It’s amazing the kind of trivial nonsense that makes the news these days. There’s a total waste-of-time spat developed here – is there maybe an election in the air? It’s interesting only because it shows how our perspectives can change, as events become clearer.

We had a story break over the weekend, There was a big march in London, a march in which people were demonstrating for a ceasefire in Gaza. You really can’t underestimate the strength of feeling here.

The police prevented a guy from crossing the path of the march, until it had safely passed by. The words used were quickly broadcast, the chap was prevented from crossing because he “looked openly Jewish”, and him crossing the demo might have been provocative.

“Oh my God”, we all thought. How can a policeman be so crass as to prevent somebody doing something because he “looked Jewish”?

The first thing which tipped me off, that things might not be as they seemed, was on the evening that the story broke. I believe it was the “victim” himself speaking, but must admit I was only half-listening, until I heard the protestors described as a “lawless mob”.

These protests happen weekly in London, they are well-policed and there are few arrests. Yes, feelings run high on this issue, but it’s not as though people run amok through the streets. These are generally people who might well use their weekend to protest, but who will turn up for work as normal at 9am on Monday. So to hear them described as a “lawless mob” sounded instantly, to me, as if this chap had some kind of agenda.

Lo and behold, time has passed, and video footage of the full incident has emerged.

Video footage? That somebody was on hand to film this scene sounds immediately stage-managed.

What unfolds is a thirteen-minute incident, almost a reasoned discussion. Certainly not a short altercation, where the “victim” was simply told to sling his hook by some stroppy copper.

In terms of “looking Jewish”, it’s an awful phrase to use, but in the heat of the moment, I can forgive that. And, when we see the “victim”, he’s wearing a kippa, which is associated strongly with Judaism. So while the policeman might not have enough information to be certain, there’s evidence to point in that direction.

I think we also need to bear in mind that the policeman’s main aim was to keep the peace. He might easily have concluded that this man, walking across the march, might have been provocative. It may well have been that the man could have crossed the march without incident, but all the same, I think it was reasonable for the policeman to perceive a risk. He didn’t know who the chap was, who these marchers were… Some of them might have been provoked by this guy’s appearance. Who’s to say? How’s the policeman to know what might happen? So surely the best way to police this was to minimise risk?

The policeman even tried to help the man. “If you really want to cross the march, and you can’t wait for it to pass, then I will escort you.” Told him the route they’d take, n’everything. But the man refused. Perhaps he was more interested in making a point than in crossing safely?

I’m the first to criticise the police, when its behaviour falls short, but in this case… credit where it’s due. I feel for a man who has done a difficult job perfectly well, yet has been used as a pawn by some guy out to make a political point.

---

And the latest thing we learn this afternoon? That this “victim” is himself a political campaigner, just somebody who is opposed to these marches.

So, Saturday afternoon in London. Nothing happened. I do wish the media took fact-checking more seriously.