stevenl Posted April 21 Share Posted April 21 27 minutes ago, Wobblybob said: I am agreeing with you, we don't want Jews walking around London armed with a kippah now do we, swastikas and terrorists flags ok though. 21 minutes ago, Wobblybob said: Don't put words in my mouth, I am am sick of your aloofness. You are getting the replies you deserve! Exactly, don't put words in someone's mouth. How about you set the example. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BangkokReady Posted April 21 Share Posted April 21 6 minutes ago, Wobblybob said: What breach of the peace did the Jew commit? The man in the article was threated with arrest to prevent a breach of the peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BangkokReady Posted April 21 Share Posted April 21 4 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said: 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. Let me explain. If you punched someone, you would be arrested for punching them. If you were arrested to prevent a breach of the peace, you would be arrested to prevent a breach of the peace. If the breach of the peace in question was likely to be caused by a Jewish person walking in front of a group of protestors, it still would not be a case of the person being arrested for being Jewish. 4 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said: 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. But you're still not being arrested for being Jewish. 4 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said: I cant believe this needs explaining It doesn't. At least not to me... 🙄 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bkk Brian Posted April 21 Share Posted April 21 1 minute ago, BangkokReady said: Let me explain. If you punched someone, you would be arrested for punching them. If you were arrested to prevent a breach of the peace, you would be arrested to prevent a breach of the peace. If the breach of the peace in question was likely to be caused by a Jewish person walking in front of a group of protestors, it still would not be a case of the person being arrested for being Jewish. But you're still not being arrested for being Jewish. It doesn't. At least not to me... 🙄 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." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wobblybob Posted April 21 Share Posted April 21 10 minutes ago, stevenl said: Exactly, don't put words in someone's mouth. How about you set the example. Anything to add about the two tier policing or is this just another ad hominem attack we have come so used to expect from you! 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenl Posted April 21 Share Posted April 21 5 minutes ago, Wobblybob said: Anything to add about the two tier policing or is this just another ad hominem attack we have come so used to expect from you! So an ad hominem attack while complaining about being ad hominem attacked. Rofl. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BangkokReady Posted April 21 Share Posted April 21 15 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said: 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." I'm not taking anything out of context, and you're being more argumentative than I am. People are making the claim that the man was threatened with arrest for being Jewish. He wasn't. That's it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bkk Brian Posted April 21 Share Posted April 21 Just now, BangkokReady said: I'm not taking anything out of context, and you're being more argumentative than I am. People are making the claim that the man was threatened with arrest for being Jewish. He wasn't. That's it. "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." 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youreavinalaff Posted April 21 Share Posted April 21 36 minutes ago, Wobblybob said: What breach of the peace did the Jew commit? None. That's why he wasn't arrested. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bkk Brian Posted April 21 Share Posted April 21 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 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Carter icp Posted April 21 Share Posted April 21 7 minutes ago, BangkokReady said: I'm not taking anything out of context, and you're being more argumentative than I am. People are making the claim that the man was threatened with arrest for being Jewish. He wasn't. That's it. If he wasn't Jewish he wouldn't have been threatened with arrest . Although he was threatened with arrest because he was Jewish, rather than threatened with a arrest for being Jewish 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BangkokReady Posted April 21 Share Posted April 21 13 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said: "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." Either way, that wasn't what he was threatened with arrest for. It was to prevent a breach of the peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BangkokReady Posted April 21 Share Posted April 21 6 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said: If he wasn't Jewish he wouldn't have been threatened with arrest . Although he was threatened with arrest because he was Jewish, rather than threatened with a arrest for being Jewish He was threatened with arrest to prevent a breach of the peace, not because he was Jewish. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bkk Brian Posted April 21 Share Posted April 21 2 minutes ago, BangkokReady said: Either way, that wasn't what he was threatened with arrest for. It was to prevent a breach of the peace. 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." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Carter icp Posted April 21 Share Posted April 21 Just now, BangkokReady said: He was threatened with arrest to prevent a breach of the peace, not because he was Jewish. Yes, but he wouldn't have been threatened with arrest if the wasn't Jewish . Him being Jewish is what caused the possibility of the breach of peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wobblybob Posted April 21 Share Posted April 21 19 minutes ago, BangkokReady said: He was threatened with arrest to prevent a breach of the peace, not because he was Jewish. He was threatened with arrest to prevent a breach of the peace....because he was Jewish, if he had been a Frenchman on a bicycle with onions hung around his neck he wouldn't have been threatened with arrest! 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BangkokReady Posted April 21 Share Posted April 21 28 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said: Legally there is only one way with the cause being ""quite openly Jewish," No. The only legal way is "to prevent a breach of the peace". That's the legal part. 28 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said: 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." The rest, whilst being somewhat relevant, doesn't constitute the reason for the arrest. There is no illegality being suggested about "being Jewish". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BangkokReady Posted April 21 Share Posted April 21 29 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said: Yes, but he wouldn't have been threatened with arrest if the wasn't Jewish . Him being Jewish is what caused the possibility of the breach of peace Not quite. It also relates to the protestors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BangkokReady Posted April 21 Share Posted April 21 8 minutes ago, Wobblybob said: He was threatened with arrest to prevent a breach of the peace....because he was Jewish, if he had been a Frenchman on a bicycle with onions hung around his neck he wouldn't have been threatened with arrest! 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. There is no "because he was Jewish" in relation to wanting to prevent a breach of the peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bkk Brian Posted April 21 Share Posted April 21 2 minutes ago, BangkokReady said: No. The only legal way is "to prevent a breach of the peace". That's the legal part. The rest, whilst being somewhat relevant, doesn't constitute the reason for the arrest. There is no illegality being suggested about "being Jewish". In the court room a judge will ask what caused the breach of peace. It is 100% relevant. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Carter icp Posted April 21 Share Posted April 21 2 minutes ago, BangkokReady said: Not quite. It also relates to the protestors. Ah right , so the Jewish guy wouldn't have been threatened with arrest if the Protestors weren't Muslim ? But the protestors were Muslim and the Jewish guy did get threatened with arrest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Carter icp Posted April 21 Share Posted April 21 3 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. There is no "because he was Jewish" in relation to wanting to prevent a breach of the peace. But if he wasn't Jewish then the Police wouldn't have considered him potentially causing a breach of the peace 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFatOne Posted April 21 Share Posted April 21 (edited) On 4/19/2024 at 10:49 PM, Social Media said: Officers informed him that his presence, being "quite openly Jewish," could potentially lead to a "breach of peace" Which is true. These officers did their job. Pretty much a non-event in terms of news. More conservative nonsense to try and make Israeli lobbyists/provocateurs look like the victims. Laughable. And the source... The source! :D Edited April 21 by TheFatOne 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bkk Brian Posted April 21 Share Posted April 21 2 minutes ago, TheFatOne said: Which is true. These officers did their job. Pretty much a non-event in terms of news. More conservative nonsense to try and make Israeli lobbyists/provocateurs look like the victims. Laughable. And the source... The source! 😄 The officers apologized for their errors. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFatOne Posted April 21 Share Posted April 21 1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said: The officers apologized for their errors. They shouldn't have. They did the right thing. Probably political. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bkk Brian Posted April 21 Share Posted April 21 2 minutes ago, TheFatOne said: They shouldn't have. They did the right thing. Probably political. Maybe you should read the apology 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BangkokReady Posted April 21 Share Posted April 21 17 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said: In the court room a judge will ask what caused the breach of peace. It is 100% relevant. That still wouldn't make "being Jewish" the reason for the arrest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BangkokReady Posted April 21 Share Posted April 21 16 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said: Ah right , so the Jewish guy wouldn't have been threatened with arrest if the Protestors weren't Muslim ? The Jewish man wouldn't have been threatened with arrest to prevent a breach of the peace if his actions weren't deemed likely to cause a breach of the peace. 16 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said: But the protestors were Muslim and the Jewish guy did get threatened with arrest That's true as far as I can see, but that doesn't make the reason for threat of arrest "being Jewish". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Carter icp Posted April 21 Share Posted April 21 2 minutes ago, BangkokReady said: That still wouldn't make "being Jewish" the reason for the arrest. Would he have been arrested if he wasn't Jewish ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BangkokReady Posted April 21 Share Posted April 21 14 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said: But if he wasn't Jewish then the Police wouldn't have considered him potentially causing a breach of the peace Could no one else cause an issue with the group? What about a non-Jewish Israel supporter? Or an anti-Islamist? Surely, either of those could cause a breach of the peace and, therefore, be threatened with arrest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now