Man in London Threatened with Arrest for WWOJ

 

Walking While Openly Jewish.

According to The Telegraph:

Scotland Yard has suggested the presence of “openly Jewish” people near pro-Palestinian marches is “provocative”, after a man wearing a kippah was threatened with arrest for “antagonizing” protesters.

Let’s get all the foofaroo out of the way to start with, lest I be accused by anyone here of hiding the facts or jew-washing the situation:

The Jew in question, Gideon Falter, is a well-known activist and CEO of the group Campaign Against Antisemitism. He’s been in the UK news many times over the past several years, probably most recently for writing about the extremist views of the recently (re)elected George Galloway, notable bigot and anti-Semite, to a seat as the Member of Parliament for Rochdale, Greater Manchester, the site of 0ne of the most infamous teenage-girl abuse sex rings (almost exclusively the provenance of Pakistani Muslim men) in the United Kingdom to date.  (Many other cities, including Rotherham, Telford, Leicester, Birmingham and Bradford, are vying for the top spot in this regard.  Apparently figuring out the win-place-show order is hard.  Stay tuned.)

So Gideon Falter is a flat-out, known, Jewish activist.

Hold that thought.

Today, Gideon Falter, wearing his kippah and carrying his prayer shawl, was pulled aside by a member of London’s Metropolitan Police (don’t get me started, they’ve their own set of–yuuuge–problems that has less to do with Jewishness and more to do with sex) as he was about to walk through an area in which pro-Palestinian protestors were doing their thing and blocking the street.  (To be clear, it’s probably more difficult to find areas in London these days where such things are not happening.  And if you’re so naïve as to believe that all this unrest is grass-roots and organic, you might want to look here: https://www.a15action.com/.  Clearly, there’s a plan.  And it doesn’t include people like Gideon Falter.)

Here’s Mr. Falter’s encounter with the cop (emphasis mine):

Metropolitan police officer: …and at the moment, Sir, YOU ARE QUITE OPENLY JEWISH, and this is a pro-Palestinian march…and I am worried about the reaction to your presence.

Shortly thereafter, Falter was threatened with arrest:

Falter: [questioning, in response to remarks from police] If I remain here, you will arrest me?

Metropolitan police officer: Because your presence here is antagonizing [unclear] and we can’t deal with all of them if they attack you….”

Oddly, what sprang immediately to my mind were the ads, many decades ago, for Hefty garbage bags.

Hefty, Hefty, Hefty….

Wimpy, Wimpy, Wimpy…

“Don’t send a Wimpy bag to do a Hefty job….”

PS: On a brighter note, a British judge has told the selfsame Metropolitan Police that it cannot stop a dissident from waving a sign branding members of Hamas as terrorists (which is the official UK government position) at pro-Palestinian protests.  Telegraph article is here.  The guy waving the sign has already been arrested three times for doing so, and was in danger of being banned from going anywhere near any demonstrations in London related to Israel or Gaza.  (As noted above, staying out of the orbit of such things is increasingly hard to accomplish.)

Police attempts to impose prohibitive bail conditions on Mr. Ghorbani, or of preventing him from standing other than anywhere he’s instructed to, have been thrown out.

Glory be.

PPS:  Katherine Birbalsingh–you go, girl! Maybe there is hope after all.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 38 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. She Member
    She
    @She

    Can you imagine–in the UK–a person being arrested in the vicinity of a march in support of JK Rowling’s views on biological sex for WWOT, because its presentation might be triggering or offensive to the protestors?

    No, I can’t either.

    • #1
  2. TBA, sometimes known as 'Teebs'. Coolidge
    TBA, sometimes known as 'Teebs'.
    @RobtGilsdorf

    I have come to realize that no country on earth favors freedom of speech – indeed freedom of most anything – in quite the stark terms the US does. 

    However; while I am disturbed by the Britcops detaining/arresting a person for ‘being openly Jewish’, and I freely admit that their motivation is to make things easier on themselves by decreasing the risk of a violent response from the happy, peaceful, perfectly anglisised protestors, it might be a reasonable police function to prevent someone from walking into an ass-kicking and potential killing. 

    • #2
  3. She Member
    She
    @She

    TBA, sometimes known as 'Teebs… (View Comment):

    I have come to realize that no country on earth favors freedom of speech – indeed freedom of most anything – in quite the stark terms the US does.

    However; while I am disturbed by the Britcops detaining/arresting a person for ‘being openly Jewish’, and I freely admit that their motivation is to make things easier on themselves by decreasing the risk of a violent response from the happy, peaceful, perfectly anglisised protestors, it might be a reasonable police function to prevent someone from walking into an ass-kicking and potential killing.

    I’d agree with that, while bemoaning the fact that that those in charge are powerless to prevent such a thing, at the same time I wonder what that might mean for the future.

    • #3
  4. David Foster Member
    David Foster
    @DavidFoster

    TBA, sometimes known as 'Teebs… (View Comment):
    it might be a reasonable police function to prevent someone from walking into an ass-kicking and potential killing

    Only if the simultaneously call for backup to arrest the threat-makers…or have previously done so.

    • #4
  5. TBA, sometimes known as 'Teebs'. Coolidge
    TBA, sometimes known as 'Teebs'.
    @RobtGilsdorf

    David Foster (View Comment):

    TBA, sometimes known as ‘Teebs… (View Comment):
    it might be a reasonable police function to prevent someone from walking into an ass-kicking and potential killing

    Only if the simultaneously call for backup to arrest the threat-makers…or have previously done so.

    In an ideal world the protesters would live in a country more suited to their particular preferences. 

    Once the police are stuck with balancing the rights of the scumbag protestors against the rights of the agitator against the requirement to keep order against how much blowback they will personally and individually suffer if there is a riot…well, I wouldn’t do their job for three times their pay. 

    • #5
  6. She Member
    She
    @She

    TBA, sometimes known as 'Teebs… (View Comment):

    David Foster (View Comment):

    TBA, sometimes known as ‘Teebs… (View Comment):
    it might be a reasonable police function to prevent someone from walking into an ass-kicking and potential killing

    Only if the simultaneously call for backup to arrest the threat-makers…or have previously done so.

    In an ideal world the protesters would live in a country more suited to their particular preferences.

    Once the police are stuck with balancing the rights of the scumbag protestors against the rights of the agitator against the requirement to keep order against how much blowback they will personally and individually suffer if there is a riot…well, I wouldn’t do their job for three times their pay.

    Nor me.

    Nevertheless, neither of us signed up for it.  The cop on the video, however, actually did.

    • #6
  7. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Police across the west are all the same. They are arms of ze state and zey have wayz of making us comply.

     

    • #7
  8. Barfly Member
    Barfly
    @Barfly

    TBA, sometimes known as 'Teebs… (View Comment):
    However; while I am disturbed by the Britcops detaining/arresting a person for ‘being openly Jewish’, and I freely admit that their motivation is to make things easier on themselves by decreasing the risk of a violent response from the happy, peaceful, perfectly anglisised protestors, it might be a reasonable police function to prevent someone from walking into an ass-kicking and potential killing. 

    Yes. But it might be more reasonable still for the cops to prevent the kicking and killing, and harass the kickers and killers instead. This tells me London is corrupt at the top.

    • #8
  9. Doug Watt Member
    Doug Watt
    @DougWatt

    This is why you do not want a nationalized police force. Decisions for policing are made from the Home Office in London for the UK with the exception of Scotland. Scotland has their own problems with Woke enforcement of political speech.

    Basically, London is enforcing No-Go zones for Jews in London, just as they have done for pro-life citizens in the UK.

    • #9
  10. JoelB Member
    JoelB
    @JoelB

    TBA, sometimes known as ‘Teebs… (View Comment):
    I have come to realize that no country on earth favors freedom of speech – indeed freedom of most anything – in quite the stark terms the US does.

    While I don’t disagree, Mark Steyn has had some rough treatment, legally speaking, in this regard at the hands of an American court. As summarized by Peter W. Wood in The American Conservative:

    For those for whom the words “infamous verdict” and “Mark Steyn” fail to ring a bell, here is a short course. Steyn was sued by the climate “scientist” Michael Mann, who had taken umbrage twelve years ago when Steyn likened him to convicted child molester Jerry Sandusky. On February 8, a Washington, D.C., jury agreed with Mann and found Steyn and co-defendant Rand Simberg guilty of defaming Michael Mann. It was an extraordinarily odd verdict. The jury assessed “compensatory damages” of one dollar each from Steyn and Simberg—which is to say they found no real harm to Mann in his ability to make money. But the jury didn’t stop there. It added a fine of $1,000 for Simberg and a cool $1 million for Steyn for “punitive damages.” This was retribution for their supposedly making statements with “maliciousness, spite, ill will, vengeance or deliberate intent to harm.”

    • #10
  11. Barfly Member
    Barfly
    @Barfly

    Doug Watt (View Comment):

    This is why you do not want a nationalized police force. Decisions for policing are made from the Home Office in London for the UK with the exception of Scotland. Scotland has their own problems with Woke enforcement of political speech.

    Basically, London is enforcing No-Go zones for Jews in London, just as they have done for pro-life citizens in the UK.

    Just like Paris now.

    • #11
  12. Doug Watt Member
    Doug Watt
    @DougWatt

    Barfly (View Comment):

    Doug Watt (View Comment):

    This is why you do not want a nationalized police force. Decisions for policing are made from the Home Office in London for the UK with the exception of Scotland. Scotland has their own problems with Woke enforcement of political speech.

    Basically, London is enforcing No-Go zones for Jews in London, just as they have done for pro-life citizens in the UK.

    Just like Paris now.

    Paris, Belgium, Dearborn, and any number of colleges and universities in the US as well.

    • #12
  13. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Doug Watt (View Comment):

    This is why you do not want a nationalized police force. Decisions for policing are made from the Home Office in London for the UK with the exception of Scotland. Scotland has their own problems with Woke enforcement of political speech.

    Basically, London is enforcing No-Go zones for Jews in London, just as they have done for pro-life citizens in the UK.

    Another reason not to trust police in general.

    Oh I know if we don’t trust the police we might as well be in the black lives matter crowd. But the fact is constant police behavior. That is like this is a perfectly good reason to not trust the police. 

    The fact of the matter is police across this country are more interested in peace than they are an enforcement of the law. 

    It’s funny there’s a Knight Rider episode that addresses this.

    • #13
  14. Dotorimuk Coolidge
    Dotorimuk
    @Dotorimuk

    Barfly (View Comment):

    TBA, sometimes known as ‘Teebs… (View Comment):
    However; while I am disturbed by the Britcops detaining/arresting a person for ‘being openly Jewish’, and I freely admit that their motivation is to make things easier on themselves by decreasing the risk of a violent response from the happy, peaceful, perfectly anglisised protestors, it might be a reasonable police function to prevent someone from walking into an ass-kicking and potential killing.

    Yes. But it might be more reasonable still for the cops to prevent the kicking and killing, and harass the kickers and killers instead. This tells me London is corrupt at the top.

    Isn’t the mayor a muslim?

    • #14
  15. Jim McConnell Member
    Jim McConnell
    @JimMcConnell

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Doug Watt (View Comment):

    This is why you do not want a nationalized police force. Decisions for policing are made from the Home Office in London for the UK with the exception of Scotland. Scotland has their own problems with Woke enforcement of political speech.

    Basically, London is enforcing No-Go zones for Jews in London, just as they have done for pro-life citizens in the UK.

    Another reason not to trust police in general.

    Oh I know if we don’t trust the police we might as well be in the black lives matter crowd. But the fact is constant police behavior. That is like this is a perfectly good reason to not trust the police.

    The fact of the matter is police across this country are more interested in peace than they are an enforcement of the law.

    It’s funny there’s a Knight Rider episode that addresses this.

    Bryan, with regard to the police, you always appear to me as someone who once got a speeding ticket and is still peeved about it.

    Edit: to correct a typo.

    • #15
  16. Jim McConnell Member
    Jim McConnell
    @JimMcConnell

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Doug Watt (View Comment):

    This is why you do not want a nationalized police force. Decisions for policing are made from the Home Office in London for the UK with the exception of Scotland. Scotland has their own problems with Woke enforcement of political speech.

    Basically, London is enforcing No-Go zones for Jews in London, just as they have done for pro-life citizens in the UK.

    Another reason not to trust police in general.

    Oh I know if we don’t trust the police we might as well be in the black lives matter crowd. But the fact is constant police behavior. That is like this is a perfectly good reason to not trust the police.

    The fact of the matter is police across this country are more interested in peace than they are an enforcement of the law.

    It’s funny there’s a Knight Rider episode that addresses this.

    Bryan, with regard to the police, you always seem to come across a someone who once got a speeding ticket and is still peeved about it.

    • #16
  17. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Jim McConnell (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Doug Watt (View Comment):

    This is why you do not want a nationalized police force. Decisions for policing are made from the Home Office in London for the UK with the exception of Scotland. Scotland has their own problems with Woke enforcement of political speech.

    Basically, London is enforcing No-Go zones for Jews in London, just as they have done for pro-life citizens in the UK.

    Another reason not to trust police in general.

    Oh I know if we don’t trust the police we might as well be in the black lives matter crowd. But the fact is constant police behavior. That is like this is a perfectly good reason to not trust the police.

    The fact of the matter is police across this country are more interested in peace than they are an enforcement of the law.

    It’s funny there’s a Knight Rider episode that addresses this.

    Bryan, with regard to the police, you always seem to come across a someone who once got a speeding ticket and is still peeved about it.

    I didn’t get a ticket. I had done nothing wrong. I was stopped for no reason on a fishing expedition because I swerved to avoid a semi truck.

    I did nothing wrong and he was fishing. 

     

    • #17
  18. She Member
    She
    @She

    Dotorimuk (View Comment):

    Barfly (View Comment):

    TBA, sometimes known as ‘Teebs… (View Comment):
    However; while I am disturbed by the Britcops detaining/arresting a person for ‘being openly Jewish’, and I freely admit that their motivation is to make things easier on themselves by decreasing the risk of a violent response from the happy, peaceful, perfectly anglisised protestors, it might be a reasonable police function to prevent someone from walking into an ass-kicking and potential killing.

    Yes. But it might be more reasonable still for the cops to prevent the kicking and killing, and harass the kickers and killers instead. This tells me London is corrupt at the top.

    Isn’t the mayor a muslim?

    Yes  

     

    • #18
  19. She Member
    She
    @She

    Good grief.  Via GBNews:

    The Met’s first apology, which was for the officer’s remark to Gideon Falter that he was “quite openly Jewish,” but which also included language that opponents who turn up at pro-Palestine marches “must know that their presence is provocative,” and they are “increasing the likelihood of an altercation,” has been deleted, with a second statement apologizing for the “further offence” that the first apology caused.

    The new apology (third time’s a charm!) says (emphasis mine):

    The use of the term ‘openly Jewish’ by one of our officers is hugely regrettable. We know it will have caused offence to many. We reiterate our apology.

    We have reflected on the strength of the response to our previous statement.

    In an effort to make a point about the policing of protest we caused further offence. This was never our intention. We have removed that statement and we apologise.

    Being Jewish is not a provocation. Jewish Londoners must be able to feel safe in this city.

    Our commitment to protecting the public extends to all communities across London. It’s important that our public statements reflect that more clearly than they did today.

    I don’t think Monty Python at their best could do justice to these clowns.

    • #19
  20. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    She (View Comment):

    Good grief. Via GBNews:

    The Met’s first apology, which was for the officer’s remark to Gideon Falter that he was “quite openly Jewish,” but which also included language that opponents who turn up at pro-Palestine marches “must know that their presence is provocative,” and they are “increasing the likelihood of an altercation,” has been deleted, with a second statement apologizing for the “further offence” that the first apology caused.

    The new apology (third time’s a charm!) says (emphasis mine):

    The use of the term ‘openly Jewish’ by one of our officers is hugely regrettable. We know it will have caused offence to many. We reiterate our apology.

    We have reflected on the strength of the response to our previous statement.

    In an effort to make a point about the policing of protest we caused further offence. This was never our intention. We have removed that statement and we apologise.

    Being Jewish is not a provocation. Jewish Londoners must be able to feel safe in this city.

    Our commitment to protecting the public extends to all communities across London. It’s important that our public statements reflect that more clearly than they did today.

    I don’t think Monty Python at their best could do justice to these clowns.

    The police are interested only in what makes their lives easier. Harrisng Jews is quite safe. Ignoring rapes of underage girls is quite safe.

    This is law enforcement in the West. 

    • #20
  21. Macho Grande' Coolidge
    Macho Grande'
    @ChrisCampion

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Jim McConnell (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Doug Watt (View Comment):

    This is why you do not want a nationalized police force. Decisions for policing are made from the Home Office in London for the UK with the exception of Scotland. Scotland has their own problems with Woke enforcement of political speech.

    Basically, London is enforcing No-Go zones for Jews in London, just as they have done for pro-life citizens in the UK.

    Another reason not to trust police in general.

    Oh I know if we don’t trust the police we might as well be in the black lives matter crowd. But the fact is constant police behavior. That is like this is a perfectly good reason to not trust the police.

    The fact of the matter is police across this country are more interested in peace than they are an enforcement of the law.

    It’s funny there’s a Knight Rider episode that addresses this.

    Bryan, with regard to the police, you always seem to come across a someone who once got a speeding ticket and is still peeved about it.

    I didn’t get a ticket. I had done nothing wrong. I was stopped for no reason on a fishing expedition because I swerved to avoid a semi truck.

    I did nothing wrong and he was fishing.

     

    LIAR!

    Prefixes | Baamboozle - Baamboozle | The Most Fun Classroom Games!

    • #21
  22. Globalitarian Misanthropist Coolidge
    Globalitarian Misanthropist
    @Flicker

    She (View Comment):

    Good grief. Via GBNews:

    The Met’s first apology, which was for the officer’s remark to Gideon Falter that he was “quite openly Jewish,” but which also included language that opponents who turn up at pro-Palestine marches “must know that their presence is provocative,” and they are “increasing the likelihood of an altercation,” has been deleted, with a second statement apologizing for the “further offence” that the first apology caused.

    The new apology (third time’s a charm!) says (emphasis mine):

    The use of the term ‘openly Jewish’ by one of our officers is hugely regrettable. We know it will have caused offence to many. We reiterate our apology.

    We have reflected on the strength of the response to our previous statement.

    In an effort to make a point about the policing of protest we caused further offence. This was never our intention. We have removed that statement and we apologise.

    Being Jewish is not a provocation. Jewish Londoners must be able to feel safe in this city.

    Our commitment to protecting the public extends to all communities across London. It’s important that our public statements reflect that more clearly than they did today.

    I don’t think Monty Python at their best could do justice to these clowns.

    Regrettably, we apologise for our third apology as it did not clearly reflect that this was consequent to offense caused by our first two apologies, and for this offense it is important that we further and more deeply express our previous regret.

    • #22
  23. She Member
    She
    @She

    Globalitarian Misanthropist (View Comment):
    Regrettably, we apologise for our third apology as it did not clearly reflect that this was consequent to offense caused by our first two apologies, and for this offense it is important that we further and more deeply express our previous regret.

    🤣🤣🤣

    • #23
  24. Paul Stinchfield Member
    Paul Stinchfield
    @PaulStinchfield

    She:

    According to The Telegraph:

    Scotland Yard has suggested the presence of “openly Jewish” people near pro-Palestinian marches is “provocative”, after a man wearing a kippah was threatened with arrest for “antagonizing” protesters.

    As Monty Python would have put it:

    “You are charged with being willfully and persistently a Jew…”

    • #24
  25. Sisyphus Member
    Sisyphus
    @Sisyphus

    Globalitarian Misanthropist (View Comment):

    She (View Comment):

    Good grief. Via GBNews:

    The Met’s first apology, which was for the officer’s remark to Gideon Falter that he was “quite openly Jewish,” but which also included language that opponents who turn up at pro-Palestine marches “must know that their presence is provocative,” and they are “increasing the likelihood of an altercation,” has been deleted, with a second statement apologizing for the “further offence” that the first apology caused.

    The new apology (third time’s a charm!) says (emphasis mine):

    The use of the term ‘openly Jewish’ by one of our officers is hugely regrettable. We know it will have caused offence to many. We reiterate our apology.

    We have reflected on the strength of the response to our previous statement.

    In an effort to make a point about the policing of protest we caused further offence. This was never our intention. We have removed that statement and we apologise.

    Being Jewish is not a provocation. Jewish Londoners must be able to feel safe in this city.

    Our commitment to protecting the public extends to all communities across London. It’s important that our public statements reflect that more clearly than they did today.

    I don’t think Monty Python at their best could do justice to these clowns.

    Regrettably, we apologise for our third apology as it did not clearly reflect that this was consequent to offense caused by our first two apologies, and for this offense it is important that we further and more deeply express our previous regret.

    Why do I here John Cleese reading this?

    • #25
  26. Dotorimuk Coolidge
    Dotorimuk
    @Dotorimuk

    Globalitarian Misanthropist (View Comment):

    She (View Comment):

    Good grief. Via GBNews:

    The Met’s first apology, which was for the officer’s remark to Gideon Falter that he was “quite openly Jewish,” but which also included language that opponents who turn up at pro-Palestine marches “must know that their presence is provocative,” and they are “increasing the likelihood of an altercation,” has been deleted, with a second statement apologizing for the “further offence” that the first apology caused.

    The new apology (third time’s a charm!) says (emphasis mine):

    The use of the term ‘openly Jewish’ by one of our officers is hugely regrettable. We know it will have caused offence to many. We reiterate our apology.

    We have reflected on the strength of the response to our previous statement.

    In an effort to make a point about the policing of protest we caused further offence. This was never our intention. We have removed that statement and we apologise.

    Being Jewish is not a provocation. Jewish Londoners must be able to feel safe in this city.

    Our commitment to protecting the public extends to all communities across London. It’s important that our public statements reflect that more clearly than they did today.

    I don’t think Monty Python at their best could do justice to these clowns.

    Regrettably, we apologise for our third apology as it did not clearly reflect that this was consequent to offense caused by our first two apologies, and for this offense it is important that we further and more deeply express our previous regret.

    Those responsible have been sacked.

    • #26
  27. Sisyphus Member
    Sisyphus
    @Sisyphus

    Dotorimuk (View Comment):

    Globalitarian Misanthropist (View Comment):

    She (View Comment):

    Good grief. Via GBNews:

    The Met’s first apology, which was for the officer’s remark to Gideon Falter that he was “quite openly Jewish,” but which also included language that opponents who turn up at pro-Palestine marches “must know that their presence is provocative,” and they are “increasing the likelihood of an altercation,” has been deleted, with a second statement apologizing for the “further offence” that the first apology caused.

    The new apology (third time’s a charm!) says (emphasis mine):

    The use of the term ‘openly Jewish’ by one of our officers is hugely regrettable. We know it will have caused offence to many. We reiterate our apology.

    We have reflected on the strength of the response to our previous statement.

    In an effort to make a point about the policing of protest we caused further offence. This was never our intention. We have removed that statement and we apologise.

    Being Jewish is not a provocation. Jewish Londoners must be able to feel safe in this city.

    Our commitment to protecting the public extends to all communities across London. It’s important that our public statements reflect that more clearly than they did today.

    I don’t think Monty Python at their best could do justice to these clowns.

    Regrettably, we apologise for our third apology as it did not clearly reflect that this was consequent to offense caused by our first two apologies, and for this offense it is important that we further and more deeply express our previous regret.

    Those responsible have been sacked.

    Those responsible for sacking those responsible have been sacked.

    • #27
  28. Paul Stinchfield Member
    Paul Stinchfield
    @PaulStinchfield

    Sisyphus (View Comment):

    Dotorimuk (View Comment):

    Globalitarian Misanthropist (View Comment):

    She (View Comment):

    Good grief. Via GBNews:

    The Met’s first apology, which was for the officer’s remark to Gideon Falter that he was “quite openly Jewish,” but which also included language that opponents who turn up at pro-Palestine marches “must know that their presence is provocative,” and they are “increasing the likelihood of an altercation,” has been deleted, with a second statement apologizing for the “further offence” that the first apology caused.

    The new apology (third time’s a charm!) says (emphasis mine):

    The use of the term ‘openly Jewish’ by one of our officers is hugely regrettable. We know it will have caused offence to many. We reiterate our apology.

    We have reflected on the strength of the response to our previous statement.

    In an effort to make a point about the policing of protest we caused further offence. This was never our intention. We have removed that statement and we apologise.

    Being Jewish is not a provocation. Jewish Londoners must be able to feel safe in this city.

    Our commitment to protecting the public extends to all communities across London. It’s important that our public statements reflect that more clearly than they did today.

    I don’t think Monty Python at their best could do justice to these clowns.

    Regrettably, we apologise for our third apology as it did not clearly reflect that this was consequent to offense caused by our first two apologies, and for this offense it is important that we further and more deeply express our previous regret.

    Those responsible have been sacked.

    Those responsible for sacking those responsible have been sacked.

    I eagerly await news that the officials responsible have been bitten by a møøse.

    • #28
  29. Paul Stinchfield Member
    Paul Stinchfield
    @PaulStinchfield

    Remember Inspector Gadget and PC David Copperfield, British police officers who blogged anonymously about the screwed-up state of British policing?

    • #29
  30. She Member
    She
    @She

    Sisyphus (View Comment):

    Globalitarian Misanthropist (View Comment):

    She (View Comment):

    Good grief. Via GBNews:

    The Met’s first apology, which was for the officer’s remark to Gideon Falter that he was “quite openly Jewish,” but which also included language that opponents who turn up at pro-Palestine marches “must know that their presence is provocative,” and they are “increasing the likelihood of an altercation,” has been deleted, with a second statement apologizing for the “further offence” that the first apology caused.

    The new apology (third time’s a charm!) says (emphasis mine):

    The use of the term ‘openly Jewish’ by one of our officers is hugely regrettable. We know it will have caused offence to many. We reiterate our apology.

    We have reflected on the strength of the response to our previous statement.

    In an effort to make a point about the policing of protest we caused further offence. This was never our intention. We have removed that statement and we apologise.

    Being Jewish is not a provocation. Jewish Londoners must be able to feel safe in this city.

    Our commitment to protecting the public extends to all communities across London. It’s important that our public statements reflect that more clearly than they did today.

    I don’t think Monty Python at their best could do justice to these clowns.

    Regrettably, we apologise for our third apology as it did not clearly reflect that this was consequent to offense caused by our first two apologies, and for this offense it is important that we further and more deeply express our previous regret.

    Why do I here John Cleese reading this?

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.