'Openly Jewish' man threatened with arrest by Police near pro-Palestine march

[Bkk Brian]

3 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

 

That still wouldn't make "being Jewish" the reason for the arrest.

If I punched you I would be arrested for assault. If I had not punched you I would not be arrested. The is no arrestable offense without that punch.

 

There is no arrestable offense without him being Jewish first. 

[BangkokReady]

5 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

Would he have been arrested if he wasn't Jewish?

 

If his actions threatened a breach of the peace, of course.

[Nick Carter icp]

1 minute ago, BangkokReady said:

 

If his actions threatened a breach of the peace, of course.

 

   But him being Jewish was the action that threatened to breach the peace . 

 

  This is like a game of chess and the only two pieces left on the board are the two kings 

 

[BangkokReady]

3 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   But him being Jewish was the action that threatened to breach the peace . 

 

  This is like a game of chess and the only two pieces left on the board are the two kings 

 

 

I answered your question.  He could have been arrested if he wasn't Jewish if his actions still threatened a breach of the peace.

 

A person doesn't have to be Jewish to be suspected of doing something that might breach the peace.

[BangkokReady]

12 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

If I punched you I would be arrested for assault. If I had not punched you I would not be arrested. The is no arrestable offense without that punch.

 

There is no arrestable offense without him being Jewish first. 

 

Only because that happened to be what police suspected could have contributed to the likelihood of a breach of the peace if he approached the protestors.

 

It still doesn't mean that he was arrested for being Jewish.  Nor that the breach of the peace was for "being Jewish".

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, BangkokReady said:

 

Only because that happened to be what police suspected could have contributed to the likelihood of a breach of the peace if he approached the protestors.

 

It still doesn't mean that he was arrested for being Jewish.  Nor that the breach of the peace was for "being Jewish".

Yes it does

 

 

"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."

[Nick Carter icp]

1 minute ago, BangkokReady said:

 

I answered your question.  He could have been arrested if he wasn't Jewish if his actions still threatened a breach of the peace.

 

A person doesn't have to be Jewish to be suspected of doing something that might breach the peace.

 

   He wasn't suspected of potentially breaching the peace .

The concern was that the pro Palestinian  protestors might breach the peace if they saw a Jew and that is why the Jew was ordered to leave the area .

   The Police didn't think that HE would breach the peace , the Police thought that the mob might breach the peace if they saw him . 

   The Mob wouldn't have breached the peace if he wasn't a Jew

[Eloquent pilgrim]

42 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

No.  He was threatened with arrest to prevent a breach of the peace because the officers believed that him approaching the protestors would cause a breach of the peace.

 

Why do you think the police thought that this man being near the ‘peaceful’ protesters, would cause a breach of the peace, when his only possible provocation would be that of being openly identifiable as a jew; if the police thought that the protesters were likely to cause a breach of the peace by taking some form of action because they identified a man as a jew, then surely they should have been the ones threatened with arrest …. two tier policing, the modern orthodoxy of the Met, as they continue to facilitate the path towards the islamification of a once wonderful country.

 

[BangkokReady]

5 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Yes it does

 

 

"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."

 

How?

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, BangkokReady said:

 

How?

Read 

[BangkokReady]

2 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

He wasn't suspected of potentially breaching the peace .

The concern was that the pro Palestinian  protestors might breach the peace if they saw a Jew and that is why the Jew was ordered to leave the area .

   The Police didn't think that HE would breach the peace , the Police thought that the mob might breach the peace if they saw him . 

   The Mob wouldn't have breached the peace if he wasn't a Jew

 

No.  They thought his actions might lead to a breach of the peace.  Please read the article and my comments properly.  You're wasting both our time.

[Bkk Brian]

6 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   He wasn't suspected of potentially breaching the peace .

The concern was that the pro Palestinian  protestors might breach the peace if they saw a Jew and that is why the Jew was ordered to leave the area .

   The Police didn't think that HE would breach the peace , the Police thought that the mob might breach the peace if they saw him . 

   The Mob wouldn't have breached the peace if he wasn't a Jew

I just hope he understands that. If not I give up

[BangkokReady]

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

Read 

 

No.  You substantiate your claim.

 

"Please prove my claim for me."  🙄

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, BangkokReady said:

 

No.  You substantiate your claim.

 

"Please prove my claim for me."  🙄

 Stop trolling 

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

I just hope he understands that. If not I give up

 

[BangkokReady]

Just now, Bkk Brian said:

 Stop trolling 

 

No trolling here.  You need to back up what you say.  Simple as that.

 

If you're right (you're not), then it should be easy for you to explain (it won't).

[Wobblybob]

5 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

 

No.  They thought his actions might lead to a breach of the peace.  Please read the article and my comments properly.  You're wasting both our time.

What were his actions, he wore a kippah, is that now in your eyes a breach of the peace! 

[Eloquent pilgrim]

19 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

It still doesn't mean that he was arrested for being Jewish.  Nor that the breach of the peace was for "being Jewish".

 

Firstly, he wasn’t actually arrested, just threatened with arrest; you are being pedantic by saying that he was not threatened with arrest for simply being jewish; he was however threatened with arrest for being identifiable as jewish; if you cannot understand the correlation between the two, you obviously have some issues of bias.

 

 

[Wobblybob]

6 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

 

No trolling here.  You need to back up what you say.  Simple as that.

 

If you're right (you're not), then it should be easy for you to explain (it won't).

What is the point of explaining anything to someone that doesn't listen. 

[BangkokReady]

1 minute ago, Wobblybob said:

What were his actions

 

I think the article makes it fairly clear.  He intended to approach the group of protestors and the police believed that this could lead to a breach of the peace.

[Wobblybob]

Just now, BangkokReady said:

 

I think the article makes it fairly clear.  He intended to approach the group of protestors and the police believed that this could lead to a breach of the peace.

Oh my god, a Jew intended to approach a group of protestors, what about his right to protest, can't you see that your argument fails at every hurdle! 

[BangkokReady]

1 minute ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

Firstly, he wasn’t actually arrested, just threatened with arrest

 

I assume you're smart enough to realise that was a typo.

 

1 minute ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

you are being pedantic by saying that he was not threatened with arrest for simply being jewish

 

Not in the slightest.  People are trying to claim that he was threatened with arrest for being Jewish, which is not the case.

 

1 minute ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

he was however threatened with arrest for being identifiable as jewish

 

Again, no, he was threatened with arrest to prevent a breach of the peace, not for being "identifiably Jewish".

 

1 minute ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

if you cannot understand the correlation between the two, you obviously have some issues of bias.

 

He wasn't threatened with arrest for being Jewish, nor was he threatened with arrest for being identifiably Jewish.  You're wrong.

[coolcarer]

2 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

 

I think the article makes it fairly clear.  He intended to approach the group of protestors and the police believed that this could lead to a breach of the peace.

Why did you forget the first bit which is also extremely clear. Because he was openly Jewish. No other reason 

[BangkokReady]

2 minutes ago, Wobblybob said:

Oh my god, a Jew intended to approach a group of protestors, what about his right to protest

 

What right of protest is that?  Can you cite it?  Does it trump public safety?  Can people do whatever they want regardless of the circumstances due to "right to protest"?  (They can't, obviously.)

 

2 minutes ago, Wobblybob said:

can't you see that your argument fails at every hurdle! 

 

It doesn't.  You're wrong in pretty much everything you say.

[BangkokReady]

8 minutes ago, Wobblybob said:

What is the point of explaining anything to someone that doesn't listen. 

 

I'm listening to everything you say, and thinking carefully about it, but you're wrong.

[BangkokReady]

4 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

Why did you forget the first bit which is also extremely clear. Because he was openly Jewish. No other reason 

 

He still wasn't threatened with arrest for "being Jewish".

[coolcarer]

1 minute ago, BangkokReady said:

 

He still wasn't threatened with arrest for "being Jewish".

 Had he not been Jewish there would have been no incident and no threat of arrest. Why disrupt the topic like this. The whole Op is about the reason of him being Jewish as are all the videos. I have read all your posts and you are just an apologist pure and simple

[Wobblybob]

3 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

 

What right of protest is that?  Can you cite it?  Does it trump public safety?  Can people do whatever they want regardless of the circumstances due to "right to protest"?  (They can't, obviously.)

 

 

It doesn't.  You're wrong in pretty much everything you say.

Does public safety allow the police to ignore swastika and terrorist flag wavers. 

You can't resist your insults though, you are so predictable. 

A british citizen should be allowed to walk the streets of his country without being threatened for being Jewish. 

The Jew was not the threat it was the hate filled terrorist mob that were the threat and if the police cannot police in a fair and proper manner then Sir Mark Rowley needs to be replaced with someone that can police without fear and favour! 

[BangkokReady]

1 minute ago, coolcarer said:

Had he not been Jewish there would have been no incident and no threat of arrest.

 

The point remains that he was not threatened with arrest for "being Jewish".

 

1 minute ago, coolcarer said:

Why disrupt the topic like this.

 

Disrupt the topic?  You mean by disagreeing with something that was said?  Like people always do?

 

Is it perhaps more a case of you not liking what I am saying and would rather I did not say it?

 

1 minute ago, coolcarer said:

The whole Op is about the reason of him being Jewish as are all the videos.

 

That's exactly what I'm talking about.  The fact that he wasn't threatened with arrest for "being Jewish".

 

1 minute ago, coolcarer said:

I have read all your posts and you are just an apologist pure and simple

 

Hardly.  I simply corrected someone.

[Eloquent pilgrim]

7 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

 Had he not been Jewish there would have been no incident and no threat of arrest. Why disrupt the topic like this. The whole Op is about the reason of him being Jewish as are all the videos. I have read all your posts and you are just an apologist pure and simple

absolutely ….. an antisemitism denier 

Edited April 21 by Eloquent pilgrim

[Wobblybob]

11 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

 

I'm listening to everything you say, and thinking carefully about it, but you're wrong.

I get it, everybody on here is wrong but you, talk about being self centered!