After the launch of the Palestinian Resistance operation Al-Aqsa Flood on October 7, 2023, the Zionists and their allies in the UK government, especially the Conservative Home Secretary Suella Braverman and Michael Gove at the Levelling Up Ministry, intensified pressure on the police to ignore the letter of the law and to consider routine statements of support for the Palestinian struggle as arrestable anti-Jewish hate crimes (or indeed as terrorism offences).

This article looks at the pressure campaign mounted by the Zionists' closest friends in government to clamp down on pro-Palestine activism and how the anti-Semitism card was deployed as never before. Then we go on to list some of the very many cases where protestors have been arrested for racially or religiously aggravated hate crimes on an entirely erroneous basis.

Note here that the term "racially aggravated" is used liberally in official and media commentary.  But, as we saw in part 3 of this series, official statistics on hate crimes against Jews are gathered under the heading of "religious" aggravation and not racial aggravation. There are, therefore, no "racially" aggravated crimes against the Jews, and any police officer, civil servant, or politician who acts as if there is, is mistaken.

In the previous article in this five-part series, we examined the first four of six hypotheses, each of which would undermine our confidence in the veracity of official statistics on "religiously aggravated" hate crime against the Jews. All six are listed below

1. Political lobby groups were able to define the way in which hate crime against the Jews was counted in a manner which was systematically biased and had the result that hate crime against the Jews was artificially inflated by activities that can not legitimately be said to amount to "hate crime".
2. Organizations dealing with the reporting and analysis of hate crime against Jews have close relations with senior police and military officers, and are both funded by, and advisers to, the government;
3. There is a well funded campaign to encourage reporting of "hate crime" against the Jews;
4. That the CST operationalises an extremely wide and biased conception of "antisemitism", which deliberately and dishonestly claims that pro-Palestine activism expresses "antisemitism".
5. Political actors such as government ministers attempted to pressure the police to target pro-Palestine demonstrators with the bogus definition of hate crime against the Jews noted above;
6. There is evidence that the police have acceded to this pressure.

In the previous article, we concluded that each of these first four hypothesis was correct. In this final article in the series, we will examine hypotheses five and six.

From the river to the sea

First, we look at the pressure put on the police. Was there any? Here is a non-exhaustive list of incidents where this did occur.

• 10 October 2023: Home Secretary Suella Braverman said in a letter to chief constables in England and Wales: "I would encourage police to consider whether chants such as: 'From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free' (...) in certain contexts may amount to a racially aggravated section 5 public order offence", adding that "Behaviours that are legitimate in some circumstances, for example, the waving of a Palestinian flag, may not be legitimate such as when intended to glorify acts of terrorism."
• 30 October 2023: Speaking after a Cobra meeting chaired by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, Braverman reportedly said: "To my mind there is only one way to describe those marches: they are hate marches. What we've seen over the last few weekends, we've seen now tens of thousands of people take to the streets following the massacre of Jewish people, the single largest loss of Jewish life since the Holocaust, chanting for the erasure of Israel from the map."
• 8th November 2023: Braverman wrote an opinion piece in The Times which claimed there was "a perception that senior police officers play favourites when it comes to protesters" and were tougher on right-wing extremists than pro-Palestinian "mobs". The protests were described by the Home Secretary as an unchallenged "assertion of primacy by certain groups – particularly Islamists," The Guardian later reported that the Prime Minister's office had asked for changes to be made to the article, but not all were implemented. It is claimed that this dispute was one of the reasons that Braverman was sacked as Home Secretary later that month.
• 21 May 2024: Michael Gove, the secretary of state for levelling up, made a frankly unhinged speech in which he called for wider adoption of the IHRA and for all public bodies in addition to sign up to an additional "charter against antisemitism". On the question of policing marches, he opined:

We also need to ensure that the marches on our streets which have caused so much distress, indeed physical intimidation, of Jewish people are dealt with more effectively. That is not to criticise the police, who have to operate within a framework we politicians set.  We politicians must do better… We must make rapid progress to deal with the intimidatory consequences of marches by looking at their cumulative effect, consider more closely how to police repeated invocations of prejudice, and ensure organisers pay for the consequences of their actions.

Was there pressure on the police from the leading Zionists in the government?  Yes.

According to the Community Security Trust, the increase in "antisemitism" since the launch of Al-Aqsa flood was significant. According to the CST, as reported by the BBC on 12 October 2023:

Antisemitic incidents in the UK have more than quadrupled since Hamas' operation, says a charity which helps Jewish people in the UK.

The Community Security Trust (CST) recorded 89 "anti-Jewish hate" incidents from 7 to 10 October.

That marked a more than four-fold rise on the 21 antisemitic incidents recorded in the same period last year.

A few days later, the police claimed, "There has been a 1,353% increase in antisemitic offences…between 1 and 18 October, the Metropolitan Police has said. Some 218 anti-Jewish hate crimes, compared to 15 in the same period last year, have been recorded by the force."

What explains the discrepancy between the CST and the police data? It rather suggests, does it not, that the police have been unduly influenced by the operationalisation of the IHRA and pressure from both the Zionists and the government. Even the CST, with its tradition of production of fraudulent statistics, cannot match the operational judgements of the police as they attempt to manage/repress the outpouring of horror resulting from the genocide in Gaza. But let us look in detail at this.

The Zionist inspired campaign to attack the police and pressure their allies in government to go further to force the police to arrest people, for plainly legal expressions of dissent, was bolstered in late 2023 by the antics of Gideon Falter and the Campaign Against Antisemitism.  Falter appeared in the middle of a massive anti-genocide march professing himself to be innocently returning from Synagogue. He attempted to provoke protestors to assault him - or the police to stop him attempting to provoke protestors. In addition two high profile Zionist regime assets - Emily Schrader and Yosef Hadad - were flown into London to attempt to provoke trouble. Along with them were allies from a new front group "Our Fight", associated with Toby Young, the supposed defender of free speech (and with the libertarian, and Koch Brothers funded, LM Network), as well as with a crop of what appear to be Zionist funded, Iranian supporters of the former Shah of Iran.

Joining them was the Zionists favorite far-right asset Stephen Yaxley-Lennon who was prominent in calling for the end of so-called "two tier" policing in April. As is well known, Yaxley Lennon (nom de guerre, Tommy Robinson), has been bankrolled by significant Zionist groups at the forefront of funding the Islamophobia network in the US, as even The Guardian has reported.

The criticism of so-called "two-tier" policing by the "far right"  was echoed by Suella Braverman (who was sacked from the post of  Home Secretary on 13 November 2023) in April 2024. 

In summary, there has been a very vigorous assault by the government and by Zionist regime assets on both the marches - smearing them as racist  - and on the response of the police to the marches, pressuring them to arrest more people for expressing solidarity with Palestine.  Of course, this is represented in the victimology of Zionism as if this was racism or "hate" against the Jews, which it is not.

In the light of this and in the context of the longer standing issues of the Zionist weapon of the IHRA "working definition", and previous advice/pressure from Zionists, it would not be surprising if the police did arrest very many people for "anti-Jewish"  hate crime on an entirely erroneous basis.  We now turn to examine the evidence for such a proposition.

Hate crime in practice post-Al Aqsa Flood

We can illustrate this with some examples of allegedly anti-Jewish hate crime reported by the police, all of which self-evidently have nothing to do with Judeophobia.

• In late October 2023, two women were arrested on suspicion of a hate crime for possession of the bloodied effigy of a dead baby on a pro-Palestine march. Plainly this was not a hate crime of any sort.

• In early November two men, who sprayed "Free Gaza", "Free Palestine" and "terrorists" in red paint on property belonging to arms firm Leonardo, which is complicit in the Gaza genocide, were arrested.

Two men have been arrested after the words "Free Gaza" were painted in red on a building in Piccadilly, central London on Thursday morning. The Metropolitan police said in a statement: "Two men have been arrested on suspicion of racially aggravated criminal damage, which we are investigating as hate crime. Messages about the conflict between Israel and Hamas have been painted onto the building in red paint, which has also been thrown at it. We have no tolerance for graffiti with a hate connotation in London.

Again, plainly nothing to do with "Jews".

• Netpol cited, "reports from the London protest of 4th November 2023 include the arrest of at least one person for a chant referencing ‘intifada’ and the arrest of a woman distributing flyers that called for ‘victory to the intifada.’" Nothing to do with Judeophobia.
• In early 2024 it was reported that "Shabbir Lakha, a Stop the War officer, said he attended a recent protest where an officer walked around with a sign stating, "The phrase ‘end Israeli apartheid’ could be treated as a hate crime." Again, nothing to do with Judeophobia.
• "At a separate protest, an officer informed Lakha" that the chant "globalise the intifada" was racially-aggravated hate speech. Again, nothing to do with hate crime.
• Netpol, the police monitoring group, listed a number of examples where "protesters were targeted for arrest or harassment by police based on their use of Arabic writing or the wearing of kouffiyehs. In one incident, a woman carrying a sign written in Arabic was arrested on suspicion of a racially aggravated public order offence, despite giving the police a translation of her sign, because the police didn’t have a translator available to verify it." Police ignorance is not evidence of a hate crime by a protestor.
• Netpol also cited an example where the adoption of the IHRA working definition of Antisemitism is evidently being used to indoctrinate police with Zionist ideology, leading them to target people comparing the genocide in Gaze with the Nazi genocide: One legal observer described an incident where:

‘S also witnessed an arrest of a woman for a placard comparing the actions of the Israeli state to Nazis. … The woman in question had a placard mostly about war and warmongers but she had also printed out a small meme (not even a4 size) comparing the holocaust and Israel’s actions and it included an Israeli flag and a swastika…. One of the police officers who had taken her to one side said the placard was "antisemitic" and kept on saying it had the "Jewish" flag on it.’ S challenged the cop on this, saying that it was the Israeli flag and it was actually antisemitic to conflate them. The officer did not take the point… The police initially said that they would allow the woman to go if she gave her details (so she could be interviewed under caution at a later date). However, they then decided to arrest her on the spot.

More evidence here of police being indoctrinated/pressured to adopt Zionist ideology with no basis in fact.

• In another example recorded by Netpol the following reportedly occurred:

The placard made a comparison between Hitler and Netanyahu. Three Met officers led my sister and I away from the crowd, which grew larger as people/legal [observers] began to crowd around us and hand us bust cards… My sister was charged with ‘breach of peace’ and ‘racially charged assault’. I would add that we both complied with everything the police asked of us, remained calm and polite and also offered to leave the placard with them. We are also both ‘visibly’ Muslim (we wear hijab). My sister later informed me that one of the arresting officers (whose face I have on video) had informed my sister that she would be released sooner after the police interview if she denied her right to a solicitor. The same officer made some racially discriminatory remarks regarding my sister to another officer. My sister felt pressured into denying legal advice at first, but after I was able to speak to her (in her allocated phone call) I made sure she had the details for the legal advice team I had been in contact with... After initially being coerced into denying her right to free legal advice she requested a solicitor from HJA, who accompanied her in the police interview’ P4 Witness Statement

• Another Netpol example was:

Call from MoP (member of the public) at 1421 on 02.12.23 - "ARREST (same as 1404): MoP has talked to the arrestee’s girlfriend ******; she says they were stopped and both taken into the police van and then she was let go whilst her boyfriend was placed under arrest; allegedly had a placard which said ‘zionazi’, police said imagine if a Jewish person saw this and felt scared." N2 - GBC Phone Log

• The explanation of a notional complaint of offensiveness – or the possibility of such a complaint – was used as a justification for police intervention at a protest in Birmingham on 26th November,

"Sgt 20, Pulled one of the men that was chanting on the megaphone, and said if he chant "from the river to the sea Palestine will be free" he will be arrested, and wanted to give him a warning." At 14.48 PLO Sgt 1414 reported that "someone has said that they are offended by the Chants" and then at 15:00 the same sgt reports that "West Midlands Police Legal team [say] "from the river" chant is anti-semitic " N3 - Contemporaneous Legal Observer Notes            

All of these incidents have obviously wrongly inflated the statistics of hate crime (against Jews) out of all proportion to their, manifestly, lower level. But how low are they? We know from my earlier article that Jews, even on the inflated statistics constructed by the police, are less likely than people of colour to be the victims of racially/religiously aggravated crime. It is very likely the case that they are much lower, but to be certain we would have to directly interrogate the data collected by police forces which may be more detailed and informative than the data which are supplied to central government. What such data consists of and whether this will help us to answer these questions is currently unknown.  The data is not published anywhere and to access it - assuming it is collected in an appropriate fashion - would require a successful Freedom of Information request to each police force.

In order to get a genuine and accurate sense of the levels of "hate crime", specifically against Jews as Jews, one would need to fundamentally alter the operating assumptions of police practice in this area. This would mean, first, abolishing the IHRA, and removing Zionist groups as purportedly neutral advisers. Instead, actual anti-racist groups or actual academic experts (without potential conflicts of interest involving ideological or monetary links with the Zionist movement) should be recruited. In addition, that would mean ending "‘confused’, ‘racist’ and ‘threatening’ police response to marches and demonstrations, with ‘unusually high’ levels of surveillance and harassment", as they were described by Netpol in a May 2024 report.

So, in conclusion, we can say that both of the remaining two hypotheses have been demonstrated namely that

• Political actors such as government ministers, attempted to pressure the police to target pro-Palestine demonstrators with the bogus definition of hate crime against the Jews noted above; and
• There is evidence that the police have acceded to this pressure.

To fix this issue, the police should repudiate the advice and "co-operation" of the fanatical genocidaires at the Community Security Trust, and there should be a wholesale reform of the statistical data gathering practice of the Metropolitan Police, all other police forces, the Home Office and other governmental agencies. As things stand, Zionist intimidation groups, whose loyalty and practical actions are designed to assist the genocidal Zionist entity in its foreign policy objectives, have effectively ideologically penetrated the policing apparatus. This, together with the pressure from Zionist partisans in government - such as notably Suella Braverman and Michael Gove, in the previous UK government and many others in the present administration  - has influenced the police to arrest people for imaginary and fake Zionist defined "racially" or "religiously" aggravated offences.

We have previously mentioned the fact that statistics on police violence, deaths in custody, and police killings in the UK and the US, show that the victims are disproportionately black or people of colour. From 1980-2018, according to a peer reviewed paper in the Lancet, US police killed an average of 810 people a year. Every year. Black people were the most likely victims. There is no significant data of a pattern of Jews as victims of this kind of racist violence in the US or in the UK. The fact that such statistics (on deaths in custody or caused by police) are not even compiled as evidence of "hate crime" directs our attention also to the political nature of "hate crime" statistics. 

In the third part of this series, I noted that the Tribunal judgment in my case had concluded that Jews were much more likely to be the victims of "religiously aggravated" hate crime per head of population. It was this observation that lay behind the following part of the judgment:

noting that our decision on this matter does involve a considerable degree of speculation, we conclude there is a 30% chance that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed two months after the tweets were made in August 2023.

In part three of this series I showed that if we take the data on Jews as reliable, we find - unsurprisingly - that people of colour are more likely victims of hate crime than are Jews. In part four I showed that Zionist lobby groups have systematically skewed the definition of hate crime to artificially inflate "hate crime" against the Jews.

These groups have close relations with the police and are both funded by, and advisers to, the government; There is thus a well funded campaign to encourage reporting of "hate crime" against the Jews; Zionist groups use a fundamentally biased approach, which deliberately and dishonestly claims that pro-Palestine activism expresses "antisemitism". We saw in this article that this lobby effort also results in government ministers pressuring the police to target pro-Palestine protestors and the evidence is that this pressure and the biased definitions work to fundamentally distors the hate crime statistics.

In other words, when considering hate crime, properly understood, there is no evidence that Jews are disproportionately targeted in hate crime, and it very much looks like most alleged hate crimes against the Jews are false positives.

The overall conclusion of this five part series is, therefore, that Jewish people in the UK today do not face any major forms of discrimination.