Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Meanwhile, it appears that the police have been rather less eager to deal with questions raised by Baroness Lawrence regarding her son's murder and identification of a sixth suspect, despite assurances they would do so.

DAC Matt Ward was in charge of answering her questions:

On 16 November, Mr Ward wrote saying he should have an update in a week.

In January, following further letters on behalf of Baroness Lawrence, Mr Ward accepted he had failed to provide a response, blaming other commitments.

"I can offer no further consolation other than my professional embarrassment and personal regret," he wrote. There was then no further communication.

Mark Rowley had this to say:

Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley apologised and told the BBC "on top of the failures over the decades this is totally unacceptable".

"We recognise this is a particularly difficult time for the Lawrence family and Duwayne Brooks. I am sorry our failure to respond in a timely fashion has added to this.

"On top of the failures over the decades this is totally unacceptable.

"Restoring trust in the Met is one of my top priorities and that includes how we work with those affected by the failures of the past.

"I apologise to Baroness Lawrence who must have answers to all her questions. I have written to her and offered to meet."

Once again, we see the following:

1. An apology, and then nothing. Because like a spoiled teenager, "I'm sorr-reeee, okay?" is apparently enough.
2. "This is unacceptable", followed by nothing. If it's not acceptable, fucking do something about it!
3. The offer for a face to face meeting. Why, so she can see your bullshit face, Rowley?

Fucking wankers.

Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2024 10:54 am An innocent passer-by who had in his entourage three bodyguards, a film crew and a photographer.

'Innocent...'

(Braverman apparently said that she didn't need to see the whole video, she had already made her mind up...)

Basically hoping to engineer a confrontation so that he can either sue or play the victim card. Straight out of the Westbrook Baptist Church playbook.

It's pretty standard for Police to keep different people apart when there are protests if they think there's going to be a problem. The officer obviously thought that here with this situation. He'd have been better not giving a reason like "visibly Jewish", mind.

The phase he used was actually "openly Jewish". A rather curious choice of words, implying that Jewish ethnicity is something that really ought to be concealed - which is quite offensive.

I think that "identifiably Jewish" would have been less offensive in the context.

Unless by 'openly Jewish' he meant 'making a proper meal of it to get a reaction you can film for your own purposes'.

There's no universe in which the phrase openly Jewish isn't jaw-droppingly offensive.

I'm decidedly un-jaw-dropped. It's not the most felicitious phrasing, but in the specific context it makes a lot of sense: demonstrably Jewish at a march full of people who sadly don't need any encouragement to react badly to such signs. I don't think I'm catastrophically bigoted for being a bit bemused.

From the transcript I read it sounds like the police officer was marshalling things according to the standard logic of such events and used less-than-ideal phrasing, and the chap was rightly angry at being called 'scum', and likely rightly angry at a lot of things (just as some of the protestors likely were too, for fuck's sake), and also deliberately bending the point to make a point.

Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2024 2:32 pm Unless by 'openly Jewish' he meant 'making a proper meal of it to get a reaction you can film for your own purposes'.

Do you think he would have told a Muslim woman to remove her Hijab because she might provoke a Britain First march?
Are people who are "openly gay" attempting to provoke a breach of the peace?
How about "openly disabled"?
"Openly black"?
"Openly Left Wing"?
I think those suspected of being potential perpetrators of violence are the problem, not their potential victims.

He wasn't doing a full John McClane in Harlem*.

If people saw him and the way he was dressed and responded with insults or threats, that's on them. Also, it doesn't really support the idea, that pro-Palestine/Ceasefire demonstrators are keen to stress, that Jewish people in general =/= Netanyahu's current government in Israel. After all, people were targeted on a horrendous scale within living memory for being "openly Jewish".

*Die Hard 3. It's only 29 years old.

RedSparrows wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2024 3:14 pm I'm decidedly un-jaw-dropped. It's not the most felicitious phrasing, but in the specific context it makes a lot of sense: demonstrably Jewish at a march full of people who sadly don't need any encouragement to react badly to such signs. I don't think I'm catastrophically bigoted for being a bit bemused.

From the transcript I read it sounds like the police officer was marshalling things according to the standard logic of such events and used less-than-ideal phrasing, and the chap was rightly angry at being called 'scum', and likely rightly angry at a lot of things (just as some of the protestors likely were too, for fuck's sake), and also deliberately bending the point to make a point.

Well, yes. You are correct that the police officer was simply attempting to keep everybody safe, as is the brief of all those involved in policing such public demos. But that adverb, “openly” is a real problem. Oboogie has rather put his finger on it (oo-err).

Also problematic is the indubitable fact that significant numbers of the people marching for Palestine are themselves jewish. One can only presume not “openly” so.

Andy McDandy wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2024 3:59 pm He wasn't doing a full John McClane in Harlem*.

If people saw him and the way he was dressed and responded with insults or threats, that's on them. Also, it doesn't really support the idea, that pro-Palestine/Ceasefire demonstrators are keen to stress, that Jewish people in general =/= Netanyahu's current government in Israel. After all, people were targeted on a horrendous scale within living memory for being "openly Jewish".

*Die Hard 3. It's only 29 years old.

I'd be interested hear from the most definitely not at all racist people surrounding him whilst he was talking to the copper, why they were chanting "scum" and "shame on you" at him? Did they think he was a member of the Knesset? Perhaps they mistook his Kippah for an Israeli Airforce cap?
Unfortunately the copper was too busy telling the Jewish man to conceal his Jewishness for his own safety to ask them.

Oboogie wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2024 3:26 pm

Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2024 2:32 pm Unless by 'openly Jewish' he meant 'making a proper meal of it to get a reaction you can film for your own purposes'.

Do you think he would have told a Muslim woman to remove her Hijab because she might provoke a Britain First march?
Are people who are "openly gay" attempting to provoke a breach of the peace?
How about "openly disabled"?
"Openly black"?
"Openly Left Wing"?
I think those suspected of being potential perpetrators of violence are the problem, not their potential victims.

Police keep groups and people apart all the time because they see a risk of breach of the peace. That includes with black left wingers when the EDL are in town. Reckon they'd have let Diane Abbott walk into the middle of the Cenotaph Tommy crowd?

There's never been an absolute right for everybody to walk right into the middle of any protest they want. It's a precautionary judgement that the officer makes, and doesn't imply anything about marchers or the counter protestor. Which is what Gideon Falter was, not some chap just out for a walk.

Oboogie wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2024 3:26 pm

Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2024 2:32 pm Unless by 'openly Jewish' he meant 'making a proper meal of it to get a reaction you can film for your own purposes'.

Do you think he would have told a Muslim woman to remove her Hijab because she might provoke a Britain First march?
Are people who are "openly gay" attempting to provoke a breach of the peace?
How about "openly disabled"?
"Openly black"?
"Openly Left Wing"?
I think those suspected of being potential perpetrators of violence are the problem, not their potential victims.

Unsure iof your point, here. I think the bodyguards and the camera crew were the key features.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2024 4:51 pm

Oboogie wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2024 3:26 pm

Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2024 2:32 pm Unless by 'openly Jewish' he meant 'making a proper meal of it to get a reaction you can film for your own purposes'.

Do you think he would have told a Muslim woman to remove her Hijab because she might provoke a Britain First march?
Are people who are "openly gay" attempting to provoke a breach of the peace?
How about "openly disabled"?
"Openly black"?
"Openly Left Wing"?
I think those suspected of being potential perpetrators of violence are the problem, not their potential victims.

Police keep groups and people apart all the time because they see a risk of breach of the peace. That includes with black left wingers when the EDL are in town. Reckon they'd have let Diane Abbott walk into the middle of the Cenotaph Tommy crowd?

If Diane Abbott had been assaulted by Tommy's supporters would that have been her fault for provoking them by being black? Also would such an assault support or undermine Tommy's supporters' claim not to be racist?

We are getting into the shouting-fire-in-a-crowded-theatre territory, here.

The answer remains the same. Stop being a fucking twat.

Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2024 5:21 pm

Oboogie wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2024 3:26 pm

Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2024 2:32 pm Unless by 'openly Jewish' he meant 'making a proper meal of it to get a reaction you can film for your own purposes'.

Do you think he would have told a Muslim woman to remove her Hijab because she might provoke a Britain First march?
Are people who are "openly gay" attempting to provoke a breach of the peace?
How about "openly disabled"?
"Openly black"?
"Openly Left Wing"?
I think those suspected of being potential perpetrators of violence are the problem, not their potential victims.

Unsure iof your point, here. I think the bodyguards and the camera crew were the key features.

My point is very simple. I think that racial assault is always wrong. The blame for the assault lies with the people carrying out the assault never the victim - even if they are failing to conceal their identity.

kreuzberger wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2024 5:38 pm We are getting into the shouting-fire-in-a-crowded-theatre territory, here.

The answer remains the same. Stop being a fucking twat.

I disagree. I don't think racism is ever justified and should never be tolerated.

Oboogie wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2024 5:32 pm
If Diane Abbott had been assaulted by Tommy's supporters would that have been her fault for provoking them by being black? Also would such an assault support or undermine Tommy's supporters' claim not to be racist?

It wouldn't be anyone's fault because it wouldn't happen. If the officer thinks it might, they make sure it doesn't. That doesn't say anything about anybody because nothing happens.

And normally, everybody accepts that and move on. Mr Falter didn't accept it and got the policeman to say something stupid.

Oboogie wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2024 5:41 pm

kreuzberger wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2024 5:38 pm We are getting into the shouting-fire-in-a-crowded-theatre territory, here.

The answer remains the same. Stop being a fucking twat.

I disagree. I don't think racism is ever justified and should never be tolerated.

Who was being racist?

I'm not sure that anyone - and certainly not bit-Jewy, little me - is trying to add the "contributory negligence" mitigation to racist violence. I'll also not be donning a kippah and leading a team of bodyguards and a camera crew, jostling against the flow of a pro-Palestine march.

Not only is that performatively stupid, it also constitutes the offence of Volksverhetzung which translates as "incitement" or, where I come from, "being a fucking twat".

The same goes for plod. Being "openly" anything suggests that whatever that anything might be - homosexuality is the context which springs to mind - is something which should be concealed. Quite rightly, said twat has not been interviewed about why he said what he said.

I have five crisp shekels on the reason being plod's habitual maceration of the King's own language in a vain attempt to appear authoritative. Exhibit A: proceeding in an easterly direction.