London Jew accused of "breach of the peace" by looking "openly Jewish"

[everydaywonderful]

I'm gobsmacked by this

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68856360

What does it say?

There are Jewish people who are afraid to go out in London. As has been said, these marches aren't anti-Jewish marches - but there are Jewish people who are afraid to go out because of these marches. Because of the signs, the placards, the language and the intimidation. So clearly, there are some people on those marches who are anti-Semitic.

Oh no, the Police never used racist language when harassing black people. Honestly some people.

The miser thing is just age old antisemitism. Instead, Jews are supposed to give a percentage of their income to charity, the Hebrew word is Tzedaka. Most of our friends do this as do we, and to wider charities not just Jewish.

Quite. So much gor ' 'We're anti zionist not anti semitic'. If that's true, why is there such a risk of them starting a riot at the sight of a Jewish man? Can they tell if he is Israeli or not?

Propaganda like that doesn't need to come from the far right though. Don't think for one minute we aren't seeing rhetoric similar to early '30s Germany coming from the far left and extreme anti-Zionists. And the alt-left media, often funded by Iran and Russia, are doing some very heavy lifting to get that horseshoe joined up! We've been watching this unfold for a few years now and the current situation is hastening it somewhat. So yes, some of us feel nervous (at best), some outright scared.

And by the way, the far right still hates Jewish people. They're just using us right now to destabilise the social and political climate in the UK and as a convenience to hurt the left, immigrants and other minority groups. They're no more a friend of Jews than they are of Muslims.

@cakeorwine I'm so confused by what you're trying to say. So you agree that a lot of marchers are anti-Semites, but it's still the Jews fault for being there?

Yes, a lot of Jews are scared to go to London because of the marches but those who attend the marches deny anti-Semitism is an issue at them. Now there is yet more proof that anti-Semitism is an ongoing issue at the marches. If these marches have a major anti-Semitic factor then they shouldn't be allowed.

The marchers should have zero problems with Jews being present. Jews are not the Israeli government.

You are excusing racism by using racism as an example. If these people are largely peaceful, why would there be a risk of attacking a Jewish person?

No I am not.

I am saying that the media reaction would be different for some minority groups If there was a march going on and there were some people in that march who could be potentially violent towards people who belong to that minority group, the police could ask people in that minority group to move on because their presence could lead to a breach of the peace - in other words, some of the marchers could be violent towards the person who was there.

The police should be protecting the member of the minority group. Not threatening them with arrest because their presence could lead to some members of the march being violent towards them.

I do think that if the same thing happened to some other minority groups, there would be a different reaction by some people and by some elements of the media.

https://x.com/antisemitism/status/1781365229403660647?s=46

campaign against antisemitism released more footage from the incident.

It has shown though to more people how police misuse breach of the peace to stop people going about their lawful business.

Oh so you are annoyed because people are outraged this time, but haven't been previous times? Because if so, I can assure you I've seen outrage when there has been blatant racism against other groups as well. No racism is acceptable. I'm not sure why you're so upset about the fact that anti-Semitism is finally starting to be called out.

And these are the police powers they have to arrest you for breach of the peace

Legal framework and legislation | College of Policing

Breach of the peace gives police powers to intervene and/or arrest when an individual causes harm, or appears likely to do any of the following.

• Cause harm to a person.
• Cause harm to that person’s property, in the person’s presence.
• Put that person in fear of such harm being done through an assault, affray, a riot, unlawful assembly or other disturbance

Police officers may take reasonable action, including arrest, to stop a breach of the peace, or to prevent one that the police officer reasonably anticipates will occur imminently. Reasonable action may also be taken where a breach of the peace has been committed and where it is reasonably believed that a recurrence of the breach is threatened.

Police action should target the persons responsible for the breach of the peace. Action taken that is not directed at the person committing the breach will generally be unlawful.

The guiding principle is that lawful conduct will rarely, if ever, be other than reasonable. Conversely, a violent reaction to the lawful conduct of others will rarely, if ever, be other than wholly unreasonable.

Where there is a reasonable belief that there are no other means to prevent a breach of the peace, the lawful exercise by innocent third parties of their rights may be restricted by the police. This is a test of necessity, which can only be justified in truly extreme and exceptional circumstances.

Before the police can take any steps that restrict the lawful exercise of rights by innocent third parties in any way, they must take all other possible steps – including making proper and advance preparations – to ensure that the breach, or imminent breach, is prevented and that the rights of third parties are protected.

It's important to know your rights as well as police powers.

And it's wrong that the police can arrest someone because they feel that the presence of that person could lead to someone committing violence or harm against them

It's wrong in this case. And it's wrong in other cases
Jewish people should be able to go around and carry out their lawful business, to walk around London and other places without worrying about their safety or being arrested for breach of the peace

CAA just released another statement calling for Sir Mark Rowley to go. It’s on Sky too plus there’s an interview with Gideon Falter in Times. It feels like finally people are starting to recognise how bad antisemitism is now.

And more twisting of words.

I do think that the reaction would be different if some other minority groups were in a similar position and they had been threatened with a breach of the peace.

I am not upset that this has been called out. I am glad that it's raising awareness of the police misuse of their powers.

This is a post about a Jew being told - by the police - that he is not permitted to cross a road in 2024 London because he is "outwardly Jewish" and might provoke some antisemites. Do you have any examples of black people being told by the police that they are not allowed to cross a road because their skin colour might upset some anti-black racists? If not, I'm confused why you think your contribution is relevant to this thread?

I'm not sure what words I've twisted. I've been trying to figure out what you're trying to say but you seem to be changing your story a bit as you go. You think it would be a different reaction if it had been another minority group? What evidence do you have of that? Honestly, it's all a bit weird. You're glad it's being called out but you don't understand why it took Jews to be the victims for it to be called out? Maybe you should just leave it at "I'm glad it's being called out" without trying to pit one minority against others.

I mean statistically the Met police strip search black children far more often than they should, sometimes illegally

The Met police have a massive problem with being racist to black people so I completely understand why black people, or others, might get frustrated when the "this wouldn't happen to a black person" line gets trotted out often as a rhetoric to prove that something is "bad" when in reality even if this exact situation may not have happened to a black person, its not exactly outside of the realms of possibility that the Met police would do this to a black person if the suitation arose. I mean we are talking about the police force where black people are more likely to die in custody or shortly after being in custody than other races.

The Met police discriminate against women and minorities all the time and it would be far more powerful if instead of going "this happened to a jew and wouldn't happen to a black person" it was "Oh look they were biased and discriminatory again, let's all complain"

I think that the policeman was clumsy with his words, but that he had the best welfare of the man at heart. He was right to point out that, because of his appearance (his cap) he was obviously a jew, his appearance was likely to be antagonistic to the crowd and that, if the crowd turned nasty, there would be insufficient police on site to adequately protect him. So i don't blame the police man for warning him to stay away.

The bigger issue of course, is allowing so many Palestinian marches to go ahead if there is a risk of them turning violent, particularly given police resources and the fact that ot is taking so many police away from other areas.

He didn't just warn him to stay away though. He threatened to arrest him, for being "openly jewish".

Given we are told all the time that Jewish people are marching in the protests, and certainly I have seen enough Jewish people say that to believe its true for at least some of the protests then it doesn't even make sense unless, the protesters were not in fact peacefully protesting. And in that case that is the problem not a lone Jewish man trying to cross the road.

What evidence?

Just a hunch - because of the attitude of the media towards certain groups.

I have examples where the police have arrested people for breach of the peace because it was felt their presence could cause them harm from others - and people supported that arrest and felt that that person shouldn't have been there.

I am glad that people are now seeing what effect the breach of the peace law can have and how it can be misused.

Maybe I've misunderstood but I don't think the problem is what the police said, but the fact that it had to be said in the first place. The fact that Jews clearly aren't safe, despite six months of constant gaslighting "There are no no-go areas for Jews". The fact that marchers who supposedly aren't anti-Semitic see a Jew as a provocation, and that the police recognise this yet still allow these anti-Semites to march.

Hopefully they will start arresting the blatantly anti-Semitic ones.

Did he threaten to arrest him for being "openly Jewish"?

Or did he threaten to arrest him to prevent a breach of the peace - and that was because he was "openly Jewish" and the policeman felt that there were some people on that march who could be violent towards him?

There is a big difference in those statements.

.efia reaction and social media reaction is not the point though. There will always be agitators there. The police are supposed to be upholding the law, and protecting all citizens from people who may want to harm them. Social media agitators do not have a statutory duty to protect us. Neither does the Dsily Msil.

I've nearly been arrested for breach of the peace, What I was doing was not unlawful but if I carried on my actions, I could have been subject to physical harm by other people there. Surely the police should have protected me from those people instead of threatening to arrest me.

And I think that if I posted what I did, then the right wing media would have said I deserved to have been arrested.

Either it's ok to arrest people to prevent a breach of the peace and to protect them from physical harm or it isn't. It can't be ok for some people but not for others.

I agree with GF that the police are in a difficult position. It’s the marches and antisemitism that is the major issue

It needs to go higher up re whether it’s ok to have this situation