Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[The Brain]

It isn't the first time we've seen something like this happen. I've seen it first hand myself when the far right are given the right to do their thing the anti-fascists are cordoned off from them. This doesn't mean the fascists are regarded as being right. Its just the police doing their job and trying to minimise trouble.
This particular case was bad because of the horrible clumsy language the cop used, not because he wanted to keep a guy in a kippah away from a march where some people might be anti semites of some form (though you also get Jews in such protests too) and looking for someone to lash out at.

Is it common for the police to keep anti-fascists of some ethnicities or religions cordoned off while letting other anti-fascists interact with the fascists?

You're insinuating if a black guy had come along with a sign saying "Support Israel! Destroy Hamas!" the police wouldn't have stopped him too?

I didn't see anything about such a sign in the article. Source?

[Josquius]

It isn't the first time we've seen something like this happen. I've seen it first hand myself when the far right are given the right to do their thing the anti-fascists are cordoned off from them. This doesn't mean the fascists are regarded as being right. Its just the police doing their job and trying to minimise trouble.
This particular case was bad because of the horrible clumsy language the cop used, not because he wanted to keep a guy in a kippah away from a march where some people might be anti semites of some form (though you also get Jews in such protests too) and looking for someone to lash out at.

Is it common for the police to keep anti-fascists of some ethnicities or religions cordoned off while letting other anti-fascists interact with the fascists?

You're insinuating if a black guy had come along with a sign saying "Support Israel! Destroy Hamas!" the police wouldn't have stopped him too?

I didn't see anything about such a sign in the article. Source?

What are you talking about?
There was no black guy with a sign. Its how we could test your hypothesis however.

[The Brain]

It isn't the first time we've seen something like this happen. I've seen it first hand myself when the far right are given the right to do their thing the anti-fascists are cordoned off from them. This doesn't mean the fascists are regarded as being right. Its just the police doing their job and trying to minimise trouble.
This particular case was bad because of the horrible clumsy language the cop used, not because he wanted to keep a guy in a kippah away from a march where some people might be anti semites of some form (though you also get Jews in such protests too) and looking for someone to lash out at.

Is it common for the police to keep anti-fascists of some ethnicities or religions cordoned off while letting other anti-fascists interact with the fascists?

You're insinuating if a black guy had come along with a sign saying "Support Israel! Destroy Hamas!" the police wouldn't have stopped him too?

I didn't see anything about such a sign in the article. Source?

What are you talking about?
There was no black guy with a sign. Its how we could test your hypothesis however.

If the Jewish guy wasn't holding such a sign then your comment makes no sense. Did he hold such a sign or didn't he?

[Josquius]

If the Jewish guy wasn't holding such a sign then your comment makes no sense. Did he hold such a sign or didn't he?

Don't play Raz.

OK then. Forget the sign. The black guy (lets assume he's 100% non-Jewish in any way) is wearing a kippah. 
Do you think he wouldn't be stopped?

[The Brain]

If the Jewish guy wasn't holding such a sign then your comment makes no sense. Did he hold such a sign or didn't he?

Don't play Raz.

OK then. Forget the sign. The black guy (lets assume he's 100% non-Jewish in any way) is wearing a kippah. 
Do you think he wouldn't be stopped?

Their problem with the guy was that he was 'openly Jewish', not the color of his skin. If a non-Jew dressed up as a Jew the police stopping him for being 'openly Jewish' or not would I think be decided by how convincingly it was done. I don't think they would tell a guy with a kippah who they don't think is actually Jewish that he was 'openly Jewish', they may in that case think instead that it's some kind of "blackface" situation, which may or may not make them stop him for that. My guess is that the police would be less likely to consider Jewish a guy who looks say East Asian or Black, nevermind that Jews come in all colors.

[Sheilbh]

The Guardian felt necessary to explain what appears to be the dubious political motivations behind the organisation doing the "you are too visibly Jewish with that kippa" thing at one of the so-called Pro-Palestinian marches:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2024/apr/26/who-is-the-caa-gideon-falter-met-police-openly-jewish-antisemitism-row

More importantly they felt that by giving more context via the longer-length video to the incident with the police officer, they shed a different light on it:

A longer version of the clip released later shows the officer explaining to Falter that his approach was informed by the knowledge he had already deliberately walked out into the middle of the march and was therefore "looking to try and antagonise this".

John Mann, the government's antisemitism tsar, said Falter had been "quite explicit" about his intentions at the protest. "There's no ambiguity in what he's doing," he told the BBC, saying he had been blocked by the CAA on the social media platform X and they were "not playing it straight".

Well, excuse me, sure he was trying to provoke a negative response to his Jewish identity but if he managed to do that, that would have revealed the true nature of the protest. If it was a "pro-Palestine" and not, in fact, an anti-Jewish march, then a Jewish man among the protesters -even without some protest sign making clear the side he is on- surely would had provoked no incident?

What has been revealed, as the bare minimum, is that the authorities considered that an anti-semitic march. Whether they were right or wrong they did not give that guy a chance to find out.

I've ended up with a painfully nuanced take on this have seen the videos emerge over tie and so on.

It's absolutely unacceptable to use the phrase "openly Jewish" and the police need to act on. Also we need (not just the police, but society at large) to make far more of the fact that being Jewish is never a provocation. It has always been a disgrace (though not unique to the UK in Europe) that Jewish places of worship, schools and cultural centres require extra police protection.

At the same time, I think in the longer video the police officer's broad position is actually right. This guy is filming content and wants to walk through (and against) the march in order to cross the road - or more accurately he wants to provoke a response to create content (and would then rely on the police to get involved). As the police officer points out he's seen him do it several times so the argument that he just wants to "cross the road" is disingenuous, he wants to generate content. The police officer also pointed that if he wanted to cross the road, then there was a police crossing point for pedestrians just 100 metres up the road and the police officer offered to walk him there.

And I think the role of the police is slightly difficult with protests and it is about balancing rights. It is absolutely right that people are able to protest on Palestine and the police protect that right; it would also be absolutely right for there to be counter-protesters and it would be for the police to place those groups in different areas to make sure that it doesn't escalate. That's not what's happened but, similarly, while people have a right to protest other people have a right to go about their lives doing what they want to do (though I have less sympathy for someone trying to provoke something to generate content) - and I think the police need to support that as long as it's not disruptive or likely to cause a risk to public order.

I think broadly the Met have actually got the balance right. The protests are happening, there are incidents of anti-semitism or criminal extremism on display, but instead of wading into a protest of 100,000+ to arrest those people the police are letting the protest carry on and then arresting them in the subsequent week. Similarly I think the police officer in this instance broadly got it right.

Having said all that I think it is a challenge for the protests in general. I said this right at the start that there were slogans and groups involved that were anti-semitic or perceived as anti-semitic and that was unacceptable. I think it is broadly groups, but I think it is very problematic the extent to which some of these slogans and lines, like "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" have entered the mainstream. I think it is difficult to talk, as some on the left do about these wonderful, peaceful open tolerant protests if ultimately the police are having to make calls about what might cause disorder. And ultimately it's not for the police to maintain firewalls against unacceptable extremists in protests movements or political parties - that's on them.

I still think there has been a weird inconsistency with the policing of protest and crowds by the Met - but, in general, I think they're getting this right in striking the balance between allowing the right to protest, preventing public disorder/things degenerating and also arresting people committing crimes on these marches (but after the march).

[Josquius]

If the Jewish guy wasn't holding such a sign then your comment makes no sense. Did he hold such a sign or didn't he?

Don't play Raz.

OK then. Forget the sign. The black guy (lets assume he's 100% non-Jewish in any way) is wearing a kippah. 
Do you think he wouldn't be stopped?

Their problem with the guy was that he was 'openly Jewish', not the color of his skin. If a non-Jew dressed up as a Jew the police stopping him for being 'openly Jewish' or not would I think be decided by how convincingly it was done. I don't think they would tell a guy with a kippah who they don't think is actually Jewish that he was 'openly Jewish', they may in that case think instead that it's some kind of "blackface" situation, which may or may not make them stop him for that. My guess is that the police would be less likely to consider Jewish a guy who looks say East Asian or Black, nevermind that Jews come in all colors.

If the cop thought the guy clearly wasn't Jewish (lets say he thinks black Jews are impossible) but was dressed that way I'd think his reaction would be even stronger- it'd make for far more of a case that he was just there to antagonise and stir trouble rather than the claims of the actual guy that he was just going about his regular business (which he wasn't).

[Sheilbh]

On policing interesting IFS paper flagged by John Burn-Murdoch, which feels like a useful example of 90% of policy in the UK in the last 15 years.

As part of austerity 70% of police stations in London were closed. This was also part of Cressida Dick's move to a more "US-style" policing of police in cars and vans responding.

Anyway the paper shows that violent and serious crime increased in areas near the closed stations, there were lower deterrence and clearance rates (the two things the police are supposed to do) and reduced reporting of non-violent crimes. This disproportionately affected the poor.

In addition, the policy provided a short term cost-saving from closing stations. But in order to fix the problems above (and just get back to where you were before the closures) they estimate you'd need to hire about 15-20,000 more police which would be significantly more expensive.

It's long Osborne. Cut the easy spending, only to cause negative consequences that will be far more expensive to fix than the initial saving.

[Josquius]

On policing interesting IFS paper flagged by John Burn-Murdoch, which feels like a useful example of 90% of policy in the UK in the last 15 years.

As part of austerity 70% of police stations in London were closed. This was also part of Cressida Dick's move to a more "US-style" policing of police in cars and vans responding.

Anyway the paper shows that violent and serious crime increased in areas near the closed stations, there were lower deterrence and clearance rates (the two things the police are supposed to do) and reduced reporting of non-violent crimes. This disproportionately affected the poor.

In addition, the policy provided a short term cost-saving from closing stations. But in order to fix the problems above (and just get back to where you were before the closures) they estimate you'd need to hire about 15-20,000 more police which would be significantly more expensive.

It's long Osborne. Cut the easy spending, only to cause negative consequences that will be far more expensive to fix than the initial saving.

And when its another party in government's problem/can be blamed on local government

[Tamas]

And I think the role of the police is slightly difficult with protests and it is about balancing rights. It is absolutely right that people are able to protest on Palestine and the police protect that right; it would also be absolutely right for there to be counter-protesters and it would be for the police to place those groups in different areas to make sure that it doesn't escalate. That's not what's happened but, similarly, while people have a right to protest other people have a right to go about their lives doing what they want to do (though I have less sympathy for someone trying to provoke something to generate content) - and I think the police need to support that as long as it's not disruptive or likely to cause a risk to public order.

Isn't that pretty much the definition of protest? Most protests, at least?

More importantly, in this case, the very point of the Jewish guy's counter-protest was to test whether the crowd can tolerate a Jewish person in their ranks. Of course he and his fellows would had filmed it if something happened, what's the point of being abused/beaten up to prove a point if you can't prove it?

[Sheilbh]

Isn't that pretty much the definition of protest? Most protests, at least?

No, not at all. I think that describes almot zero protests.

More importantly, in this case, the very point of the Jewish guy's counter-protest was to test whether the crowd can tolerate a Jewish person in their ranks. Of course he and his fellows would had filmed it if something happened, what's the point of being abused/beaten up to prove a point if you can't prove it?

Right but this is the disingenuousness.

If you want to do a counter-protest you don't get to march through the protest you're protesting. The police should ensure that protests and counter-protests can happen - but also that there won't be any public order issues which normally means keeping them apart.

I also don't think that's what he was doing. Josh Glancy who writes for the Times and the Jewish Chronicle went to one of these marches at one point and walked through it with kippah and a Star of David chain on his neck again walking against the direction of the crowd. He was able to do that, no-one in the police tried to stop him, and he wrote an article about it - and basically he felt uncomfortable at points but never unsafe.

There is a difference between that and repeatedly walking through a march (as the police officer had observed him doing) to film content to prove a point. You have a right to protest and to counter-protest, you don't have a right to walk through a protest screaming "DEBATE ME" to generate an edited clip for your socials.

I basically agree with the Community Security Trust statement on this. But I don't think that the right to protest doesn't have a time limit and as long as thousands and thousands turn up they should be able to protest (I think this is partly why, say Just Stop Oil annoys me - because they want to cause the disruption of a mass movement, except it's just seven friends from Harrow) - but the protesters should be making sure there's a firewall against anti-semitism and I don't think they are, but that's on them and shouldn't be an issue for the law:

[Josquius]

The trouble with the talk of a firewall against anti semitism, as great as it sounds in theory, when you think about it in detail raises lots of questions.
The very definition of anti semitism is under attack at the moment with loads of attempts to paint any criticism of Israel as anti semitic, then there's the varying interpretations of Palestine will be free....

I can't see an absolute zero tolerance on anti semitism being practical as if manage to get rid of the nuts screaming death to the Jews the opposition groups will just find something else to insist is anti semitism.

I'd hope there'd come a level where what they're doing would be recognised and disregarded, but I don't rate the chances. And the practicalities of even getting to that point.... It'd be tough.

I suppose it is better to say you have zero tolerance on anti semitism but obviously be fighting a doomed battle to enforce that to the satisfaction of some as opposed to saying nothing on the topic. Getting rid of the most overt examples would be a win all round even if some wouldn't recognise it.
But still. They're in a tough place.