According to the Guardian, the Campaign Against Antisemitism aren't happy about it and the Board of Deputies of British Jews have expressed concerns about the way in which pro-Palestine marches are policed.
No, I'm not sure either. The police are in a very difficult situation in anything like this. Even without the current climate of looking for offence in everything, the police have to tread an impossibly thin line to keep different communities happy when there is the potential for them to be accused of bias. I can understand the Jewish community feeling anxious about all of this when pupils at Jewish schools are being told they don't have to wear their blazers so people can't tell which school they go to and when there are reports of increased anti-semitic incidents.
I listened to Sky news on loop for most of the yesterday while I was working and they reported that Mr Falter had no complaints about his treatment by frontline officers, senior Jewish representatives had met the Home Secretary and had no issues with the frontline policing of the demonstration, it seemed to me that common sense was prevailing. However searching for those comments this morning proved fruitless. The only comments in the main stream media I could find were attacking Sir Mark Rowley and calling for his resignation because of the Mets management of marches and protests. Being a cynic, it certainly looked to me that the Guardian and other publications were using this to push their respective agenda and politicians, in election year, were trying their level best not to be accused of being Anti-Semitic.
The guardian have an agenda you say... annoyed if true... I've read a follow-up story which explains the nuances of the 13 minute video that wasn't available when they reported on the 2-3 minute version published by sky. Surely sky are the ones with an agenda?
I think all media outlets have an editorial agenda. If you read only the Guardian or only the Telegraph it's likely your political views will be influenced by that publication
I believe the guardian made a mistake reporting on the 2-3 minute sky video and explained the nuances of the 13 minute video when it was made available. I don't believe all publications would bother explaining the differences once they were made aware of the bigger picture
I'm a guardian reader, but I try to read other publications for balance. The Internet makes it easy for me since I retired. Prior to retiring we had every uk publication delivered.
We have a house rabbit and used at first the Daily Telegraph to line the bottom of her cage with hay on top. That was fine for a while then we changed to the Daily Mirror and The Mail and she was not best pleased so we had to revert back to the Telegraph despite it being more expensive. She’s more settled now but the point I’m making is newspapers are best suited to this job than actually reading them imo.
I think I have misled you, when I was working my place of work bought all of the publications but I bought the Guardian every day for the crossword. Since I retired my source of news is the Internet. As a poor pensioner, I can't afford newspapers
