UK thought police arrest woman for silent prayer

[Gospel]

I wonder if you use a different definition of “explicitly” than I do. Can you point out for the group where it explicitly forbids silent prayer, please?

Yes. Where it says 'prayer or counselling'.

Since she has been doing this for YEARS now, it’s obvious that she is attempting to interfere, harrass and intimidate. This is a violation of the PSPO, and the stupid answer she gave to the cop’s question IS NOT the reason she was arrested, PER THE COPS, in the quote I provided.

She was arrested for protesting. The PSPO specifically and unambiguously lists prayer as a sign you are protesting. The cop arrested her after he asked about her praying. Stop defending this indefensible aspect of the PSPO.

What you are missing is that the cop already had her based on her answer for why she was there. Anything beyond that is simply giving her rope to hang herself with.

Reminds me of wise words from a masked villain who said:

"Rap snitches, telling all their business
Sit in the court and be their own star witness
Do you see the perpetrator? Yeah, I'm right here
F#$% around, get the whole label sent up for years".

 

[Metaphor]

I agree. Too bad for you that's not what they (the government) did.

Yes, it did. You agreed that the PSPO banned prayer. Have you changed your mind that that's what it does?

I also think it's not a good look when Christians try to force their beliefs on others. It's exactly why the PSPO became a thing to begin with. I believe the PSPO wasn't fabricated whole cloth by a government that just wanting to do fascist stuff, but in fact was the result of calls for action coming from the affected community. It's not impossible that some of those people who wanted the government to act were Christians themselves.

I did not say the PSPO arose without a reason. A policy can have a reason behind it and still be very bad policy and the wrong response to a situation.

 

[Metaphor]

What you are missing is that the cop already had her based on her answer for why she was there. Anything beyond that is simply giving her rope to hang herself with.

I am not 'missing' that. That reinforces my point. Praying silently was evidence she was protesting.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What you are missing is that the cop already had her based on her answer for why she was there. Anything beyond that is simply giving her rope to hang herself with.

I am not 'missing' that. That reinforces my point. Praying silently was evidence she was protesting.

You are not rebutting the fact that he already had enough, that question was simply handing her rope.

 

[Metaphor]

You are not rebutting the fact that he already had enough, that question was simply handing her rope.

Whether praying in her head was necessary for her arrest is immaterial: it was clearly sufficient. You interpret the cop asking about prayer as 'shoring up' his evidence base to arrest her. I could just as well say 'clearly standing there silently was insufficient, the cop needed her admission to praying (or something else mentioned in the PSPO) in order to arrest her'.

The PSPO is clear: praying counts as protesting. Are you denying that?

I would be very glad to be wrong. I would be very glad for a judge to explicitly say "praying in your head is not covered by the PSPO; the PSPO reference to praying means audible prayers of the kind that led to the PSPO".

 

[Gospel]

Yes, it did. You agreed that the PSPO banned prayer. Have you changed your mind that that's what it does?

Banned prayer in a certain place or the entire country? I agree that prayer is banned in a certain place, but I also agree that it is not banned down the street from there.

 

[Gun Nut]

On another note, one has to smile a bit regarding the “power of prayer” if it requires personal intimidation to work. It sort of admits that prayer itself is utterly powerless. But that’s a side note.

That is an excellent side-note. This is proof that, at least this person, is absolutely positive that prayer is ineffective. Otherwise, she would have confidently ended the practice of people seeking medical assistance from the safety and comfort of her own home.

 

[TomC]

What you are missing is that the cop already had her based on her answer for why she was there. Anything beyond that is simply giving her rope to hang herself with.

I am not 'missing' that. That reinforces my point. Praying silently was evidence she was protesting. Stalking and harassing.

That's the point people keep trying to make. The arrest wasn't about praying.

It was about her harassment. The city council banned that behavior, and enumerated a list of behaviors that qualify. That way the locals, including the cops, could distinguish between legitimate reasons for being there and harassment. Praying, silently or out loud, isn't a legitimate reason. Nor is it banned. It's the stalking part the locals are trying to get rid of.

And I say locals, as opposed to just the government. Because this is a community problem, being addressed by the community, not just a government agency ruling by fiat.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You are not rebutting the fact that he already had enough, that question was simply handing her rope.

Whether praying in her head was necessary for her arrest is immaterial: it was clearly sufficient. You interpret the cop asking about prayer as 'shoring up' his evidence base to arrest her. I could just as well say 'clearly standing there silently was insufficient, the cop needed her admission to praying (or something else mentioned in the PSPO) in order to arrest her'.

Shoring up?? No. He had her at the point she admitted she was there because of the clinic. Anything beyond was simply hoping she would incriminate herself further.

 

[Metaphor]

You are not rebutting the fact that he already had enough, that question was simply handing her rope.

Whether praying in her head was necessary for her arrest is immaterial: it was clearly sufficient. You interpret the cop asking about prayer as 'shoring up' his evidence base to arrest her. I could just as well say 'clearly standing there silently was insufficient, the cop needed her admission to praying (or something else mentioned in the PSPO) in order to arrest her'.

Shoring up?? No. He had her at the point she admitted she was there because of the clinic. Anything beyond was simply hoping she would incriminate herself further.

Really? You have the arrest records and police paperwork to show this?

 

[Rhea]

Yeah there’s this weird, unfounded claim that the last question a cop asks = the reason for the arrest.

Even if the cops make a pubic stateent that it was not.

 

[Metaphor]

Yeah there’s this weird, unfounded claim that the last question a cop asks = the reason for the arrest.

Even if the cops make a pubic stateent that it was not.

The statement does not refute that praying is explicitly defined in the PSPO as a marker of protest, does not refute that the cop asked if she was praying, and does not change that she was arrested after her statement about praying. She was arrested for breaching the PSPO by protesting, and that includes praying.

But it is immaterial if praying was necessary for her arrest. It was clearly sufficient. And I do not support gov't banning silent prayer.

 

[Metaphor]

You are not rebutting the fact that he already had enough, that question was simply handing her rope.

Whether praying in her head was necessary for her arrest is immaterial: it was clearly sufficient. You interpret the cop asking about prayer as 'shoring up' his evidence base to arrest her. I could just as well say 'clearly standing there silently was insufficient, the cop needed her admission to praying (or something else mentioned in the PSPO) in order to arrest her'.

Shoring up?? No. He had her at the point she admitted she was there because of the clinic. Anything beyond was simply hoping she would incriminate herself further.

That's what 'shoring up' means. Adding to the evidence base that she was protesting, which is against the PSPO.

I'm surprised a self-described libertarian supports gov't banning silent prayer. Except that I'm not at all surprised.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yeah there’s this weird, unfounded claim that the last question a cop asks = the reason for the arrest.

Even if the cops make a pubic stateent that it was not.

The statement does not refute that praying is explicitly defined in the PSPO as a marker of protest, does not refute that the cop asked if she was praying, and does not change that she was arrested after her statement about praying. She was arrested for breaching the PSPO by protesting, and that includes praying.

But it is immaterial if praying was necessary for her arrest. It was clearly sufficient. And I do not support gov't banning silent prayer.

She said she was there because of the clinic. That's enough to find her in violation, anything more is just icing on the cake.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You are not rebutting the fact that he already had enough, that question was simply handing her rope.

Whether praying in her head was necessary for her arrest is immaterial: it was clearly sufficient. You interpret the cop asking about prayer as 'shoring up' his evidence base to arrest her. I could just as well say 'clearly standing there silently was insufficient, the cop needed her admission to praying (or something else mentioned in the PSPO) in order to arrest her'.

Shoring up?? No. He had her at the point she admitted she was there because of the clinic. Anything beyond was simply hoping she would incriminate herself further.

That's what 'shoring up' means. Adding to the evidence base that she was protesting, which is against the PSPO.

I'm surprised a self-described libertarian supports gov't banning silent prayer. Except that I'm not at all surprised.

The point is he already had enough, the cop only asked the question to encourage her to dig herself in deeper. You're focusing on the wrong part.

 

[Gospel]

You are not rebutting the fact that he already had enough, that question was simply handing her rope.

Whether praying in her head was necessary for her arrest is immaterial: it was clearly sufficient. You interpret the cop asking about prayer as 'shoring up' his evidence base to arrest her. I could just as well say 'clearly standing there silently was insufficient, the cop needed her admission to praying (or something else mentioned in the PSPO) in order to arrest her'.

Shoring up?? No. He had her at the point she admitted she was there because of the clinic. Anything beyond was simply hoping she would incriminate herself further.

That's what 'shoring up' means. Adding to the evidence base that she was protesting, which is against the PSPO.

I'm surprised a self-described libertarian supports gov't banning silent prayer. Except that I'm not at all surprised.

The point is he already had enough, the cop only asked the question to encourage her to dig herself in deeper. You're focusing on the wrong part.

It's the right part to infants trying to sink the triangle in the square pocket.

 

[Metaphor]

You are not rebutting the fact that he already had enough, that question was simply handing her rope.

Whether praying in her head was necessary for her arrest is immaterial: it was clearly sufficient. You interpret the cop asking about prayer as 'shoring up' his evidence base to arrest her. I could just as well say 'clearly standing there silently was insufficient, the cop needed her admission to praying (or something else mentioned in the PSPO) in order to arrest her'.

Shoring up?? No. He had her at the point she admitted she was there because of the clinic. Anything beyond was simply hoping she would incriminate herself further.

That's what 'shoring up' means. Adding to the evidence base that she was protesting, which is against the PSPO.

I'm surprised a self-described libertarian supports gov't banning silent prayer. Except that I'm not at all surprised.

The point is he already had enough, the cop only asked the question to encourage her to dig herself in deeper. You're focusing on the wrong part.

I am focusing on the part of the PSPO that bans prayer of any description in the exclusion zone. Perhaps you think this is good gov't policy but I don't.

 

[Jarhyn]

iii Intimidating or harassing, or attempting to intimidate or harass, a Robert Clinic service user, visitor or a member of staff,

Being there without intent to enter the premises for service, or to traverse specifically to a place, as a member of a group whose charter is to oppose the clinic, is an act of overt harassment and intimidation of the staff.

Private message boards can do what they like, but when the State creates a law it better be damn well as clear as possible what it is enabling or what it is forbidding.

Seems to me that is exactly what the PSPO did and the perp admitted to violating it.

It does not seem obviously so to me. I would not have supposed that the 'prayer' included in the PSPO would have meant 'prayer in your head', especially given that
* The behaviours that led to the PSPO were all outwardly-directed, such as spoken prayer, signs, etc; and
* Banning praying in your head is straight-up fascist.

Read the PSPO. It doesn't require the prayer to be out loud.

It does not ban prayer execpt as an example of "Protest... Intimidation... Harassment".

The fact that she was praying is secondary to the fact she was harassing, intimidating and protesting. She could have been "picking her nose" and they could have arrested her for "picking her nose" because she was "picking her nose" there for long enough for the police to be called and respond to the call, and doing nothing other than "picking her nose".

She could have been "standing there breathing and admiring the sky" and that, too, would elicit the same response, because for her, in that space, for that duration, any presence in that place is "protest... intimidation... harassment"

 

[Metaphor]

She could have been "standing there breathing and admiring the sky" and that, too, would elicit the same response, because for her, in that space, for that duration, any presence in that place is "protest... intimidation... harassment"

It was a protest. I see no evidence it was intimidation or harassment.

 

[Jarhyn]

She could have been "standing there breathing and admiring the sky" and that, too, would elicit the same response, because for her, in that space, for that duration, any presence in that place is "protest... intimidation... harassment"

It was a protest. I see no evidence it was intimidation or harassment.

She opposes the existence of the clinic. She has expressed this opposition. She has expressed her opinions of their staff, and she has expressed her opinions on what they do.

This existential opposition, combined with their presence in the vicinity, in the clear reality of attacks made on businesses such as that by groups such as this, is intimidation. Due to their behavior in the past of harassing folks passing through that space, just being there to see and watch people move through that space is intimidation.

And, being there for that long, praying, visibly or as publicly stated by the guilty party, is an act of harassment. It is a communication of message (though her loitering presence is sufficient to make that comminication, given her reputation), that they disapprove of the behavior of the patrons of the business, and of the business. It is an unwanted behavior visibly directed at a captive group. That is harassment.

Your inability to see it is directly proportional to the percentage of your vision you seem to be willfully obstructing with your hand and eyelids and mental faculties.