UK thought police arrest woman for silent prayer

[Bomb#20]

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?

We'll get to that...

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.

She lied when asked if she was a protester.

Why are you accusing her of lying? Why are you misstating the fact of what the police asked her? They didn't ask her if she was a protester; they asked her if she was part of a protest. It was just her, yes? Which part of "part of" don't you understand? She was not a part of a protest; she was the whole protest.

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.

Then the police would be dealing with a manifestly different situation, which they would be perfectly capable of dealing with in a manifestly different way. There are all manner of things individuals are allowed to do that groups are not allowed to do.

 

[Bomb#20]

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

Do you think things the police should know better than to do on-camera are things they ought to do off-camera?

 

[Politesse]

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

Do you think things the police should know better than to do on-camera are things they ought to do off-camera?

Very few things the police do are things they ought to do.

 

[Gospel]

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

Do you think things the police should know better than to do on-camera are things they ought to do off-camera?

Pshaw no. That was an easy one. I was waiting for the day I didn't have to venture through mental spaghetti to answer one of your questions. Thanks bud!

 

[laughing dog]

I think the police should have asked her to move along, away from the PSPO zone. If she refused in order to contravene the law with her virtue signaling intimidation tactic, then arrest her.

 

[Bomb#20]

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

You have a strange notion of validity. Your strawman accusation was ridiculous -- I hadn't imputed any particular position to you so I can hardly have been misrepresenting your position. Your JBS accusation was ridiculous because what I said wasn't at all like anything the JBS is noted for saying.

(Thea’s a hint for the hyper-literalist)

Uranus's daughter in Greek mythology? Not sure what you're trying to hint at...

(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?

So the JBS is a has-been organization that no longer matters to anyone but superannuated leftists using it as a bogeyman for their content-free slurs against whatever they feel like sneering at, much the way the less dated among you use "fascist". But every time one of you dredges up the JBS out of your collective subconscious it propagates an undeserved negative impression of the otherwise forgotten heroic man those twits named themselves after to your historically uninformed juniors. So why don't you just call my critique of your moral judgment methodology "Fascist analysis to a tee" like any normal semiarticulate echo-chamber participant would?

...

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

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

My point was that the issue in dispute in this thread is whether the UK police and the UK government are in the wrong; whether Ms. Vaughan-Spruce was also in the wrong is immaterial.

 

[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.

Then the police would be dealing with a manifestly different situation, which they would be perfectly capable of dealing with in a manifestly different way. There are all manner of things individuals are allowed to do that groups are not allowed to do.

Is silently praying one of those things?

You can't arrest the first person that shows up but the next silent prayer protester gets busted? How does that work?

 

[laughing dog]

You have a strange notion of validity. ….

I can see how someone who appears incapable of grasping the point would say that to virtue signal to your tribe.

My point was that the issue in dispute in this thread is whether the UK police and the UK government are in the wrong; whether Ms. Vaughan-Spruce was also in the wrong is immaterial.

I see. You mistakenly feel there is only one issue in dispute.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

Then the police would be dealing with a manifestly different situation, which they would be perfectly capable of dealing with in a manifestly different way. There are all manner of things individuals are allowed to do that groups are not allowed to do.

Is silently praying one of those things?

You can't arrest the first person that shows up but the next silent prayer protester gets busted? How does that work?

What difference does 'silently praying' make?

You imply that police simply have to arrest anyone who shows up and prays silently, otherwise they'll show up en masse and pray silently. But what if they show up en masse and are not praying silently? They are simply standing there, indistinguishable from praying silently (to an outsider). Does that mean you do not want them arrested?

 

[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.

Then the police would be dealing with a manifestly different situation, which they would be perfectly capable of dealing with in a manifestly different way. There are all manner of things individuals are allowed to do that groups are not allowed to do.

Is silently praying one of those things?

You can't arrest the first person that shows up but the next silent prayer protester gets busted? How does that work?

What difference does 'silently praying' make?

You imply that police simply have to arrest anyone who shows up and prays silently, otherwise they'll show up en masse and pray silently. But what if they show up en masse and are not praying silently? They are simply standing there, indistinguishable from praying silently (to an outsider). Does that mean you do not want them arrested?

I was responding to this:

Then the police would be dealing with a manifestly different situation, which they would be perfectly capable of dealing with in a manifestly different way. There are all manner of things individuals are allowed to do that groups are not allowed to do.

What is your response to Bomb's statement?

 

[Metaphor]

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.

Then the police would be dealing with a manifestly different situation, which they would be perfectly capable of dealing with in a manifestly different way. There are all manner of things individuals are allowed to do that groups are not allowed to do.

Is silently praying one of those things?

You can't arrest the first person that shows up but the next silent prayer protester gets busted? How does that work?

What difference does 'silently praying' make?

You imply that police simply have to arrest anyone who shows up and prays silently, otherwise they'll show up en masse and pray silently. But what if they show up en masse and are not praying silently? They are simply standing there, indistinguishable from praying silently (to an outsider). Does that mean you do not want them arrested?

I was responding to this:

Then the police would be dealing with a manifestly different situation, which they would be perfectly capable of dealing with in a manifestly different way. There are all manner of things individuals are allowed to do that groups are not allowed to do.

What is your response to Bomb's statement?

What's your response to mine?

If you have to ask people if they are praying in their head, and whether you arrest them depends on their answer, your policy is broken, bonkers, and bullshit. However it is you want to disperse people who you suspect are acting in concert, asking them if they are praying in their head is not a way to do it.

I will ask you again:

You imply that police simply have to arrest anyone who shows up and prays silently, otherwise they'll show up en masse and pray silently. But what if they show up en masse and are not praying silently? They are simply standing there, indistinguishable from praying silently (to an outsider). Does that mean you do not want them arrested?

 

[ZiprHead]

If you have to ask people if they are praying in their head, and whether you arrest them depends on their answer, your policy is broken, bonkers, and bullshit. However it is you want to disperse people who you suspect are acting in concert, asking them if they are praying in their head is not a way to do it.

I disagree with your strawman premise. I still believe the cop was interviewing the person to determine whether she was a protester or not. The prayer part is meaningless. She could have been discussing how abortion should be illegal with her long dead mother. She was there for an illegal purpose. He determined she was there for an illegal protest. That the National Review, a far right publication, framed it as such doesn't mean that's what happened.

 

[laughing dog]

If you have to ask people if they are praying in their head, and whether you arrest them depends on their answer, your policy is broken, bonkers, and bullshit. However it is you want to disperse people who you suspect are acting in concert, asking them if they are praying in their head is not a way to do it.

I disagree with your strawman premise. I still believe the cop was interviewing the person to determine whether she was a protester or not. The prayer part is meaningless. She could have been discussing how abortion should be illegal with her long dead mother. She was there for an illegal purpose. He determined she was there for an illegal protest. That the National Review, a far right publication, framed it as such doesn't mean that's what happened.

We don’t know what prompted the police to talk to her. One would hope she was not just strolling by.

 

[Metaphor]

If you have to ask people if they are praying in their head, and whether you arrest them depends on their answer, your policy is broken, bonkers, and bullshit. However it is you want to disperse people who you suspect are acting in concert, asking them if they are praying in their head is not a way to do it.

I disagree with your strawman premise. I still believe the cop was interviewing the person to determine whether she was a protester or not. The prayer part is meaningless.

Then why did the cop ask? And if it was meaningless, how would you have determined she was 'protesting' (which is not forbidden by the exclusion zone). Certain acts are forbidden in the exclusion zone. Which act did she commit?

She could have been discussing how abortion should be illegal with her long dead mother. She was there for an illegal purpose. He determined she was there for an illegal protest.

So, how did the police determine that? Why did they ask her if she was praying? Do you agree - and I am pressing you on this - that she should have been arrested no matter what she said?

That the National Review, a far right publication, framed it as such doesn't mean that's what happened.

So, can I simply dismiss the events reported by 'far left' publications? If the events are as stated, what did the woman do that got her arrested? It seems like it was 'standing silently with certain thoughts in her head whilst in an exclusion zone'.

 

[ZiprHead]

If you have to ask people if they are praying in their head, and whether you arrest them depends on their answer, your policy is broken, bonkers, and bullshit. However it is you want to disperse people who you suspect are acting in concert, asking them if they are praying in their head is not a way to do it.

I disagree with your strawman premise. I still believe the cop was interviewing the person to determine whether she was a protester or not. The prayer part is meaningless.

Then why did the cop ask? And if it was meaningless, how would you have determined she was 'protesting' (which is not forbidden by the exclusion zone). Certain acts are forbidden in the exclusion zone. Which act did she commit?

First of all, the original article called the zone a "speech buffer zone" The zone is actually called a Public Spaces Protection Order area that can encompass several predetermined activities that can be limited in that area. That's why what she was doing in her head was meaningless. It's what her purpose for being there was that got her arrested.

She could have been discussing how abortion should be illegal with her long dead mother. She was there for an illegal purpose. He determined she was there for an illegal protest.

So, how did the police determine that? Why did they ask her if she was praying? Do you agree - and I am pressing you on this - that she should have been arrested no matter what she said?

I suspect if she had said something to the effect of "I'm just admiring the architecture of the building." she might have had better luck with the law. But her answer made it clear she was there as a protest which is forbidden in that area.

That the National Review, a far right publication, framed it as such doesn't mean that's what happened.

So, can I simply dismiss the events reported by 'far left' publications? If the events are as stated, what did the woman do that got her arrested? It seems like it was 'standing silently with certain thoughts in her head whilst in an exclusion zone'.

I've already called out one lie in the article. The article is overflowing with a political bias.

 

[Metaphor]

If you have to ask people if they are praying in their head, and whether you arrest them depends on their answer, your policy is broken, bonkers, and bullshit. However it is you want to disperse people who you suspect are acting in concert, asking them if they are praying in their head is not a way to do it.

I disagree with your strawman premise. I still believe the cop was interviewing the person to determine whether she was a protester or not. The prayer part is meaningless.

Then why did the cop ask? And if it was meaningless, how would you have determined she was 'protesting' (which is not forbidden by the exclusion zone). Certain acts are forbidden in the exclusion zone. Which act did she commit?

First of all, the original article called the zone a "speech buffer zone" The zone is actually called a Public Spaces Protection Order area that can encompass several predetermined activities that can be limited in that area. That's why what she was doing in her head was meaningless. It's what her purpose for being there was that got her arrested.

Certain acts are forbidden, not 'purposes'. Which act did she commit?

She could have been discussing how abortion should be illegal with her long dead mother. She was there for an illegal purpose. He determined she was there for an illegal protest.

So, how did the police determine that? Why did they ask her if she was praying? Do you agree - and I am pressing you on this - that she should have been arrested no matter what she said?

I suspect if she had said something to the effect of "I'm just admiring the architecture of the building." she might have had better luck with the law. But her answer made it clear she was there as a protest which is forbidden in that area.

So, standing still admiring the architecture is allowed, and standing still praying in your head is forbidden.

That the National Review, a far right publication, framed it as such doesn't mean that's what happened.

So, can I simply dismiss the events reported by 'far left' publications? If the events are as stated, what did the woman do that got her arrested? It seems like it was 'standing silently with certain thoughts in her head whilst in an exclusion zone'.

I've already called out one lie in the article. The article is overflowing with a political bias.

What lie?

 

[Arctish]

Row erupts after false claim 'Woman arrested for silent praying' - here's what really happened

A pro-life woman who stood outside an abortion clinic in Kings Norton, Birmingham, in violation of a public space protection order, has found herself in the middle of a furious row after her case was picked up by a conservative outlet in the US. Misinformation about why Isabel Vaughan Spruce, 45, was arrested spread around social media after Mary Margaret Olohan, a senior reporter for the US publication The Daily Signal, shared the video of the arrest and falsely claimed it was for “silent praying”. Twitter was forced to attach a corrective statement to Ms Olohan’s post after it went viral.

So basically she was doing this:

 

[laughing dog]

So she was not arrested for silent praying. She admits she is there to stop abortions. So the OP is based on misinformation, and the free speech zealots have been defending someone who was trying to prevent women from getting legal health care.

 

[Arctish]

The woman in the OP was employing such an obvious troll tactic I'm genuinely surprised any veterans of the original IIDB, Rants n Raves, The Secular Cafe, Talk Rational, or even Christian Forums didn't spot it just from reading the original link.

It appears she knew about the ordinance, was deliberately violating it in such a way to generate the most drama, and sure enough, here come the 'free speech' extremists crying because they aren't allowed to pee in everybody else's Wheaties.

 

[Rhea]

This lady was charged with FOUR COUNTS of vioalting the order.

Here’s a little background of what led to getting the order:

Calls to end years of anti-abortion protests outside city clinic

Complaints have been made about "pro-life" campaigners handing out graphic leaflets, chanting and blocking access to women using the facility

www.birminghammail.co.uk

Neighbours of a Birmingham abortion clinic say years of protests in their street have left residents feeling "miserable and helpless" and service users in tears. Complaints have been made about "pro-life" campaigners handing out graphic leaflets, chanting and blocking access to women using the Robert Clinic in Kings Norton.

Birmingham City Council has launched a consultation to ban all abortion protests near the Station Road facility by introducing a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO). According to the consultation documents, members of the '40 Days For Life' anti-abortion group have been pitching up outside the clinic twice a year in autumn and over Lent for 40 consecutive days each time, as well as on a twice-weekly basis throughout the year.

Not sure why any of you would want to defend someone who is acting to intimidate and upset clinic users - menacing behavior standing around the entrance.


Four violations. It’s clearly not accurate that she was “just praying silently”. The news title misleads; she was not arrested “for praying silently,” she was arrested for violating the public space order. An order that was put in place after years of bad behavior by this group of which she is the CEO, not some innocent passerby. She knows exactly what she is doing and her published intent is to disrupt women from getting medical treatment.

Why do you defend her? Why do you make excuses that her stated goal is okay to carry ut because she’s goading, brinking, edgelording to create the havoc while trying to say that she’s right to do it? She publicly states by being CEO of this organization, that her intent is to do the thing that this order prohibits.

And people here want to defend that? Why?

Woman charged with breaching exclusion zone near abortion clinic

She was arrested close to the BPAS Robert Clinic in Kings Norton

www.birminghammail.co.uk