Jump to content

Bkk Brian

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    22439
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

38082 profile views

Bkk Brian's Achievements

Star Member

Star Member (12/14)

  • Conversation Starter
  • Very Popular Rare
  • 5 Reactions Given
  • First Post
  • Posting Machine Rare

Recent Badges

45.9k

Reputation

  1. In the court room a judge will ask what caused the breach of peace. It is 100% relevant.
  2. Legally there is only one way with the cause being ""quite openly Jewish," that's why I prefer the whole sentence rather than some people snipping it out of context: "Officers informed him that his presence, being "quite openly Jewish," could potentially lead to a "breach of peace" amidst the pro-Palestinian march. One officer went as far as to assert that Falter's mere existence was "antagonising" the demonstrators."
  3. About UNRWA AND Oct 7th, from the OP: "October 7 has highlighted some of these concerns with Israel’s specific allegations that staff members were involved in acts of terrorism."
  4. Calls for Met chief to go over threat to arrest ‘openly Jewish’ CAA head Other senior conservatives criticised the Met’s handling of the incident with Deputy Prime Minister Oliver Dowden telling the Telegraph that it was “hard to think of any other minority that would be treated as disrespectfully as Jews seem to be”. Gary Mond, chair of the National Jewish Assembly, was quoted by the paper as saying, “The buck stops at the top and if Rowley is not prepared to properly police the demonstrations, he has to go and be replaced by someone who can.” In an apology on Friday, the Met’s Assistant Commissioner Matt Twist said the words “openly Jewish” had been “hugely regrettable” and “a poor choice of words”. https://www.thejc.com/news/calls-for-met-chief-to-go-over-threat-to-arrest-openly-jewish-caa-head-twd1h3gn
  5. "quite openly Jewish" actually "Officers informed him that his presence, being "quite openly Jewish," could potentially lead to a "breach of peace" amidst the pro-Palestinian march. One officer went as far as to assert that Falter's mere existence was "antagonising" the demonstrators."
  6. Instead of being argumentative and taking it out of context why not stick to the topic: "Officers informed him that his presence, being "quite openly Jewish," could potentially lead to a "breach of peace" amidst the pro-Palestinian march. One officer went as far as to assert that Falter's mere existence was "antagonising" the demonstrators."
  7. Cause.................. Ok, let me make this a little simpler for you. If I was to punch someone and hurt them I would be arrested for assault. The arrest of assault would not have happened had I not punched anyone. The punch was the cause. If I was to be openly Jewish and as a result antagonize a group of protestors the police would arrest me for breach of the peace. If I had not been openly Jewish I would not have been arrested as it would not antagonized the protestors, as there was no cause for them to be antagonized. I cant believe this needs explaining
  8. I asked you what was the cause, the cause being he was openly Jew, no cause no arrest. You are easily confused. But don't worry they have a Jew pen ready for him next time:
  9. I was asking you and no I do not agree, if you watch the video the reason is that his presence being "openly Jew" could antagonize the Pro Palestinian march and that would be the reason for a breach of the peace.
  10. Ok, so when charged what would have been the cause of the breach of the peace. There must be something that he is doing that causes it, what is that?
  11. What was the reason for the threat of arrest for breach of the peace?
  12. Tell that to the majority of Jews that do not and for very good reasons Source
×
×
  • Create New...