You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Woman arrested for silent prayer, god save us
February 8 2023 6.49am

Woman arrested for silent prayer, god save us

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 5 of 35 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >

 

View georgenorman's Profile georgenorman Flag 26 Dec 22 11.46am Send a Private Message to georgenorman Add georgenorman as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Anyone genuinely unaware and just standing still wouldn't be arrested! They would be quietly spoken to, their reasons ascertained, and be either helped or asked to move on. There's nothing the least repressive or intimidating involved. It's the reverse. It's to avoid repressive and intimidating behaviour.

In an earlier post of yours justifying the repressive regulations, you said: "It has nothing at all with what she, or you, think she is doing. It only has to do with what a potential user might think she is doing." So if the 'victim' merely thinks they are being intimidated, by your 'logic', the person standing still should still be arrested.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View YT's Profile YT Flag Oxford 26 Dec 22 11.58am Send a Private Message to YT Add YT as a friend

Originally posted by georgenorman

In an earlier post of yours justifying the repressive regulations, you said: "It has nothing at all with what she, or you, think she is doing. It only has to do with what a potential user might think she is doing." So if the 'victim' merely thinks they are being intimidated, by your 'logic', the person standing still should still be arrested.

As I posted previously, he (Wisbech Eagle) seems intent on highlighting the stupidity of this 'law' that he's trying to defend. A strange paradox.

 


Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View ASCPFC's Profile ASCPFC Flag Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 26 Dec 22 12.00pm Send a Private Message to ASCPFC Add ASCPFC as a friend

Crimes of thought have been part of law since Henry VIII.

 


Patrick Vieira's
Red and Blue Army!

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 26 Dec 22 12.20pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

After reading Maple's and Wisbech's takes on this issue I can fully understand how people get very annoyed. It's certainly left me feeling very angry.

I won't contribute anymore on this and I'll go and do something productive.

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 26 Dec 22 12.29pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by YT

You've already proven that this law is an ass. You don't have to keep doing so.

Completely untrue.

The law is often an ass, but not in this case. It's a very sensible restriction that denies no-one anything but protects some from intimidation.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 26 Dec 22 12.43pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by georgenorman

In an earlier post of yours justifying the repressive regulations, you said: "It has nothing at all with what she, or you, think she is doing. It only has to do with what a potential user might think she is doing." So if the 'victim' merely thinks they are being intimidated, by your 'logic', the person standing still should still be arrested.

There is no conflict at all in the logic. You are inventing one.

The key word is "might". That's why some common sense will be applied. A user might well think that an innocent bystander is intimidating, so an officer will make polite enquiries. If the investigating officer is satisfied that anyone just standing around has no knowledge of a clinic in the vicinity then they will conclude that anyone using it is not going to feel intimidated by them and take no action.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View YT's Profile YT Flag Oxford 26 Dec 22 12.58pm Send a Private Message to YT Add YT as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Completely untrue.

The law is often an ass, but not in this case. It's a very sensible restriction that denies no-one anything but protects some from intimidation.

You are talking absolute bollocks. How the f*** can someone be intimidated by someone else praying in silence (a protected human right incidentally) and how can the relevant authorities prove that that person was praying in the first place unless the person admits that they were doing so? You obviously get a kick out of trying to justify the unjustifiable, so unfortunately for you, you are going to be somewhat disappointed when the case in question is rightly not pursued or kicked out of court.

 


Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 26 Dec 22 1.00pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

After reading Maple's and Wisbech's takes on this issue I can fully understand how people get very annoyed. It's certainly left me feeling very angry.

I won't contribute anymore on this and I'll go and do something productive.

What makes me angry is when people think their rights are more important than the rights of others. When people think their opinions are more important than the opinions of others.

This is particularly true when abortion rights are under the spotlight. So-called "pro-lifers" have an almost total blind spot in their conviction that abortion is unacceptable and trumps the rights of others.

When great care is taken to ensure that the right to protest and campaign for change is protected, there is nothing to be angry about.

All that is being done is ensuring that others have the right not to listen to, or see, such protests if they don't want to. It's a matching right, which is equally important.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View PalazioVecchio's Profile PalazioVecchio Flag south pole 26 Dec 22 1.02pm Send a Private Message to PalazioVecchio Add PalazioVecchio as a friend

let me guess :

Christian worship.....a clamour of angry protests

Other worship............tumbleweed ?

[Link]

 


inár n-aonar i Anerley, uimhir a haon londain theas

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Teddy Eagle's Profile Teddy Eagle Flag 26 Dec 22 1.03pm Send a Private Message to Teddy Eagle Add Teddy Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

No doubt true for every woman except those we are actually discussing.

It's very revealing that all the posts, other than mine, are centred on the right of the lady to pray wherever she wants and not on those who these orders are designed to protect.

No-one is stopping the lady silently praying anywhere except in a small area around an abortion clinic. Unless she wishes to influence the decision-making of someone else, why does that matter?

She can pray. She cannot try to exert unrequested pressure.

But on a previous thread the rights of men to use women's facilities was of primary importance. What about their protection?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View PalazioVecchio's Profile PalazioVecchio Flag south pole 26 Dec 22 1.29pm Send a Private Message to PalazioVecchio Add PalazioVecchio as a friend

the irony being that Lefties accuse christians of being fascists.

Lefties....

- violent
- censoring

- shutting down freedom of speech

[Link]

 


inár n-aonar i Anerley, uimhir a haon londain theas

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Mapletree's Profile Mapletree Flag Croydon 26 Dec 22 1.57pm Send a Private Message to Mapletree Add Mapletree as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

After reading Maple's and Wisbech's takes on this issue I can fully understand how people get very annoyed. It's certainly left me feeling very angry.

I won't contribute anymore on this and I'll go and do something productive.

Ah, I see

I wondered if you would pop up.

The Eugenicist that somehow is against abortion.

The British nationalist that takes all of his views from a Mickey Mouse perceived version of America that comes from minority extremists. Someone that would sell out the British way of life for an ultra right American stance.

The person that is pro freedom of expression yet supports someone picketing people going through a dreadful experience and tries their damnedest to prevent them by pressure tactics from going about their legal rights.

Anti religious extremism, yet pro religious (Catholic) extremism, including the perpetrator being arrested after four prior arrests for the same transgression.

Yes, I can well see why you don't want to engage.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 5 of 35 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Woman arrested for silent prayer, god save us