"Brilliant moment pro-Israel protesters get their own back on pro-Palestine mob"

Nothing ambiguous here!

Yes it’s worrying he felt that he could walk down the street like that. Even as a non Jewish person I would be worried to walk past this person. I’m not downplaying the antisemitic element here, I’m saying I would be personally worried about what sort of person thought this was OK.

I think that even if someone like a poster here who clearly spots him for what he is were there, it would be intimidating to confront him.

The only hope would be if there were police to tell ( and hope you didn’t need to argue with them).

Agree.

My main concern though is why this man felt confident enough to take a stroll down one of the busiest shopping streets here dressed like this. He must have thought there would be minimal repercussion.

Yep. That's also public support for a proscribed terrorist organisation.

Man U should do what they can to stamp this out by alerting the police. That man does not look the sort to have got that shirt made on his own. It seems likely there will be other shirts the same and someone organising and selling them.

It looks like there are hooligan types around looking for fights for the sake of it.

I would hope so

It's supposed to be a Man U shirt.

I would construe that man in the red shirt saying Hamas 7 as being illegal
(terrorist org) and anti -Semitic.

Is it supposed to be a football shirt?

A thug and trouble maker.

That is support for a proscribed terrorist group which I believe is it's own offence.

Could walking around central London dressed like this be construed as antisemitic?

I have been reading what you posted earlier about the CPS, Marjory and do not believe anyone has been particularly confused, except in thinking there is an actual, specific law about what anti-Semitism is.

But to dismiss the working definitions of what anti-semitism is as irrelevant , as something utterly other than the law, as you seem to, is sophistry imo.

From reading the CPS guidelines, it is as you say, up to the perception of the victim to say what anti-semitism is, but important as that may be, there will not be a conviction on the basis of that perception.

From the article from the CPS you posted before (my bolding):

“Flagging is a subjective question. Flagging a case puts the CPS on notice that someone at some stage has
perceived the incident that gave rise to the case had such an element of racial or religious hostility or prejudice to it. “

“For a conviction to receive enhanced sentencing in court the police need to provide sufficient evidence to prove the hostility element, however this is not required for flagging purposes. “

“Therefore, whilst not all flagged cases will result in specific racially or religiously aggravated charges or an application for an uplift of sentence under s.66 of the Sentencing Act 2020 [‘s.66 SA 2020’] (which applies to all convictions on or after 1st December 2020), they should still be flagged on CMS. perceived the incident that gave rise to the case had such an element of racial or religious hostility or prejudice to it. “

Therefore,(these are my words now)

Stage 1.
“Flagging”
by the victim according to the victim’s own perception of an event.

Stage 2.
The police are “0n notice” that this event has occurred.

Stage 3.
Police must ”Provide sufficient evidence” of hostility in order to get a conviction.

If the hostility is not physical, it must be in the nature of verbal hostility. How are the police not going to rely on some guidelines such as the working definitions in order to know if they are on a good footing to go on to stage 3, which is to prove hostility. It is very likely that the police have these definitions in mind.

So, the process of determining anti-semitism as proven does not simply rest at stage 1 ( an individual’s perception of anti-demotion flagged as being anti-semitism).

The stage 1 indisputable nature of the “flag”, in a stand alone sense, is presumably a safeguard in case future similar events occur at the hands of the same perpetrator, and as an act of good faith with the victim on the part of the police.

But the perception of anti-semitism is not a legal conviction of anti-semitism in and of itself.

These men are clearly threatening and I’m glad the police are following up. I’m also glad these men are not wearing face covering as it makes identification much easier.

Well they look like peaceful young men, do they share a communal wardrobe, all he needs to do is accessories with a black balaclava and he's ready for any protest.

As bonus points he can accessorize with a scarf and pearls to jazz it up for evening wear, and he has no hair, which is fortunate because dandruff really shows against black.

I did not however manage to make out the words others have alluded to. I could see the man in a black tee shirt saying a lot and looking wild, but could not hear him.

Reading the news about this later, the man in the black tee shirt is/was now wanted by the police. His is the face on the right on the police notice. (The other picture is of him from the video clip posted on this thread.)

Presumably he is suspected of carrying out a hate crime.

Yes it is clear that in the absence of unambiguously antisemitic words or actions there is a very grey area in which perceptions will differ.

Is the 'realm of reality' the same as 'the man on the Clapham omnibus?'

At this point in our history the 'realm of reality' has become a very subjective judgement for many people.

The perception of the victim is massively important but it has to be based within the realms of reality.

Sorry to interject Majorie,
The IHRA is a legally nonbinding definition formally adopted by the U.K. Government (Commons of Parliament) in 2016 with a few added caveats, and has not been enshrined in any written law. So the U.K. version with added caveats, is not a legal definition of antisemtism de jure,

This much is true, but what is the rest of the story?

The Secretary of State directed the Government to implement the IHRA definition plus caveats within all its policies, rules and regulations in December 2016. Since 2017, would not the IHRA definition plus caveats have become a de facto legal definition of antisemtism in English common law through stare decisis?

If not, why not? Are you saying that the MoJ has been ignoring the Government’s direction?

The truth of the position is that there is no legal definition of anti semitism. When it comes to racially and religiously aggravated offences, the perception of the alleged victim is central, not IHRA or other non-statutory definitions. When people post irrelevant and poorly-understood material in an attempt to obscure those facts, inferences will be drawn. If you don’t like those inferences, perhaps you should stop the behaviour that leads to them.

If there is another explanation for the determined efforts to misrepresent the state of the law - which you appear to be desirous of continuing - by all means, tell us what it is.

What is clear is that the law takes into account the perception of people at whom the allegedly racist behaviour is directed

As my quote from the Gov.U.K site made absolutely clear, before it went on to list the working definitions.

I realise that this is inconvenient for those who would like the perceptions of the Jewish community to be ignored at the present time.

That is simply an offensive allegation.

I was going by the fact that if you are raped, if the police and CPS don’t believe you have a case (even if they believe you) it will not go to court.

If a person feels they are the victim of anti-semitism, they tell the police who then try to work out if a case can be made, using their definitions as a guide, and if they think it can, then it would go to court. If they think it can’t, maybe it won’t.

I have heard about some other hate crimes not being pursued by the police after all, recently.

People bring other cases of discrimination to court which I assumed were not ‘criminal’. So I called them civil. Maybe that was confused of me.

What is clear is that the law takes into account the perception of people at whom the allegedly racist behaviour is directed. I realise that this is inconvenient for those who would like the perceptions of the Jewish community to be ignored at the present time. Hence no doubt the desperate wittering about irrelevant matters.

The original poster referenced, by way of exoneration for her behaviour, a legal definition of anti semitism. There is no such legal definition, in English law at least. Other posters,I can only conclude out of desperation to concede nothing to those of us who are against anti semitism, have chosen to try and argue that there is, citing wholly irrelevant material. I can only suggest to those people that they find better things to do with their time.

I think you are persisting in refusing to understand what a poster meant. There are working definitions of anti -semitism and that is most likely what it was.

Meanwhile, as I told you, in the absence of any actual legal definition, I have been interested to learn from the working definitions used in police guidelines.