Woman arrested for silent prayer, god save us
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
  georgenorman  01 Jan 23 11.19am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
It was upheld on appeal but overturned by the Supreme Court on a technicality prompting political noise that clarification of the law is needed. Which hasn’t been done. What is ridiculous is that some people think this means that it’s now OK to refuse work if you disagree with the sentiments of those you are working for. It isn’t. This though is unconnected to the case of the lady outside the abortion clinic other than it’s another example of people believing their religious beliefs entitle them to special treatment. They were charged with discriminating against the guy because he was gay - clearly, they were not.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| georgenorman 01 Jan 23 11.22am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by berlinpalace
She was a known protestor protesting in a place she knew she was banned from protesting in. The form the protest takes is immaterial, doesn't matter if it was praying or interpretive dance, she knew as soon as she was within 100mtrs of the place she ran the risk of being arrested, that was the whole point of this sorry little charade. She was not contravening the regulations by being physically in the public street. She was not exhibiting any signs of protest. She was arrested for suspected, non-specific, silent prayer.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| georgenorman 01 Jan 23 11.24am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
They were charged with discriminating against the guy because he was gay - clearly, they were not. On a wider note, people should be able to turn down business if they choose to.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| orpingtoneagle Orpington 01 Jan 23 11.56am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
She was not contravening the regulations by being physically in the public street. She was not exhibiting any signs of protest. She was arrested for suspected, non-specific, silent prayer. No she wasn't she was arrested for refusing to move on from her position. She was not simply passing through the area and having a bit of a pray whilst doing so. She knew what was in the area (a medical centre providing services to women - some of whom may have been in a vulnerable state,) and I assume must have known that there may be issues with her being there as she had previously been told that and moved on from the same area previously. As others have said this is not about a right to pray, It is about the laws of this country and will be decided by the courts in due course.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mapletree Croydon 01 Jan 23 12.12pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by orpingtoneagle
No she wasn't she was arrested for refusing to move on from her position. She was not simply passing through the area and having a bit of a pray whilst doing so. She knew what was in the area (a medical centre providing services to women - some of whom may have been in a vulnerable state,) and I assume must have known that there may be issues with her being there as she had previously been told that and moved on from the same area previously. As others have said this is not about a right to pray, It is about the laws of this country and will be decided by the courts in due course. I assume that she was previously arrested as she is facing charges in respect of four occasions.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mapletree Croydon 01 Jan 23 12.14pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
She was not contravening the regulations by being physically in the public street. She was not exhibiting any signs of protest. She was arrested for suspected, non-specific, silent prayer. No she wasn't. That is her rhetoric, as agreed with her American backers, and is simply not truthful. I earlier posted that is not just my view but also of the Daily Express, that denizen of radical thinking.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Online Truro Cornwall 01 Jan 23 12.18pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
They were charged with discriminating against the guy because he was gay - clearly, they were not. . That was what they claimed and was the technicality that got them off. They did though refuse to bake a cake because they objected to the message that was requested to be put on it, saying they would have refused to do so whoever requested it. That though is still discriminatory. They bake cakes. Only if they bake their own cake and offer it for sale can they decide what, and what not, can be iced on top. This was not theirs. It was a subcontracted arrangement and as it was only the message they objected to, and neither their clients nor too heavy a work load, they were, in my and many others opinion, breaking the law. That the Supreme Court decided otherwise means that the law now needs clarification.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Online Truro Cornwall 01 Jan 23 12.21pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
On a wider note, people should be able to turn down business if they choose to. They can. Provided always that their reasoning is not discriminatory.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| georgenorman 01 Jan 23 12.24pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
They can. Provided always that their reasoning is not discriminatory. Which is what happened - their reasoning was not discriminatory. People and businesses should be able to turn down business if they want.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| georgenorman 01 Jan 23 12.28pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by orpingtoneagle
No she wasn't she was arrested for refusing to move on from her position. She was not simply passing through the area and having a bit of a pray whilst doing so. She knew what was in the area (a medical centre providing services to women - some of whom may have been in a vulnerable state,) and I assume must have known that there may be issues with her being there as she had previously been told that and moved on from the same area previously. As others have said this is not about a right to pray, It is about the laws of this country and will be decided by the courts in due course. The exclusion zone was introduced by Birmingham City Council on September 7 to prohibit anyone “engaging in any act of approval or disapproval or attempted act of approval or disapproval” of abortion in proximity to the clinic, including through “verbal or written means, prayer or counselling”.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 01 Jan 23 1.00pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
. That was what they claimed and was the technicality that got them off. They did though refuse to bake a cake because they objected to the message that was requested to be put on it, saying they would have refused to do so whoever requested it. That though is still discriminatory. They bake cakes. Only if they bake their own cake and offer it for sale can they decide what, and what not, can be iced on top. This was not theirs. It was a subcontracted arrangement and as it was only the message they objected to, and neither their clients nor too heavy a work load, they were, in my and many others opinion, breaking the law. That the Supreme Court decided otherwise means that the law now needs clarification. The law doesn't need clarification that is what the SC did already. Parliament of course can change the law whenever they like.
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mapletree Croydon 01 Jan 23 1.22pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
If she had been standing there not silently praying, that would have been ok - she would not have been arrested. She wasn't even sure that she had been praying, she said she might have been praying silently in her mind, but also thinking about her lunch and other trivial things. For goodness sake, how often do you need to be told things The lady stated she was praying in her head to confuse the Police Officer as to her status. He therefore asked her to go with him to allow further investigation. She refused so he had to arrest her. This was a set up. It allowed maleficent operators to develop a rhetoric that she was arrested for a thought crime. Have you ever thought why it has happened now? Isabel's big supporter is the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). ADF is a tax-exempt organisation with revenues of $65 million, and its founder earns over $803,000. It wishes to interfere in UK politics in order to expand its reach and income. Now is a great time because it wishes to have the Public Order Bill amended before it is passed. So how do you feel about big business religious fundamentalists from overseas interfering in our politics For the avoidance of doubt, an amendment was made to the Public Order Bill to make it an offence to interfere with access to or provision of abortion services. It had cross-party support and was passed by 297 votes to 110.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Attachment: 
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.