What is this country coming to when a Jewish man trying to cross the street in his home city is prevented from doing so by police for fear of upsetting a mob of ranting pro-Palestine demonstrators?
This is what happened to Gideon Falter, in an incident which raises searching questions about the kind of society we are becoming.
Met Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley was already under fire for his force’s softly-softly approach to these endless protest marches, where waving of swastikas and glorification of Hamas are routine.
Following this troubling episode, he has incurred the wrath of leading Jewish groups and been summoned by the Home Secretary for an explanation.
For those unfamiliar with the details, Mr Falter, wearing a distinctive Jewish skullcap, wanted to cross a London thoroughfare during an anti-Israel march. He was stopped by a uniformed officer on the grounds that he looked ‘openly Jewish’ and was therefore liable to antagonise the marchers.
The Metropolitan Police was branded 'beyond appalling' after an officer threatened to Falter for 'breaching the peace' at a pro-Palestine demo because he was 'quite openly Jewish'
Mr Falter, wearing a distinctive Jewish skullcap, wanted to cross a London thoroughfare during an anti-Israel march
While they spoke, angry protesters chanted ‘scum’ and ‘Nazi’ at Mr Falter. Yet incredibly, while he was threatened with arrest, they were allowed to continue spewing their bile with impunity. Mr Falter is an activist against anti-Semitism so was almost certainly out to make a point. But it’s a hugely important one.
Whose rights take precedence, Jews who want to go about their everyday lives free from intimidation, or demonstrators marching against a war thousands of miles away over which we have little or no sway?
While no one wants to ban peaceful protest, these disruptive marches have been going on every weekend for over six months, making Jews feel increasingly unsafe. If they are to be reassured, the demonstrations must be policed more rigorously and possibly curtailed or re-routed.
Yes, Sir Mark has a tricky balance to strike on competing rights but when wearing a Jewish skullcap in public is seen as criminally provocative, while screaming anti-Semitic slurs isn’t, that balance is seriously off.
The idea that the welfare state is funded by National Insurance contributions is pure fiction. Like any other tax, they go straight into the Treasury, to be spent as the PM and ministers see fit.
So, Labour’s claim that abolishing NI would mean the state pension, NHS and other public services having to be slashed is arrant scaremongering.
It plays particularly into the fears of older voters, who would not benefit from the abolition, as NI contributions end at state retirement age. If they’re told their pensions and health service will suffer to pay for it, they are bound to feel anxious.
It’s no coincidence that this demographic is disproportionately Tory. In 2019, more than 60 per cent of over-65s voted Conservative. This is a cynical ploy to gull them into switching sides.
Chancellor of the Exchequer Jeremy Hunt arrives for the G-20 meeting during the 2024 Spring Meetings of the IMF and the World Bank Group (WBG) in Washington, DC, USA, 18 April 2024
Labour's Rachael Reeves leaves after an interview at BBC Broadcasting House on March 10
The Chancellor has already cut NICs by a third without hiking other taxes or cutting the NHS and vows to abolish them fully only when the financial climate allows.
Cutting this levy favours working people and stimulates productivity, hopefully leading to growth and more money for public services. Meanwhile, Rishi Sunak has pledged to keep the pension triple-lock, while Sir Keir has not.
Furthermore, Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves promises a shake-up of private pension rules, which in Labour hands usually means bad news. Remember Gordon Brown’s £5.6 billion tax raid in 1997? Sir Keir may say pensions are safe in his party’s hands. Experience tells us otherwise.
