UK thought police arrest woman for silent prayer

[Politesse]

Silent prayer is prayer folks.

Not if you tell someone you're doing it. Then it's out loud prayer.

 

[Gospel]

Yeah, and that's why the officer asked. He needed to figure out why she was there. If she said she was there for a consolation and walked into the building, he would have went along his merry way. But she said the words "praying in my head" in that sequence and that was enough for him to leap into action.

 

[Metaphor]

Silent prayer is prayer folks.

Not if you tell someone you're doing it. Then it's out loud prayer.

Um, no. She answered a police officer's question. She didn't say 'hold my calls for the next five minutes I'm getting a quick rosary off'.

In fact she didn't even seem to want to answer the cop's question. It is my experience when you tell you are 'maybe' doing something, it probably means 'yeah I'm doing it but mind your own business'.

 

[laughing dog]

why did he ask her if she was praying?

I'll take a wild guess here. Could be that he was building a case against her (which is similar to what the police do here in America). If she admitted to praying it could be used as evidence that she was breaking the law. The PSPO says prayer (which itself is verbal or non verbal) is a violation . Get it now? GOSH!

Good work for being the one to finally point out the elephant in the room.

So I take it you're agreeing with me and Metaphor that the various people in this thread from post #2 onwards, who've asserted that the Yahoo news headline and thread title are wrong because the woman wasn't arrested for silent prayer, were all talking complete bosh.

That response is truly ironic. For all we know, the officer's question was an honest one as in "you realize you are going to get arrested if this goes on, so what are you thinking"?. That is probable given that she is the leader of the anti-bortion group and is likely known by sight.

 

[Bomb#20]

I suppose so. I mean, the law basically says that nobody is welcome there for any reason outside of having business being there. So yeah, going there to pray is not only a violation it's literally given as an example of restricted behavior. On the other hand If this was a permanent thing I can understand Metaphor's outrage, but that doesn't seem to be the case. What it seems to be is people who live and work in that community (unlike the trouble maker in this case) grew tired of all the commotion and asked for local officials to do something about it and this was their compromise. A temporary restriction on everybody. Not side A or side B of the issue but every single one of yawl. That seems fair to me.

How permanent a thing is depends on perspective. The residents asked for local officials to do something about it and what the local officials did about it appears to have gone beyond the bounds of what governments should be allowed to do. The temporary restrictions they imposed would be illegal in the U.S.; and our Bill of Rights isn't some abstract theory of good government -- it's a concrete list of abuses the British government was in the habit of practicing. Two hundred and thirty-odd years later and the more things change the more they stay the same. It's kind of odd to see so many Americans composing apologetics for the redcoats.

 

[bilby]

The police are seldom the best tool to use in settling a dispute; they cause as much upset as they resolve, and should be employed as sparingly as possible. We say "police" because "the part of the military we use against the citizens" is too uncomfortable.

That's true in most countries, but in the UK, the explicitly civilian nature of police has been an important element of their existence since the very beginning.

Police in the UK are very explicitly not a part of the military, and this is a central reason why they are not routinely issued with firearms.

"A watchman is a civilian, you inbred streak of piss!” - Sam Vimes, head of the city watch, in Terry Pratchett's Jingo.

"...maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence." - Sir Robert Peel, British Home Secretary and founder of modern policing.

 

[laughing dog]

Refusing to go to the police station voluntarily does not mean you did it in order to get arrested.

The depths of feigned obtuseness displayed in the defense of this woman

I don't always find LD particularly insightful. But this one's easy.
Tom

The circumstance that Metaphor disagrees with laughing dog about the arrest because considerations about this case that are important to laughing dog are unimportant to Metaphor, and vice versa, does not constitute "feigned obtuseness". Laughing dog does not have a reason to think it constitutes "feigned obtuseness". Metaphor is neither feigning nor being obtuse. He is simply disagreeing with the progressives and having the unforgiveable uppitiness to explain why. Calling what he wrote "feigned obtuseness" was simply a way for laughing dog to imply "I give myself and my allies permission to dismiss your argument without refuting it by the expedient of claiming without evidence that you already know we're right and are just being a dick about admitting it."

You don't read minds. You may disagree with my reasons, but that doesn't mean I don't have them. The evidence of what happened is clear.

You opted for your unsupported stupid assertions about my motivations which reflects much more on
your pathetic kneejerk instincts to whiteknight your ideological allies than on the content of my posts.

It's intellectually dishonest and it's a childish rhetorical

The level of cognitive dissonance required to make such an "ironic" statement is truly staggering.

 

[Gospel]

I suppose so. I mean, the law basically says that nobody is welcome there for any reason outside of having business being there. So yeah, going there to pray is not only a violation it's literally given as an example of restricted behavior. On the other hand If this was a permanent thing I can understand Metaphor's outrage, but that doesn't seem to be the case. What it seems to be is people who live and work in that community (unlike the trouble maker in this case) grew tired of all the commotion and asked for local officials to do something about it and this was their compromise. A temporary restriction on everybody. Not side A or side B of the issue but every single one of yawl. That seems fair to me.

How permanent a thing is depends on perspective. The residents asked for local officials to do something about it and what the local officials did about it appears to have gone beyond the bounds of what governments should be allowed to do. The temporary restrictions they imposed would be illegal in the U.S.; and our Bill of Rights isn't some abstract theory of good government -- it's a concrete list of abuses the British government was in the habit of practicing. Two hundred and thirty-odd years later and the more things change the more they stay the same. It's kind of odd to see so many Americans composing apologetics for the redcoats.

Hmm. We're getting into the meat of the issue (now that we've passed the whole herp derp "why did the officer say prayer" thingamajig). The USA doesn't have clan hands on restricting it's citizens rights to protest. For example, my governor DeSantis made it so it is lawful for the police to arrest you for obstructing car or pedestrian traffic while protesting. I mean, it wasn't used when it was supposed to because apparently it wasn't meant for Cubans but still.

Government meddling in things it has no business doing is a big thing over here. Does not abortion rights ring a bell?

 

[laughing dog]

There is no unlimited "freedom of speech". You cannot yell fire in a theater that is not on fire. You cannot incite a riot. Society can and does limit speech.

In this situation, the question is should freedom of speech trump someone's right to access legal health care. Add in the disruption to the neighbor, and the city council of Birmingham enacted a PSPO around that clinic. People can protest all they want outside of that zone. Their right to free speech is restricted only in geography. Is that a reasonable comprise between conflicting rights? One would think reasonable people would think so.

 

[Metaphor]

I suppose so. I mean, the law basically says that nobody is welcome there for any reason outside of having business being there. So yeah, going there to pray is not only a violation it's literally given as an example of restricted behavior. On the other hand If this was a permanent thing I can understand Metaphor's outrage, but that doesn't seem to be the case. What it seems to be is people who live and work in that community (unlike the trouble maker in this case) grew tired of all the commotion and asked for local officials to do something about it and this was their compromise. A temporary restriction on everybody. Not side A or side B of the issue but every single one of yawl. That seems fair to me.

How permanent a thing is depends on perspective. The residents asked for local officials to do something about it and what the local officials did about it appears to have gone beyond the bounds of what governments should be allowed to do. The temporary restrictions they imposed would be illegal in the U.S.; and our Bill of Rights isn't some abstract theory of good government -- it's a concrete list of abuses the British government was in the habit of practicing. Two hundred and thirty-odd years later and the more things change the more they stay the same. It's kind of odd to see so many Americans composing apologetics for the redcoats.

Hmm. We're getting into the meat of the issue (now that we've passed the whole herp derp "why did the officer say prayer" thingamajig). The USA doesn't have clan hands on restricting it's citizens rights to protest. For example, my governor DeSantis made it so it is lawful for the police to arrest you for obstructing car or pedestrian traffic while protesting. I mean, it wasn't used when it was supposed to because apparently it wasn't meant for Cubans but still.

The police should have the right to disperse (and arrest if they refuse to disperse) anybody obstructing traffic as part of a protest. Or anyone obstructing traffic for almost any reason, come to think of it.

On reading this thread, I have tested my own consistency. "Would I want the same thing to happen to an Extinction Rebellion/Stop Oil/Insulate Britain pest that happened to this woman?" And I can safely say that if Extinction Rebellion stood silently in the streets without any signs or obstructing traffic or shouting their talking points at randoms, then no - I would not think the police should arrest them.

 

[bilby]

There is no unlimited "freedom of speech". You cannot yell fire in a theater that is not on fire. You cannot incite a riot. Society can and does limit speech.

In this situation, the question is should freedom of speech trump someone's right to access legal health care. Add in the disruption to the neighbor, and the city council of Birmingham enacted a PSPO around that clinic. People can protest all they want outside of that zone. Their right to free speech is restricted only in geography. Is that a reasonable comprise between conflicting rights? One would think reasonable people would think so.

Yes, but would Americans?

 

[Rhea]

It is important to remember that this is not analogous to a blocked road protest for Anti-Oil or Green-whatever protester, as they have so far beenperpetrated.

These people are deliberately intimidating vulnerable and time-sensitive health care clients. They are on-purpose trying to prevent people from accessing health care. And they are doing it twice a week - for years, and also disturbing a residential area and approaching children (as stated in the complaint).

So for anyone who is testing their consistency, the consistency must include the facts of the case. Compare it to a case where an organized (indeed, incorporated) group is trying to change health outcomes of individual people non-stop (indeed, escalating,) for years in a residential neighborhood including the targeting of children. And after that has all occurred, finally, the sanctions increase.

That is what is being checked for consistency.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

Restraining orders very often prohibit someone from simply being in certain areas.

 

[Rhea]

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

Restraining orders very often prohibit someone from simply being in certain areas.

Because their obvious goal is not doing an activity, it is intimidation. And the restraining order deals with that obvious truth.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

why did he ask her if she was praying?

I'll take a wild guess here. Could be that he was building a case against her (which is similar to what the police do here in America). If she admitted to praying it could be used as evidence that she was breaking the law. The PSPO says prayer (which itself is verbal or non verbal) is a violation . Get it now? GOSH!

This. Cops like to give you rope to hang yourself with.

 

[TomC]

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

Restraining orders very often prohibit someone from simply being in certain areas.

It's not that difficult to understand.

Ms S-V had a restraining order against her. The cop was nice(or determined) enough to ask a question that amounted to "Have you got a legitimate reason to violate the law?".

She said "No".

This isn't hard to understand.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This head troll was protesting and most likely knew what she was doing becauseshe refused to voluntarily comply with a request in order to get arrested.

The depths of feigned obtuseness displayed in the defense of this woman ordinarily would make me wonder, but not in this instance.

This reminds me of a white friend of mine protesting speed bumps in his neighborhood by converting his truck into a hi-risers to avoid reducing speed. He took the tickets like a champ and now coal rolls over each bump instead. I don't agree with his reasoning (such as all the kids on the street grew up and moved on so the bumps aren't necessary anymore) because some people may sell their homes to new families. But he's not decrying his rights violated over the behest of others. Nor is he making a public appeal over it

Yeah I know the two issues are not the same.

Kids grew up and moved on? And they never bring the grandkids to visit??

I do have a problem with one local case, a single house causes a mile of a 45 mph street to be 35 mph, despite the house appearing to be uninhabited every time I have driven past it. However, residential streets should have low limits.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

Restraining orders very often prohibit someone from simply being in certain areas.

Because their obvious goal is not doing an activity, it is intimidation. And the restraining order deals with that obvious truth.

I was rebutting Metaphor. I agree with the restraining order and I would like to see a lot more such--the protests cause an undue burden on the others in the area and tie up police resources.

 

[Metaphor]

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

Restraining orders very often prohibit someone from simply being in certain areas.

It's not a restraining order.

 

[Metaphor]

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

Restraining orders very often prohibit someone from simply being in certain areas.

It's not that difficult to understand.

Ms S-V had a restraining order against her.

There was no 'restraining order' on anyone. It was a PSPO, which applies to the area and anyone who goes into it.