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

[keenforhelp]

Pro-Israel supporters have taken to the streets after a cinema was vandalised with graffiti for planning to show a film about the Nova festival massacre at the hands of Hamas terrorists.

Pro-Palestine activists sprayed the Phoenix Cinema in East Finchley, London, with the message "say no to artwashing". In response, members of the Jewish community and campaigners against anti-Semitism are holding a demonstration outside the picturehouse.
Music could be heard blaring, including Elton John's I'm Still Standing, as smiling pro-Israel supporters waved the Israeli flag in a show of defiance.
A tiny band of pro-Palestine protesters are on the scene, however they are vastly outnumbered.

The volunteer, who wished to remain anonymous, told The Telegraph: “It’s just an outrage. People who are survivors of this massacre are coming here and they could have been confronted with red graffiti that honestly looked like blood.
“One of the people here knows someone who survived the massacre and she was coming tonight. Imagine the trauma if she saw this. People from the community have gone together to clean it up.
“It claimed that the film was artwashing - but it’s not. It’s footage from the festival. It shows what happened. There’s no agenda.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1902945/phoenix-cinema-finchley-israel-protest

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

It's supposed to be a Man U shirt.

I would hope so

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.

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

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.

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).

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.

Is there anything special about the number 7 or is that random? Everything seems to have some kind of meaning attached to it nowadays.

Does anyone know where this photo came from?

That’s a good question @quantumbutterfly

His shirt could have been altered, we need to be careful when we view things online! Of course it might not have been, I’m just saying we don’t at this moment know for certain.

I missed the significance of 7 but it is so obvious when you realise it means Oct 7.

There is a discussion here I just found. The main speaker agrees with the point of view here, the others are putting out counter arguments for discussion but basically agree.

https://www.gbnews.com/news/dawn-neesom-creature-man-utd-hamas-shirt-london

For me, if his shirt said ‘Ceasefire in Palestine’ or ‘Free Palestine’, I would not see it in such a negative light.

Oct 7 was a blood bath, torture and captivity, inflicted on innocent people though.

You're right.
According to your logic, everything we are viewing could have been digitally altered including Pro- Palestinian evidence about what is happening in Gaza.

Accordingly in the AI age, nothing can be seen to be the truth.

There are lies, damn lies and there is Artificial Intelligence.

According to the GB news clip
about it I found, it was in a newspaper.

They may check for AI these days. They may have some tools for alerting them.