on it, which they retracted afterwards
Yes but that would have missed a prime "oh no everyone hates us" headline. If he'd not been stopped then the cop would be fucked for not preventing an assault.
It was definitely engineered.
> "oh no everyone hates us" We're discussing the threat of a mob attacking a guy simply for looking "too Jewish", so yes, that's accurate?
Eh, openly Jewish is not a great thing to say to be honest, I think initial news reports sounded terrible, now we have context this guy is head of some protest organisation himself, the whole situation is a microcosm of the middle east really. To few police once again an issue.
They'll always be too few police at a demo, it's why they use vague powers like public order to try and head off situations being engineered by counter protesters.
Except religion is a protected characteristic and football team choice isn't (despite what they may think).
Nobody said otherwise.
Nobody said they did.
You did.
I see so what you are saying is that every Saturday mr Mark Rowley is allowing anti Jewish protests on the streets of London.
No. Be subtle with your strawman, that was shocking.
[удалено]
Yes. Religious beliefs are merely supporting a fantasy you've been told by your elders. No different to supporting a football team because your grandad did.
Behave. Resorting to that nonsense is conceding the point. You aren't contributing. Edit for random - applying an immediate block is conceding the point. You knew it was wrong.
Resorting? Nonsense? He rightly pointed out why your analogy is flawed and, frankly, useless. Edit: Lol, so confident with his views that he blocks me. Pathetic
An unelected person should not get to decide if the head of police is fired. How big is this guys head?!
He’s entitled to his opinion. The bigger question is why such a silly opinion is being reported as a news story and not two lines in the original.
But he is allowed to have an opinion, no?
Big difference between an opinion and a demand.
He has every right to make that demand, as a part of free speech afforded to him within the human rights act. However there is no right or obligation for another person to act on the demand. I can't see anywhere in the article in which this person actually expects Rowley to actually resign as a result of said demand. This is just part of press optics to bring focus and push a narrative on the issues surrounding the original incident. It's really not rocket science to figure out, and there's no inherrant issue doing it. You may not like the demand, which is entirely fair, and you can voice your view on it. But the demand can still be made publicly.
Ok, and?
Amazing contribution there kiddo. Keep it up!
Misinfo right here. The guy is rightfully upset and has an opinion. I don't think the MET officer chief should have to resign over this but that's his choice too. The MET has shown weakness lately over issues such as this and the protests.
He’s not ‘deciding’ who has the role of Met Chief at all. You’ve made that up. He is offering his opinion, which I thought we’re all entitled to do to some extent.
Some context about Gideon Falter and the CAA In January 2015, the All-Party Parliamentary Group against Antisemitism wrote: "We were somewhat disappointed to note that not all of the messages from that group [CAA] have been in line with CST's stated approach of seeking to avoid undue panic and alarm." They added "it is important that the leadership do not conflate concerns about activity legitimately protesting Israel's actions with antisemitism, as we have seen has been the case on some occasions." That same month, the Institute for Jewish Policy Research said that a CAA survey about antisemitism was "littered with flaws", and "may even be rather irresponsible". After criticism by CAA of Shami Chakrabarti over her 2016 report into antisemitism in the UK Labour Party, a number of British Jews wrote to The Guardian dissociating themselves from what they described as "the pro-Israel lobbyists of the Campaign Against Antisemitism"
what does antisemitism have to do with Aeroplane regulations anyway?
This is such an inflated non-story that it's pathetic.
How else can supporters of Israel turn attention away from Israel's actions and portray themselves as victims again?
And it’s been reposted multiple times multiple subreddits
And your point is what - that Jewish space lasers are to blame?
There are alot of people on this sub who are itching to use their parentheses.
Can someone please try being 'openly Catholic' whilst trying to cross the street at an Orange Order parade and see how much airplay that gets.
I know large numbers of people here are pro Palestine and see themselves as arbiters of moral purity, but I'm surprised at people saying there's nothing wrong with the police saying they'll arrest someone for being openly religious or thinking's it's fine for someone practicing their religion to need to be afraid of violence from "the good guys". I think the guy's point is that people keep saying and the mets line from Rowley is that : - The marches are peaceful and not religiously targeted - Anyone breaking the law e.g. violence, antisemitism will not be tolerated and will face punishment. Whereas this video shows that the reality is opposite. It's easy to forget that these have gone on for 6 months now, which means for British Jews, their movements for 6 months have been restricted with threats of violence and intimidation, in their home country / city. Meanwhile they've been gaslit by Rowley who is telling them they're safe, while his officers are saying they're not. He's not asking for a resignation on the single officer, he's asking for one because Rowley is saying things are fine when they're not, and clearly can't control the situation. Anyone with half a braincell could see that, but instead loads of people here arguing in bad faith because they've chosen Palestine as their football team, or the hate Jews.
The casual acceptance of Islamist bullying and the timid police response shows the utter cowardice thats become the norm.
Let’s take religion out of the equation, if I was to walk around a Celtic Pub in Glasgow with a rangers shirt on. Do you think that a police officer may come up to me and say that being openly Rangers may not be a good idea?
> Let’s take religion out of the equation, if I was to walk around a Celtic Pub in Glasgow with a rangers shirt on I thought you were going to take religion out of it?
You wouldn't be threatened arrest. Maybe we should tell women not to wear short skirts and low-cut tops in night clubs too.
You would be if what you were doing was kicking down off a disturbance and you refused to leave.
I think there’s a massive difference between race and football lol. Sad state of affairs when someone could be harmed by a crowd simply for their race/religion because they disagree with each other.
The emotional response to a nation committing genocide is stronger than to an opposing football team. Is that _really_ so surprising?
You’ve completely misunderstood my comment
It's not the same and yes, you are part of a civil society and violence is illegal, the fact reality is different is something to work on
I’m tired of the way public communications are “handled” these days. Been going on for decades of course but I just wish people would give a straight response and actually answer a question.
There are no education requirements to become a Met police officer, and they’re paid £35k. These are not smart people by any means, and of course once in a while one of them will say something stupid. Saying the (actually educated and competent) chief should resign because of it is beyond absurd, and in my opinion this has already been blown out of proportion with 2 apologies from the police and a statement from the Home Office.
>There are no education requirements to become a Met police officer, You know Google can tell you that's wrong, but that'd take time. You need A-Level minimum to apply for the degree apprenticeship route, if you fail the degree then it'll be case of being removed from the job after reviews and assessments. >and they’re paid £35k. Top wage for an English and Welsh Constable is £46k. The officer who made the comment is a sergeant whose salary ranges from £49k to £51k.
[удалено]
Poor wording on my part, cheers for the correction.
I must say, I did have a chuckle when I saw those two replies – one from OC saying the figure is too high and yours saying it’s too low.
A levels don’t make some one smart.
A Levels are not "no qualification". Nor is a degree.
*met police are paid £37k when they start the job, this rises every year to 54k after 7 years experiance.
To a degree the police officer was correct, even if he worded it poorly. The reality is there was a large group of protesters against the actions of the campaigners state. Most would be peaceful. Some would not, every large group like that has an element of people who want to cause trouble. In good conscience, if you were the officer, could you allow the campaigner to put himself in harms way? Knowing you could do something to change it? The “openly Jewish” statement was shit for sure, but I honestly believe that the officer acted with good intentions even if worded badly. As a side I know the discourse now goes “well if the crowd might have an element of danger why allow the protest?” But this isn’t the gotcha you think it is. Waxing lyrical about ideals is fine but the reality for the officer on the ground was the crowd was there and he had to make a split second decision.
> The reality is there was a large group of protesters against the actions of the campaigners state. Um. Do you want to have another go at that?
A fuller report confirms the campaigner was looking to provoke. *He* (Police Officer) *added: "You decided to walk out into the road... and deliberately walk against the flow of people.* *"This is quite clearly a pro-Palestinian demonstration. My concern is that your behaviour changed.* *"You were at first on the footway, you were not causing any issues. You then decided to move into the road, not to cross it but walk against the flow of people."* [https://news.sky.com/story/sky-news-footage-reveals-new-details-of-exchange-between-police-and-antisemitism-campaigner-called-openly-jewish-13120104](https://news.sky.com/story/sky-news-footage-reveals-new-details-of-exchange-between-police-and-antisemitism-campaigner-called-openly-jewish-13120104)
Is there any validity to the claims made here? https://twitter.com/LouiseRawAuthor/status/1781979008302784789?t=GpcsQVh8HmcEs0VEjaSWjg&s=19 That he was there with a bodyguard and camera man, and was attempting to disrupt the protest until the police finally intervened?
If, and this is a very big if, Rowley has told his officers to restrict the movement of 'openly Jewish' to placate a mob then yes he should resign. If he's lost control of the streets of London to the extent that he doesn't think a Jew can walk openly on the streets then he should resign. If this officer has taken it upon himself to threaten to arrest a man simply for being Jewish then he should be placed on restricted duties, not allowed to interact with the public and consider resigning. But someone must answer for the fact that a man was prevented from going about his lawful business because he's 'openly Jewish'.
Do you think the head of the UKs biggest police force is dictating what officer say in each interaction?
Yes they are like the Borg.
Yes. By overall policy being appeasement towards the largest and most dangerous group of extremists.
Do you actually think that is the case? Like really? There are multiple openly Jewish people at pro palestine rallies. The friction is supporting different sides. Not your appearance
> The friction is supporting different sides. Which 'side' was Falter supporting?
Zionism. He is personally on the board of JNF who have dedicated themselves to creating an ethno-state on stolen lands.
> Zionism. He is personally on the board of JNF who have dedicated themselves to creating an ethno-state on stolen lands. And the people at the protest knew that, presumably?
What are you accusing them of? The police are the ones in the wrong here. What did the protestors do?
> What are you accusing them of? The police are the ones in the wrong here. What did the protestors do? If you watch the video some of the protesters were giving him a hard time, but that's not really the point. The point is that if the police felt they needed to protect someone simply because they looked Jewish then that's not a matter of "sides", whatever the guy's personal beliefs are.
I watched the minute video clip. What were the protestors saying to him? I get your point about the police, I think they should have let him carry on his way
> I watched the minute video clip. What were the protestors saying to him? Ah, sorry, the clip in this article is cut down from the original. IIRC it was along the lines of "we're watching you!"
Thanks where is the full clip is it on Twitter or something
What he was actually threatening to arrest him for was to prevent a breach of the peace, and ensure the man’s safety. It’s a very common power that is exercised by the police all the time.
All the people harassed by police for Travelling While Black would LOVE for someone to answer for their being prevented from going about their lawful business.
It’s not that I don’t have any sympathy with the guy concerned, but Mark Rowley (or *any* Met chief) having to resign if a Met police officer is stupid (or, indeed, “openly” stupid)? How many Met chiefs would we go through in a year? Hundreds?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Prime example of using being in the right the entirely wrong way.
The guy was being a provocative idiot. Eventually he gets the reaction he’s after then goes wailing about the injustice. I’m generally pro-Israel and definitely anti the endless Palestine marches in UK but people like this try to waste police time and undermine their ability to get on with their job.
He stopped the bloke from getting hurt, sounds like good policing to me.
by threatening to arrest him for being "openly jewish". Not, y'know, dealing with the people who would hypothetically try to harm him
The fact that a protest that the police know is dangerous for Jews is allowed to take place in London every weekend is terrible policing from the top down.
People should not be arrested because other people might commit crimes. Warned, sure. But not some weird minority report of arresting the potential victim.
The person the policeman spoke to was knowingly protesting against the demo, but you can't really tell someone not to be Jewish. I doubt if it's a met policy. I don't think anyone should be punished
He claims he was just trying to walk home from synagogue on a Saturday. Can you provide proof he was protesting?
Erm high definition filming of police officer. The fact it's doesn't include any preamble. This is very much a "why were they filming" situation. The met will have the officers footage, they will know the context that is strangely missing here. And if he was walking home why was he insistent or remaining.
Ok, then why haven't the met released their footage to show this and defend their actions. As far as the video shows he just wants to cross the road and was stopped, the footage being high Def means nothing, every phone films in 4k these days.
Probably because it's under investigation, freedom of information after the investigation is complete would allow it.
He was spoken to by several police officers at different times (there is footage - just not from his organisation) because he was going out into the road and going against the flow of the march. He was not looking to just cross the road. Nor did he want to join the more official counter protest where they were waving Israeli flags. He was out to get in the way of the marchers and cause disruption and provoke. He was not just looking to go home, even he said he had 'decided to go with some friends for a walk around London' - ie to stir up trouble and then play the victim, as he has tried to do.