I'm well aware of the logic, thank you. You behave dishonestly by making dishonest and false accusations. You do it to be abusive because the accusations have no evidence to support them, and you don't even try to support your accusations with any evidence.
So it is you that needs to think about the logic of being a liar.
No-one suggested the old fellow was lying. You asked for reasons why he might lie, and I offered several possible reasons. At no time did I accuse him of lying. I didn't, especially because I had no evidence to support such an accusation. Something you need to think about. I did say we should wait for the outcome of any investigation. We now have that outcom:, there is insufficient evidence to be worth continuing the investigation.
I'd say that's pretty conclusive that there was no assault, given the multiplicity of CCTV and 'key witnesses'.
Making accusations without any supporting evidence is something you ought to think about.
There is no mystery. it's a perfectly legal march.
Your figure is based on what?
I suggest you look up how many people have been arrested, charged or found guilty of any misdemeanor during any previous marches, then estimate the number of people attending, and then do the maths, instead of plucking a highly controversial and biased figure out of your viviid imagination.
A heck of a lot safer than the citizens of Palestine.
And it applies equally to any Muslims during any counter demonstrations.
It wouldn't be much of a protest if it didn't cause some disruption.
If anything.
Agreed, she cannot make a unilateral decision. She can only respond to a request from the police, and there has been no request.
So it's a perfectly legal march.
