Events in the Middle East

I think the confusion comes from michaelc thinking we somehow gave a monkeys about the bit which says "about 50....". Whereas I suspect all of those 
called out' were actually reacting to the idea of the likes of Assad, Raisi, and bin Salman calling for respect for human rights; and especially in the case of Bashar "The Barrel Bomb Butcher" Assad, "taking all possible steps to avoid civilian casualties".

Personally I'd not even spotted the quoted "about 50" number, or rather I'd probably read it and the brain discarded as not pertinent to the point. 

Where the confusion probably lies is that the conference in question is tagged as the Arab-Islamic conference, or Islamic-Arab depending on which media outlet you look at. And the attending nations are drawn from not just the Arab world but outside as well. It was a rushed amalgam of the otherwise separate summits of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and the Arab League. Apparently.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAAjIQJytZw
Sound quality's iffy, but worth listening to for a view into the mindset of somebody who genuinely seems to think he's in the right...

Guys, don't feed the troll. 

I doubt any of us have the slightest clue what you are actually trying to say there. 

I don't personally live in a headspace which says there can only ever be one bad thing going on in the world, and the rest therefore is all good. If that is what you are implying. 

Given how often you have previously ranted about the human rights abuses in Saudi [which very oddly you have said are supported by "liberals"], I don't really understand why you would have a problem with them being called out as hypocrites on this subject.

This is true but....*

I think the key questions for me are:

a) were there lawful grounds for banning the march/demonstration ? The answer to that seems to have been an unequivocal no. The combination of the 'intelligence' the Met had and the legal advice based on that said not. Even Cruella Braverman's separate home office legal advice came to that conclusion, even if she ignored it and demanded the met commissioner ban it without sufficient legal grounds for doing so. 

b) were there always likely to be some elements which committed illegal acts ? With a march of that size it was absolutely inevitable, esp. so given the heated feelings resulting from the awful situation. But that isn't a reason itself for banning, otherwise we would pretty much ban all demonstrations/marches. And as democracy that would not be a good thing.

c) there is a lot of agitation - partly stirred up by the now ex Home Secretary - over an imbalance of arrests on the two sides. I think on the whole that is either ignorance or deliberate dog whistling from those that should know better. When you have a much such as this, the primary objective is going to be maintenance of public order. You don't want to be trying to send in 'snatch squads' into a crowd of 300k to pull out individuals or small groups chanting/wearing intimidating/threatening slogans. The response to that is best done after the event, especially given the power of modern surveillance/technology. This is a case where revenge is best served cold. Whereas arresting people who are lobbing missiles at the police or attempting to break through a police line to get at the main demonstration, is both easier to do then, and contributes to the primary objective of maintaining public order.

d) Does the benefit of hindsight mean that the actual outcome would warrant banning ? From the demonstration side, I'll leave the police and their legal advise to conclude on that but my gut tells me no: while there were offences, and some pretty obnoxious ones, the number relative to the demonstration may be relatively low, and were primarily ones of provocation/hate crime. They can mostly be dealt without the sledge hammer of preventing peaceful protest.

e) I'm not sure I really agree with the en masse bit. At scale, in pockets, yes. But relative to the numbers at the demonstration I think en masse is probably not correct. 


*although from what I can see the actual physical violence type offences, and hence immediate public order ones, do seem to have been more on one side than the other.** Especially in relative terms. I think it is fairly clear that the 'counter protesters' were on the main a bunch of football hooligan type louts stirred up by a convicted football hooligan who's primary reason for being there was to have a good old punch up if the could. While holding a pint of lager and shouting "Engaaaaland Forever".