Posted on 04/21/2024 12:23:36 PM PDT by Leaning Right
London’s police force has been forced to issue two apologies after officers threatened to arrest an “openly Jewish” man if he refused to leave the area around a pro-Palestinian march because his presence risked provoking the demonstrators.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
It would be nice if the UK police would be neutral at these sorts of events. But they can’t even manage that.
I’ve seen some comments about this on the Internet. Some people think the policeman was clumsily trying to protect the man; others think the man was deliberately trying to be provocative.
From what I saw, I think the first is possible; I don’t know about the latter.
Police Constable Mohammed Shafiq Khan, of Pakistani heritage, and a proud Englishman.
Of course he was being provocative. I’m not saying he should have done anything else, but he showed up openly Jewish to those who were chanting death to Jews.
The officer may have wanted to protect him by getting him to move along. That’s tough to say. I’ve seen British police acting badly over the years, so I don’t know.
the Met fascists apologize,
what SadiqKahn muslim bitchs
Liberals are often motivated by self preservation.
> Some people think the policeman was clumsily trying to protect the man… <
Perhaps. But the cop crossed the line when he threatened to arrest the man.
Winston Churchill praised the pilots who defended Britain during WWII saying, “Never, in the field of human conflict, was so much owed by so many to so few.”
“The Few” risked their lives in vain. Being Jewish in London in 2024 is like being Jewish in Berlin in 1939.
Yes.
But it’s sometimes hard to know the truth about incidents like this, when we only see a part of the interaction, and not how it really began.
(Lots of people thought that men who were just managing their horses were actually ‘whipping’ illegal aliens.)
No. That’s the law. If an officer tells you to move along and you can be arrested for refusing.
Governments and police only care about keeping the peace. If there are crazy people and sane people, they lean heavily on the sane people. Justice, fairness are not involved. They want the peace, and they know you can threaten sane people and they’ll back down, but crazy people are crazy and won’t back down. You see this in the response to Putin, to Xi to Kim Jung Un, etc. “I recommend a new strategy, R2, let the Wookie win.”
There is no such thing as "openly Jewish," unless you want to say that someone like Ilhan Omar is "openly Muslim" for wearing her headscarf, or anyone who wears a dashiki is "openly black."
-PJ
> No. That’s the law. <
I sure hope it isn’t. Why should a person have to move from a place he’s legally allowed to be?
I could see it if the person was in imminent danger of something like a building about to collapse. Gotta move back. But the Jewish guy was only in danger from the pro-Palestinian protesters.
He had no duty to move. And the police had a duty to protect him, not hassle him.
The article says he was open about his Jewishness, so I presume it means he was wearing the yarmaluk.
Even in America, that’s the law. If you’ve been hanging outside some shop for hours and the shop owner calls the cops because he’s sick of it, you can be told by an officer to move along and be arrested if you don’t. It’s called loitering.
The article says he was wearing a skullcap, but was not wearing any other distinctively Jewish garb. He was clean-shaven. A Modern Orthodox-type yarmulke would seem barely noticeable.
The skull cap.would be quite noticeable for somebody who hates Jews. It stand out like neon lights.
Has the cop who did it been fired? Have any of his supervisors been fired?
L
They should have let the Jewish man tell them why he was there at the anti-Israel protest.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.