Comment: so keeping people safe could cost the Met Commissioner his job?

Chris Hobbs who was at the demonstration which sparked the furore over an officer's interaction with a Jewish man, says the sergeant was 'just thinking on his feet.'

Just how did an experienced, well-respected and popular sergeant end up getting pilloried on both social and mainstream media to the extent that it could cost the Met Commissioner his job as well as incurring the wrath of the Prime Minister?

The incident took place during yet another pro-Palestinian march and rally which I covered and which prompted the banner headline; ‘whisper it softly; another successful public order day for the Met.’

I was actually told about the incident in question later that afternoon by those who had witnessed it and who believed it was carefully orchestrated. It was remiss of me not to mention it; I can only believe I assumed it would be of little consequence. How wrong I was.

One of those watching the soon to be headline news as it happened, ‘live tweeted’ the following;

“There’s a small group of Jewish men, with personal security, demanding to walk through the Palestine protest, and a copper is desperately trying to reason with him to go around. This will be tomorrow’s anti police outrage clip. Sigh.”

The officer’s primary concern in acting as he did was to prevent a violent incident which could have resulted in injury to this individual and his entourage. That he succeeded was of no consequence to his critics. Mr. Falter was apparently encouraged to join the pro-Israeli protest which was taking place just a short distance away but he refused.

Much was also made of the threat to arrest for breach of the peace. In actual fact, the situation does legally fit the breach of the peace scenario as demonstrated on social media and of course, once the explosive situation had concluded, a de-arrest would have been the most likely course of action. Of course, the easiest solution would have been to comply with the officer’s wishes.

The comment in respect of the individual being ‘openly Jewish,’ may be deemed to be insensitive but the officer was faced with a difficult situation and was thinking on his feet. The reference was doubtless prompted by the wearing of a kippah or skull-cap which would have marked him out as Jewish and which some on the march would have interpreted as support for Israel.

‘Hotbeds of violent extremism?’

Whilst the Met have correctly described these marches as ‘mostly peaceful,’ they do include pockets of individuals who are both volatile and violent. The sergeant may have remembered that the previous week, it required a number of police officers to arrest and subdue a powerfully built man who tried to burst through the police cordon and attack pro-Israel counter-protesters. An independent journalist ‘tweeted’ the following on ‘X.’

“I was in the middle of the crowd on April 13 when the incident took place. If Gideon Falter had not been stopped by the police he could have been seriously hurt.”

I originally wrote that the officer could have been a little more sensitive in his use of the terminology employed: However, I then viewed the commendable Sky News item which showed the almost the entire exchange in full as opposed to the carefully edited versions. The officer’s politeness and patience were beyond reproach and should result in a summons to the Commissioner’s officer for a cup of tea and a ‘well done.’  As noted by others who were present, the officer’s actions may also have prevented injury and a situation which could have escalated into needless violence.

It seems rather incongruous that these marches are labelled as hotbeds of violent antisemitic extremists perpetrating mob rule yet the unfortunate Met officer is criticised for stopping the prominent Jewish individual in question from walking amongst them.

Trying to provoke

The ‘trying to provoke’ scenario was, as alluded to by Matt Twist in his since deleted response to the incident, a tactic that has been previously used by others including an Iranian national who is supportive of Israel and opposed to the dictatorial regime in his own country. He is a likeable individual but his ‘modus operandi,’ is to walk into the midst of pro-Palestinian protesters clutching a placard which accurately states that ‘Hamas are terrorist.’

Just about all the protesters ignore him but, almost inevitably, someone will eventually object and on two separate occasions punches, which frankly couldn’t knock the skin of the proverbial rice pudding have been aimed in his direction. Other marchers have intervened to curb those aggressive individuals. Whenever he materialises in the midst of these marches, police appear and remove him. In every incident, arguments are made that he should be allowed to carry out his protest and this is ‘two tier policing.’

Of course, any abuse and assault but in particular one that causes injury, will lend credence to the theory that the pro-Palestinian protesters are a lawless, violent mob whose activities need to be curbed or banned altogether.

“Freedom to walk?”

Much has also been made of the ‘freedom to walk,’ issue. A statement has been issued which states: ‘He was exercising his right to walk around London as an openly Jewish person. Surely, it is argued, that individuals going about their lawful business in a public place, shouldn’t be restricted.’ One newspaper stated that Mr. Falter, ‘stumbled,’ upon the protest. Any suggestion that the key figure in the UK’s leading antisemitic organisation wouldn’t be aware of the full details of a pro-Palestinian march is, frankly insulting to Mr Falter himself.

As has been pointed out, a West Ham supporter in full colours walking amongst Millwall fans would probably and rightly attract the attention of police officers hopefully before any untoward incident takes place.

The publicity surrounding this issue also provoked a furious reaction from Tommy Robinson who spoke of hypocrisy as he had turned up at an antisemitic rally where he had been told he was not welcome after his supporters had clashed with police on Armistice Day. The result was a well-publicised arrest and Mr. Robinson being ‘pepper sprayed,’ with, at the time of writing, a court appearance pending. He clearly blames Mr Falter for his arrest

It is worth noting that curbing the ‘freedom to walk,’ concept in order to prevent a breach of the peace (i.e. being abused and /or assaulted) has been observed at pro-Israel events.

Nipping trouble in the bud

Early on in the conflict, at a pro-Israeli rally in Trafalgar Square, three youths were spoken to by police and asked to leave. At the end of the rally as the crowd were dispersing, the group appeared just outside Trafalgar Square and one pulled out the Palestinian flag from beneath his jacket. This provoked fury amongst some of the crowd who attracted the attention of officers. After short foot chases the youths were detained.

A further meeting in respect of the hostages was held in Parliament Square where several individuals were spoken to by police and asked to leave.

Al-Quds day, which this year fell on a Friday saw some two-thousand pro-Palestinian protesters march from the Home Officer to Whitehall which took them through Parliament Square past a pro-Israel counter protest. During the course of the march several incidents occurred where individual or very small groups of pro-Palestinian protesters infiltrated Parliament Square which was specifically designated for the pro-Israeli group.

Whilst there were harsh words there was no violence; police were summoned and the infiltrators were duly escorted away from Parliament Square thus their ‘freedom to walk,’ was curtailed and I certainly didn’t hear any claiming that they were out for a Friday afternoon stroll and just happened to ‘stumble,’ across a counter-protest.

It was Al Quds protest that pushed my views in relation to banning pro-Palestine protests from green (no they should not be) to amber. This followed intimidation of myself, photo-journalists and police officers by activists during a vehicle search by police which revealed drugs and potentially actionable posters. However, personally, in terms of disorder, I don’t believe there is a strong enough case as yet. I’ve witnessed far more serious intimidation and violence at other protests during the past five years; these have included pro-Brexit and anti-lockdown events.

Of course, there is legislation under the Public Order Act which is designed to keep rival groups apart thus ensuring the safety of all participants and breach of the peace has its part to play where appropriate.

This issue featured in another incident at a pro-Israeli rally. Towards the end, a group appeared dressed in the style of orthodox Jews. Their appearance confused officers but they are a sect who are deeply unpopular across the Jewish community: They are pro-Palestinian and are believed to have links with groups such as Hezbollah. Their presence drew a small crowd from the main Trafalgar Square protest. The issue of whether their presence amounted to a breach of the peace was raised with officers.

Despite the police presence, one of these individuals received a blow to the face and a large wooden placard was smashed. The group were eventually escorted away while the Community Safety Team (CST) who are present at most Jewish events, ensured most of those in Trafalgar Square were diverted away from this group. Interestingly a statement recently released by CST acknowledged the difficulties faced by police when dealing with these protests. They don’t advocate the removal of the Commissioner.

A clear agenda

There is a clearly an agenda here which involves banning all pro-Palestinian marches. As the Commissioner has pointed out, the legal criteria for such a ban is the anticipation of really serious disorder; that is life threatening disorder at the level we witnessed in 2011. From my own observations, on a disorder scale of 1 to 10, these pro-Palestinian protests barely register a two.

There are small groups amongst the many thousands who might welcome violence but the bottom line is that the Met have policed numerous protests/marches linked to the current crisis. These have involved hundreds of thousands of protesters from both sides of the divide and thus far there have been no major public order incidents or serious assaults other than those seen on November the 11th when the far right turned up in their hundreds to ‘protect’ the Cenotaph which also involved attempting to attack a pro-Palestinian protest as it crossed Vauxhall Bridge.

However, we now hear that this this individual intends to repeat the exercise at a major pro-Palestinian protest next Saturday with others. If true this is both reckless and foolish made even more so by the hundreds of small children including babies in prams and children in pushchairs. who are invariably present on these marches. As Mr. Falter well knows, these protests are also attended by a significant number of Jews who oppose the actions of Israel in Gaza.

Perhaps the beleaguered Commissioner should be receiving a pat on the back in respect of these numerous and large protests which largely have been noticeable for a lack of disorder, thanks in part to some exemplary policing. However, that wouldn’t suit the numerous narratives and agendas which have become a feature of this complex policing challenge.

Chris Hobbs is a former Special Branch officer who follows large public order events as an observer for Police Oracle 

Category: OpsPublic Order