Courtesy of the Telegraph, here is the video of a policeman warning a man that being “openly Jewish” in the vicinity of pro-Palestinians was “antagonising”. The Daily Mail has a pretty good account of the affair here.
I can feel a smidgen of sympathy for the cop. It was, as the Metropolitan Police say in their apology for the wording of their previous apology, a “hugely regrettable” choice of words, and typical of the abandonment of policing without fear or favour when it comes to Muslims, whom they fear and favour, but people talking under stress often do use words they later regret.
I feel no such sympathy for Assistant Commissioner Matt Twist, the person wrote the first apology. He was not on the street trying to think on his feet while being shouted at. He was sitting in an office with time to choose his words. The words he chose were these.
The video posted by the Campaign Against Antisemitism will further dent the confidence of many Jewish Londoners which is the opposite of what any of us want.
Bad Campaign Against Antisemitism for posting the video that dented the confidence of many Jewish Londoners by making them aware of something that actually happened!
Assistant Commissioner Twist continues,
The use of the term “openly Jewish” by one of our officers is hugely regrettable. It is absolutely not the basis on which we make decisions, it was a poor choice of words and while not intended, we know it will have caused offence to many. We apologise.
The issues at the heart of these protests are complex, contentious and polarising. When the challenges of public order policing are layered on top it becomes a very difficult environment for frontline officers to work in.
In recent weeks we’ve seen a new trend emerge, with those opposed to the main protests appearing along the route to express their views. The fact that those who do this often film themselves while doing so suggests they must know that their presence is provocative, that they’re inviting a response and that they’re increasing the likelihood of an altercation.
Consider those words “their presence is provocative, that they’re inviting a response”. What do they teach at Hendon Police College nowadays? Because three decades of universal condemnation of the phrase “she was asking for it” and the mindset behind it have clearly had no effect.
They are also making it much more likely officers will intervene. They don’t do so to stifle free speech or to limit the right to protest, but to keep opposing groups apart, to prevent disorder and keep the public – including all those taking part in or opposing the protest – safe. That is, after all, our primary role.
It is up to us to review these interventions and to determine whether we are getting the balance right, adapting our approach as we do so and making sure officers are supported to make the right decisions using all the powers available to the. We will continue to do so following this most recent protest and ahead of future events.
Assistant Commissioner Matt Twist.
I would be surprised if any Jewish Londoners [openly or not] had any confidence in the Met at all.
I deplore people being arrested for waving the English flag etc. as much as the next person but what would you have the police do? They have been placed in an impossible position by a government that has invited in large numbers of hostiles and “arresting”, i.e. removing people who might otherwise be injured, is the the best option available.
Is there any way of dealing with the Hammas protests that wouldn’t lead to large scale disorder?
In this case, they WERE asking for it.
Absent deploying the Army around the protests, there was no way a few cops could preserve order and keep that person healthy in the presence of that many rabid anti-Semitics. A clear death wish is cause for protective custody. (And, yes, this concept can be abused. But it wasn’t in this case.)
I may have a perfect right to walk down a public street, but there are streets in my town that I will not walk down because it would be stupidly dangerous for me.
Reminds me of a bastardization the old Ron White comedy line – “I had the right to remain silent, but I lacked the ability.” You may have the right to walk amongst the protesters, but you lack the ability to do so safely.
Oh, I think “regrettable” is going to be rather an understatement.
I suspect it is going to be thrown in the Met’s face time-and-again until they’re tired of hearing it.
We’ve had “Driving while Black” and we’ve now got “Travelling while openly Jewish”.
Classic.
Presumably the police were protecting a man who was ‘openly Jewish’ from a crowd of people some of who were ‘openly Muslim’?
Perhaps the Met will also apologise for that judgement too.
I think the offending words, however clumsy, may have been innocent on this occasion. If you add ‘The contents of’ at the beginning of the sentence it becomes OK.
Without opening his mouth, that Jewish man spoke. For that, he was threatened with arrest. The marchers spoke and weren’t treated thus. The marchers chant threats to others. Short of physical violence breaking out which is a clear breach of the peace, chanting from the river to the sea is threatening language and thus a breach.
As with the grooming gangs, the police are in breach of their attestation.
Say ‘Hello’ to the next Met Commissioner.
Even by modern standards of ‘apology’ the first one wasn’t one….
And this is just monstrous:
https://longrider.co.uk/blog/2024/04/19/plod-and-mental-health/
’there was no way a few cops could preserve order and keep that person healthy in the presence of that many rabid anti-Semitics.’
How do they know, since they’ve never tried it?
Sometimes, taking the hit now saves a lot of trouble in future. This was an opportunity squandered.
Even if not, better surely to do it now rather than cravenly surrender to the mob and store up even more rouble in the future?
“Assistant Commissioner Matt Twist“. I’ve hear of bent coppers before. Twisted ones are new to me!
The hapless copper was merely stating the truth. They do not control the streets, the muslims do, and there is every chance they would have attacked and maybe killed the “openly Jewish” man. London is not safe to be Jewish, but it is safe to be muslim, because they have the biggest gang, and are prepared to use violence when “provoked”. They even have the mayor, who controls the police. London has fallen.
I’m reminded of a joke…
This guy walks into a police station waving a bottle of Domestos. He is arrested for a “Possible Bleach of The Police”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tne50bE-ips
The late Brian Micklethwait once said to me that the police had a policy that when they encountered two groups confronting one another it was the weaker of the two they would deal with.
In this case one Jew is a lot weaker than a “pro-Palestinian” crowd so it was the Jew who got the attention.
There is another, more important point. The policeman believed that there mere presence of a Jew – regardless of his political opinions – was likely to provoke the crowd. I suspect he was right.
Perhaps the decision by the crown prosecution service not to charge three young men from Blackburn who drove around carefully chosen areas of north London using a megaphone to shout out “Kill the Jews, rape their daughters” was seen by the met as setting a precedent – for doing nothing.
After all, according to yet another plod recently caught on camera defending his failure to confiscate placards displaying swastikas, it has to be taken in context.
The perverse non-sentences handed down in another open and shut (to any normal person) case by Justice Tanweer Ikram CBE (awarded for services to Judicial Diversity FFS) were a further indication that the judiciary is firmly in thrall to this most troublesome of groups.
In recent weeks we’ve seen a new trend emerge, with those opposed to the main protests appearing along the route to express their views.
I’m interested in “recent” and “new” here. Lefties have been “counter-demonstrating” marches and speeches they disapprove of, often violently, at least since Cable Street in 1936.
I wonder – is Assistant Commissioner Matt Twist perhaps a geologist ?
The Jews of Belmonte, Portugal, thought themselves safe enough to end their ‘crypto-Jew’ status in the 1920s (spectacularly infelicitous timing given events brewing in Germany, but they survived.’) One might hope that being ‘openly Jewish’ was not only innocuous but also no more a cause for concern than being openly a man or a woman.
If a march is reasonably regarded as presenting such a risk to public order that a person who is ‘openly Jewish’ cannot be safe in the vicinity of it, then the march is a risk to public order and should be banned, or policed with sufficient force to deter, prevent or defeat any disorder, if necessary with armed force.
I am trying to think of arguments against introducing Roman army-style disciplinary measures into the Metropolitan Police for their conduct, but I can find none.
Personally, I would regard it as just for the Metropolitan Police to be determined by law to be a criminal organisation and disbanded with all members and support staff being determined as guilty of misconduct in public office or aiding and abetting the same by act or by omission and for them to be sentenced accordingly.
And then to apply the same principles to the rest of the public sector, where there is evidence of criminal conduct. If we need to put a million in prison, then El Salvador might be a useful source of economic and reformative confinement.
’I am trying to think of arguments against introducing Roman army-style disciplinary measures into the Metropolitan Police for their conduct, but I can find none.’
Finding a cop who can count to ten?
The “capitalist” Jews offend against EQUALITY – and, like all public bodies, the Metropolitan Police is committed to Equality under EDI – Equality, Diversity and Inclusion. “But Paul it does not mean material equality in the Critical Theory sense” – oh-yes-it-does, remember “equal treatment that leads to unequal outcomes” is NOT acceptable – “unequal outcomes” must be exterminated by getting rid of the “Tall Poppies”.
Just as a “Progressive” interpretation of Freedom of Speech means censorship of “Reactionary” opinions (see the Met Commissioner or videos he does not want people to see) – as Freedom of Speech for “Reactionary” opinions is “Repressive Tolerance” which stands in the way of “Liberation”, so EQUALITY means that if Muslims (say in Gaza) do not have equal inco9mes to Jews this automatically that the Jews are guilty of “exploitation and oppression”.
Ditto if the income black people in the United States is not equal to that of white people the white people must (by definition) be guilty of “exploitation and oppression” – after all why should doctors know anything about “capitalist” medical science, or engineers know anything about “white supremacist capitalist” mathematics? And why should teachers know how to read – Chicago works well with lots of people not knowing how to read, and if you disagree you are a RACIST. All “the masses” (of any race or sexuality) need to know how to do is how to chant slogans, steal, burn and kill – reading, understanding mathematics, and so on are “capitalist, white supremacist, racist, homophobic and transphobic” a Progressive society does not reading or mathematics or work to produce food or manufactured goods – after all the Central Bank can produce endless money, money=wealth so work to produce food and manufactured goods is not necessary – indeed it is Reactionary! And if you disagree you are a Racist Transphobe (I am sure the Met Commissioner would agree).
As for the Big Business types (some of them, such as some of the people on the Board of Directors of Black Rock) who back all this Progressive stuff – they are digging their own graves.
As for the alliance between the Progressive EDI-DEI (really just DIE) types and the forces of Islam – I suspect, given what they plan to do to the Progressive types (the second the Progressive types are no longer USEFUL idiots) the forces of Islam find the alliance deeply amusing.
Yes, the same thing happened durring the Iranian revolution. Fool me once…
https://youtu.be/NBGOryiqZZI?si=PoGGdjIMue6FQeWN
I’m sure most will have seen this but still……why not again?
‘people talking under stress often do use words they later regret.’
people talking under stress often do inadvertently tell the truth.
What a cop says is not important.What is is the fact that it is unsafe now to be Jewish in London.The situation will not improve on its own, but will snowball as it feeds on its success in intimidating Jews by people whose religion is essentially the hatred of everyone not like themselves, Jews first and foremost. Their are no pretty choices to be made, but to go along with the present situation, pretending it will just go away, is to invite Baghdad, or maybe Kabul on the Thames forever.
“it is unsafe now to be Jewish in London”. Rubbish. Last time I was on the Tube there was an old bloke in full Orthodox Jewish clothing sitting next to me. Nobody paid a blind bit of attention to him and he was clearly totally unafraid of anything.
Maybe it might be unsafe for a Jew in a skullcap to try to push his way through a pro-Palestinian demonstration in order to make a political point and perhaps provoke a conflict. But presumably such a person is choosing to be unsafe for his own purposes. I don’t think we need to blame police officers who politely try to protect him from his own stupidity.
“but presumably such a person is choosing to be unsafe for his own purposes. I don’t think we need to blame police officers who politely try to protect him from his own stupidity”
Great, now do Stop Oil protesters on roads.
Suddenly, police will protect people from their own stupidity – with great enthusiasm.