UK thought police arrest woman for silent prayer

[Metaphor]

BTW, there is no indication that "praying in the head" is the violation. That particular claim is utter horseshit.

Then why was she asked if she was praying, and why was she arrested only after she said 'praying in my head'?

If that wasn't the violation, then what was?

I would assume it was to determine whether she was a protester or someone who just wandered unknowingly into an area she wasn't supposed to be in.

Nobody is forbidden to be in a certain area. They are forbidden only from engaging in certain activities in the areas.

When officers asked whether she was part of a protest, she replied “no.” They then asked if she was praying, to which she said she could be doing so “in my head.” Police then searched her, and patted down her hair, before handcuffing her and escorting her to the station.

It is your opinion that standing silently with certain thoughts in your head makes you a 'protester' or 'part of a protest'. However, 'protesting' is not a criminalised action: you have to be doing something defined by the legislation, like shouting, or holding signs, or praying aloud.

Again, I am disturbed, but not surprised, that the criminalisation of thought does not bother you.

 

[ZiprHead]

BTW, there is no indication that "praying in the head" is the violation. That particular claim is utter horseshit.

Then why was she asked if she was praying, and why was she arrested only after she said 'praying in my head'?

If that wasn't the violation, then what was?

I would assume it was to determine whether she was a protester or someone who just wandered unknowingly into an area she wasn't supposed to be in.

Nobody is forbidden to be in a certain area. They are forbidden only from engaging in certain activities in the areas.

Okay, so...

When officers asked whether she was part of a protest, she replied “no.” They then asked if she was praying, to which she said she could be doing so “in my head.” Police then searched her, and patted down her hair, before handcuffing her and escorting her to the station.

It is your opinion that standing silently with certain thoughts in your head makes you a 'protester' or 'part of a protest'. However, 'protesting' is not a criminalised action: you have to be doing something defined by the legislation, like shouting, or holding signs, or praying aloud.

Again, I am disturbed, but not surprised, that the criminalisation of thought does not bother you.

No. What bothers me is that people will try to stop women from getting a safe and legal medical procedure.

Mary got pregnant from a kid named Tom that said he was in love
He said, "Don't worry about a thing, baby doll I'm the man you've been dreaming of"
But three months later he say he won't date her or return her calls
And she swear, "Goddamn, if I find that man I'm cuttin' off his balls"
And then she heads for the clinic and she gets some static walking through the door
They call her a killer, and they call her a sinner and they call her a whore
God forbid you ever had to walk a mile in her shoes
'Cause then you really might know what it's like to have to choose
What it's like - Everlast

What do you think would happen if one person got away with a silent protest in that area? Others would show up by the dozens to do the same.

 

[Metaphor]

BTW, there is no indication that "praying in the head" is the violation. That particular claim is utter horseshit.

Then why was she asked if she was praying, and why was she arrested only after she said 'praying in my head'?

If that wasn't the violation, then what was?

I would assume it was to determine whether she was a protester or someone who just wandered unknowingly into an area she wasn't supposed to be in.

Nobody is forbidden to be in a certain area. They are forbidden only from engaging in certain activities in the areas.

Okay, so...

When officers asked whether she was part of a protest, she replied “no.” They then asked if she was praying, to which she said she could be doing so “in my head.” Police then searched her, and patted down her hair, before handcuffing her and escorting her to the station.

It is your opinion that standing silently with certain thoughts in your head makes you a 'protester' or 'part of a protest'. However, 'protesting' is not a criminalised action: you have to be doing something defined by the legislation, like shouting, or holding signs, or praying aloud.

Again, I am disturbed, but not surprised, that the criminalisation of thought does not bother you.

No. What bothers me is that people will try to stop women from getting a safe and legal medical procedure.

Mary got pregnant from a kid named Tom that said he was in love
He said, "Don't worry about a thing, baby doll I'm the man you've been dreaming of"
But three months later he say he won't date her or return her calls
And she swear, "Goddamn, if I find that man I'm cuttin' off his balls"
And then she heads for the clinic and she gets some static walking through the door
They call her a killer, and they call her a sinner and they call her a whore
God forbid you ever had to walk a mile in her shoes
'Cause then you really might know what it's like to have to choose
What it's like - Everlast

What do you think would happen if one person got away with a silent protest in that area? Others would show up by the dozens to do the same.

If the person arrested had said 'no, I am not praying', should she have been arrested anyway?

If the answer is yes, she should have been arrested anyway, then you are saying standing silently with no outward indication of doing anything distressing or harassing is something the police should arrest people for.

If the answer is no, she should not have been arrested, then you are endorsing the criminalisation of thought.

I don't know which scenario is the more disturbing.

 

[ZiprHead]

BTW, there is no indication that "praying in the head" is the violation. That particular claim is utter horseshit.

Then why was she asked if she was praying, and why was she arrested only after she said 'praying in my head'?

If that wasn't the violation, then what was?

I would assume it was to determine whether she was a protester or someone who just wandered unknowingly into an area she wasn't supposed to be in.

Nobody is forbidden to be in a certain area. They are forbidden only from engaging in certain activities in the areas.

Okay, so...

When officers asked whether she was part of a protest, she replied “no.” They then asked if she was praying, to which she said she could be doing so “in my head.” Police then searched her, and patted down her hair, before handcuffing her and escorting her to the station.

It is your opinion that standing silently with certain thoughts in your head makes you a 'protester' or 'part of a protest'. However, 'protesting' is not a criminalised action: you have to be doing something defined by the legislation, like shouting, or holding signs, or praying aloud.

Again, I am disturbed, but not surprised, that the criminalisation of thought does not bother you.

No. What bothers me is that people will try to stop women from getting a safe and legal medical procedure.

Mary got pregnant from a kid named Tom that said he was in love
He said, "Don't worry about a thing, baby doll I'm the man you've been dreaming of"
But three months later he say he won't date her or return her calls
And she swear, "Goddamn, if I find that man I'm cuttin' off his balls"
And then she heads for the clinic and she gets some static walking through the door
They call her a killer, and they call her a sinner and they call her a whore
God forbid you ever had to walk a mile in her shoes
'Cause then you really might know what it's like to have to choose
What it's like - Everlast

What do you think would happen if one person got away with a silent protest in that area? Others would show up by the dozens to do the same.

If the person arrested had said 'no, I am not praying', should she have been arrested anyway?

I assume more questions would have occured. Cops aren't as stupid as you would like them to be.

If the answer is yes, she should have been arrested anyway, then you are saying standing silently with no outward indication of doing anything distressing or harassing is something the police should arrest people for.

If the answer is no, she should not have been arrested, then you are endorsing the criminalisation of thought.

I don't know which scenario is the more disturbing.

 

[Politesse]

it’s very revealing which religions are tolerated in the UK. A Christian woman standing near an abortion clinic, possibly praying gets lifted by plod almost immediately. The loons from extinction rebellion who disrupt traffic and emergency vehicles by sitting in the road are pretty much left alone.

Are you trying to pretend that just anyone who happens to be praying in the UK gets arrested?

Also "pretty much left alone" is a pretty strange way to describe being savagely beaten, arrested, and jailed.

 

[laughing dog]

It is absurd to claim this PSPO is criminalisation of thought. No thought is proscribed. That woman can pray to her heart’s content as long as it is not near that abortion clinic.

 

[Bomb#20]

That's what you're here for, no?

 

[Bomb#20]

I have no sympathy for this person whatsoever.

Leftist ethical theory in a nutshell.

 

[Bomb#20]

In my opinion, those who protest in a method that may intimidate someone seeking to obtain legal medical care are always in the wrong.

Those who oppose abortion are always in the wrong, regardless of how or if they express that opposition. Whoop-de-doo. Governments doing things they ought not to do are also always in the wrong. Those who condone governments doing things they ought not to do are always in the wrong too. Just because your opponent is in the wrong doesn't make you in the right.

 

[laughing dog]

I have no sympathy for this person whatsoever.

Leftist ethical theory in a nutshell.

John Birch society analysis to a tee.

 

[laughing dog]

In my opinion, those who protest in a method that may intimidate someone seeking to obtain legal medical care are always in the wrong.

Those who oppose abortion are always in the wrong, regardless of how or if they express that opposition. Whoop-de-doo. Governments doing things they ought not to do are also always in the wrong. Those who condone governments doing things they ought not to do are always in the wrong too. Just because your opponent is in the wrong doesn't make you in the right.

Opposing abortion does not necessarily translate into intimidating those seeking counseling or abortions. So your response is based on a straw man.

 

[Bomb#20]

In my opinion, those who protest in a method that may intimidate someone seeking to obtain legal medical care are always in the wrong.

Those who oppose abortion are always in the wrong, regardless of how or if they express that opposition. Whoop-de-doo. Governments doing things they ought not to do are also always in the wrong. Those who condone governments doing things they ought not to do are always in the wrong too. Just because your opponent is in the wrong doesn't make you in the right.

Opposing abortion does not necessarily translate into intimidating those seeking counseling or abortions. So your response is based on a straw man.

Non sequitur.

 

[Bomb#20]

I have no sympathy for this person whatsoever.

Leftist ethical theory in a nutshell.

John Birch society analysis to a tee.

And you accuse me of a strawman. You are unable to quote any John Bircher ever pointing out that leftists reserve moral consideration to those they feel sympathetic toward.

(Incidentally, John Birch was a great American, and his bereaved family never appreciated having a bunch of right-wing extremists sullying his memory by trying to associate him with themselves.)

 

[ZiprHead]

What do you think would happen if one person got away with a silent protest in that area? Others would show up by the dozens to do the same.

Anyone else like to take a shot at answering this question that Metaphor conveniently cut from his response?

 

[Politesse]

Gee, I wonder what Jesus would think about praying in a public place just "to make a point".

But, the police were making the wrong call here. They knew they were on cam. This was only going to inflame the situation.

 

[TomC]

What do you think would happen if one person got away with a silent protest in that area? Others would show up by the dozens to do the same.

Anyone else like to take a shot at answering this question that Metaphor conveniently cut from his response?

I'd be inclined to look into the circumstances or events that caused the city council to pass the ordinance in the first place.
Also her history there. Had she been caught throwing a cup of blood on a staff member previously, which I know for a fact has happened elsewhere, she might be a big part of the reasons for the restrictions in the first place.
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

What do you think would happen if one person got away with a silent protest in that area? Others would show up by the dozens to do the same.

Anyone else like to take a shot at answering this question that Metaphor conveniently cut from his response?

I'd be inclined to look into the circumstances or events that caused the city council to pass the ordinance in the first place.
Also her history there. Had she been caught throwing a cup of blood on a staff member previously, which I know for a fact has happened elsewhere, she might be a big part of the reasons for the restrictions in the first place.
Tom

They probably looked similar to this.

Then the clinics have to respond like this.

 

[laughing dog]

And you accuse me of a strawman. You are unable to quote any John Bircher ever pointing out that leftists reserve moral consideration to those they feel sympathetic toward.

My accusations are valid (Thea’s a hint for the hyper-literalist)

(Incidentally, John Birch was a great American, and his bereaved family never appreciated having a bunch of right-wing extremists sullying his memory by trying to associate him with themselves.)

So?

 

[laughing dog]

In my opinion, those who protest in a method that may intimidate someone seeking to obtain legal medical care are always in the wrong.

Those who oppose abortion are always in the wrong, regardless of how or if they express that opposition. Whoop-de-doo. Governments doing things they ought not to do are also always in the wrong. Those who condone governments doing things they ought not to do are always in the wrong too. Just because your opponent is in the wrong doesn't make you in the right.

Opposing abortion does not necessarily translate into intimidating those seeking counseling or abortions. So your response is based on a straw man.

Non sequitur.

Rather than getting derailed in ironic non sequiturs anove, what relevant point(s) did you feel you were making ?

 

[Metaphor]

Gee, I wonder what Jesus would think about praying in a public place just "to make a point".

Jesus spoke out only against virtue-signalling public prayer, not 'praying in your head', even if you happen to be in public at the time.

But, the police were making the wrong call here. They knew they were on cam. This was only going to inflame the situation.

They made the wrong call but only because they were on camera? You don't think it was the wrong call full stop?