UK thought police arrest woman for silent prayer

[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.

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

There's no 'restraining order'. Rhea, you published the PSPO yourself. It is a zone where anybody who enters is restricted from certain activities.

An order that applies to a person in the UK is an ASBO.

 

[bilby]

I do have a problem with one local case, a single house causes a mile of a 45 mph street to be 35 mph

Thereby costing you at most 21 seconds.

Probably considerably less, as the higher the limit is, the more likely it is that you will need to drive below it due to external hazards.

And had you "saved" that (up to) 21 seconds, you would almost certainly spend them sitting for slightly longer at the next red light, or at the back of the next queue of traffic.

People have a ridiculously inflated idea of how much time they save by driving faster. Journey times (particularly for trips on suburban streets) are practically unchanged by increasing speed limits above about 50kph (30mph).

You need to drive a very long way, on an uncongested limited access highway, for a speed increase of a mere 10mph to noticeably lower total journey time. The largest factors impacting journey time are all outside the driver's control, and speed simply isn't important enough to overcome such things as traffic volume, traffic lights, junctions, sharp curves and corners, and (most significant of all) the actions of other road users.

If you care about a mile of 35 instead of 45, then you haven't understood how incredibly tiny the impact of that is on your life. Relax, enjoy the scenery. You won't be any later than you would have been anyway, but you will be a lot less stressed.

 

[ZiprHead]

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'.

Yeah. That works great with cops.

 

[Metaphor]

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'.

Yeah. That works great with cops.

But that's precisely my point. She was answering a cop's question; she wasn't trying to virtue signal her praying.

 

[Gospel]

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'.

Yeah. That works great with cops.

But that's precisely my point. She was answering a cop's question; she wasn't trying to virtue signal her praying.

If an officer asks what you're smoking I suggest you don't tell them. Just sayin.

 

[bilby]

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'.

Yeah. That works great with cops.

But that's precisely my point. She was answering a cop's question; she wasn't trying to virtue signal her praying.

If an officer asks what you're smoking I suggest you don't tell them. Just sayin.

"You do not have to say or do anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention something when questioned that you later rely on in court. Anything that you do or say, may be used in evidence." - UK police caution (my bold).

This replaced "You have the right to remain silent, but anything you say may be used in evidence", as a consequence of the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, which removed the right to silence for suspects and arrestees.

 

[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.

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.

Sorry - I knew that, I was adding to the rebuttal.
And yes it is not explicitly a “restraining order” but the analog is useful for describing why “just being there” was prohibited.

The PSPO was an order that intended to stop the intimidation by making it clear that if you didn’t have legitimate business there, then you were assumed to be attempting to intimidate and harass.

Which she was. Because their obvious goal is not doing an activity, it is intimidation. And the PSPO deals with that obvious truth.

 

[Metaphor]

Sorry - I knew that, I was adding to the rebuttal.
And yes it is not explicitly a “restraining order” but the analog is useful for describing why “just being there” was prohibited.

Being there is not prohibited. There is nothing in the order that says you cannot simply be there. Nothing.

And no, a 'restraining order' is not a good analogy. ASBOs in Britain apply to people, not places.

The PSPO was an order that intended to stop the intimidation by making it clear that if you didn’t have legitimate business there, then you were assumed to be attempting to intimidate and harass.

The PSPO you linked to says nothing of the kind. It does not mention 'legitimate business' or working assumptions. You are manufacturing details from whole cloth.

 

[Rhea]

Protesting’ means being in the restricted area (whether by yourself or with others) and engaging in any act of approval or disapproval or attempted act of approval or disapproval, with respect to issues related to abortion services, by any means. This includes but is not limited to, graphic, verbal or written means, prayer or counselling; ‘Service user’ includes any patient or visitor to the Robert Clinic.

Standing there, with your head bowed (in prayer) to show disapproval, would be agaisnt the order.


Don’t know why you want to defend this bullying.

 

[Metaphor]

Standing there, with your head bowed (in prayer) to show disapproval, would be agaisnt the order.

Rhea, try to be consistent. In post #148 you claimed just being there was against the order. It's not.

Though I see you are still manufacturing details. When was her head bowed?

And I see there is tacit admission that she was indeed arrested for praying silently, as the OP article alleged and has now been made painfully clear, despite pages of protest at the characterisation.

Don’t know why you want to defend this bullying.

Rhea, you've made this accusation more than once before. Who was "defending" this woman? I am concerned here with the overreach of this PSPO, which is defined so broadly that whatever a cop decides is protesting, is protesting, and when silent prayer is the difference between getting arrested and not getting arrested, we see thoughtcrime not in bud, but in full flower in the UK.

 

[Arctish]

Standing there, with your head bowed (in prayer) to show disapproval, would be agaisnt the order.

Rhea, try to be consistent. In post #148 you claimed just being there was against the order. It's not.

Though I see you are still manufacturing details. When was her head bowed?

And I see there is tacit admission that she was indeed arrested for praying silently, as the OP article alleged and has now been made painfully clear, despite pages of protest at the characterisation.

Just being there to engage in the same behavior that led to the PSPO being enacted is the problem.

People who live in that neighborhood can just be there. People who are seeking medical treatment at the clinic can just be there. People who are delivering pizza or mail or parcels, who are walking their dogs, or walking to school, or sightseeing, or any number or activities that aren't part of the campaign of harassment, intimidation, obstruction, or assholery that Ms. Vaughan-Spruce and her group have been carrying out for years, can just be there. But if the police ask them to leave, they have to leave.

She was trolling. She was knowingly and deliberately crossing the line the community has established in order to protect the staff, clients, and neighbors of the clinic from her and her fellow activists. That coy little "I might be..." isn't fooling anyone.

 

[Bomb#20]

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". ...

You don't read minds.

Of course I read minds. Everyone who isn't autistic reads minds. When you wrote "The depths of feigned obtuseness displayed in the defense of this woman", that was a claim that you'd read Metaphor's mind. This is not rocket science.

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

It certainly is. The evidence shows Metaphor disagrees with you, and you are contemptuous of his reasons for disagreeing, and your contempt leads you to make baseless insulting accusations against him, because you are who you are.

 

[Metaphor]

Just being there to engage in the same behavior that led to the PSPO being enacted is the problem.

People who live in that neighborhood can just be there. People who are seeking medical treatment at the clinic can just be there. People who are delivering pizza or mail or parcels, who are walking their dogs, or walking to school, or sightseeing, or any number or activities that aren't part of the campaign of harassment, intimidation, obstruction, or assholery that Ms. Vaughan-Spruce and her group have been carrying out for years, can just be there. But if the police ask them to leave, they have to leave.

She was trolling. She was knowingly and deliberately crossing the line the community has established in order to protect the staff, clients, and neighbors of the clinic from her and her fellow activists. That coy little "I might be..." isn't fooling anyone.

Who claimed she was "fooling anyone"?

I think the PSPO is dangerous overreach which gives too much discretion to individual police officers. And because VS was arrested only after she claimed she might be praying in her head, she was arrested for thoughtcrime. That bothers me.

 

[Arctish]

Just being there to engage in the same behavior that led to the PSPO being enacted is the problem.

People who live in that neighborhood can just be there. People who are seeking medical treatment at the clinic can just be there. People who are delivering pizza or mail or parcels, who are walking their dogs, or walking to school, or sightseeing, or any number or activities that aren't part of the campaign of harassment, intimidation, obstruction, or assholery that Ms. Vaughan-Spruce and her group have been carrying out for years, can just be there. But if the police ask them to leave, they have to leave.

She was trolling. She was knowingly and deliberately crossing the line the community has established in order to protect the staff, clients, and neighbors of the clinic from her and her fellow activists. That coy little "I might be..." isn't fooling anyone.

Who claimed she was "fooling anyone"?

I think the PSPO is dangerous overreach which gives too much discretion to individual police officers. And because VS was arrested only after she claimed she might be praying in her head, she was arrested for thoughtcrime. That bothers me.

So you realize she was knowingly and deliberately violating the PSPO that was enacted due to the ongoing harassment, intimidation, obstruction, and assholery carried out by Ms. Vaughan-Spruce and members of her group, but object to how much discretion police officers have to arrest her for it?

She was arrested for her behavior. Her response to the police is telling wrt her motive, but it was her actions that led to the arrest.

And before you go on again about the thoughts in her head, let me just point out that we don't really know what she was thinking. We only know what she did - entered the area where she knew she was not supposed to be and lingered there in front of the clinic (an action), and her conversation with the police (another action), that both reek of trolling, and that either one could have gotten her arrested as per the PSPO she was deliberately violating.

 

[Bomb#20]

... 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.

... The USA doesn't have clan hands on restricting it's citizens rights to protest.

That's for sure and for certain. Do you remember W., and his so-called "Free Speech Zones"? The Secret Service would send everybody with an anti-Bush message to some pen a thousand feet away so the news cameras covering Bush wouldn't see them.

I mean, it wasn't used when it was supposed to because apparently it wasn't meant for Cubans but still.

Yup. Rules authorizing speech limits are nearly always written in a viewpoint-neutral way but enforced only against one side of a policy dispute.

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

It does indeed. Governments deserve the criticism they get for it; and if activists don't keep challenging them in court and shaming them in the media over it then the meddling will just keep getting worse and worse.

 

[Metaphor]

So you realize she was knowingly and deliberately violating the PSPO

No, I do not recognise that. In fact, I think rather the opposite. I think she counted on the idea that she was not violating the PSPO, because she was not engaging (except via silent prayer*) in any of the behaviours expressly forbidden by the PSPO--the very behaviours that led to the PSPO in the first place.

* I would not have thought (simply from reading the PSPO and knowing that the actions that had led to the PSPO had always been expressed somehow--graphic, verbal, or written) that thoughts in your head would count as violating the PSPO.

that was enacted due to the ongoing harassment, intimidation, obstruction, and assholery carried out by Ms. Vaughan-Spruce and members of her group, but object to how much discretion police officers have to arrest her for it?

I object to the broad wording and deep subjectivity of the PSPO, yes, as I've already expressed many times.

She was arrested for her behavior. Her response to the police is telling wrt her motive, but it was her actions that led to the arrest.

Well, her protesting led to her arrest, and the evidence of the protest was that she had thoughts in her head whilst in the exclusion zone.

And before you go on again about the thoughts in her head, let me just point out that we don't really know what she was thinking.

And yet you claim above she knowingly and deliberately violated the PSPO. So you seem to be claiming you know what she was thinking. Or do you take back your earlier claim?

We only know what she did - entered the area where she knew she was not supposed to be and lingered there in front of the clinic (an action), and her conversation with the police (another action),

Okay, you cannot seriously be telling me that answering police questions counts as 'an action' indicating her violation of the PSPO? That is something beyond Kafkaesque.

that both reek of trolling, and that either one could have gotten her arrested as per the PSPO she was deliberately violating.

Thank you for re-confirming the assertion in the thread title.

 

[Arctish]

I might be praying in my head, Metaphor.

I might be thinking about eating more peanut brittle.

I might be thinking about making an online payment to a credit card company.

I might be thinking about Bruce Campbell.

I might be thinking about all those things, or I might have only been thinking about them because I was composing a quasi-snarky answer to your post, and if I hadn't decided to engage in a conversation with you, I might not have been thinking of any of them at all.
How are you going to determine the truth of the matter?

 

[Metaphor]

I might be praying in my head, Metaphor.

I might be thinking about eating more peanut brittle.

I might be thinking about making an online payment to a credit card company.

I might be thinking about Bruce Campbell.

I might be thinking about all those things, or I might have only been thinking about them because I was composing a quasi-snarky answer to your post, and if I hadn't decided to engage in a conversation with you, I might not have been thinking of any of them at all.
How are you going to determine the truth of the matter?

The truth about what you might have been theoretically thinking about? I can't determine the truth of that matter and I'm uninterested in doing so.

 

[Arctish]

I might be praying in my head, Metaphor.

I might be thinking about eating more peanut brittle.

I might be thinking about making an online payment to a credit card company.

I might be thinking about Bruce Campbell.

I might be thinking about all those things, or I might have only been thinking about them because I was composing a quasi-snarky answer to your post, and if I hadn't decided to engage in a conversation with you, I might not have been thinking of any of them at all.
How are you going to determine the truth of the matter?

The truth about what you might have been theoretically thinking about? I can't determine the truth of that matter and I'm uninterested in doing so.

Well, it's the same with Vaughan-Spruce and the thoughts in her head.

We don't know what she was thinking. We only know what she told the police officer who asked her what she was doing. So she didn't get arrested for the thoughts in her head, she was arrested for her actions.

 

[Metaphor]

I might be praying in my head, Metaphor.

I might be thinking about eating more peanut brittle.

I might be thinking about making an online payment to a credit card company.

I might be thinking about Bruce Campbell.

I might be thinking about all those things, or I might have only been thinking about them because I was composing a quasi-snarky answer to your post, and if I hadn't decided to engage in a conversation with you, I might not have been thinking of any of them at all.
How are you going to determine the truth of the matter?

The truth about what you might have been theoretically thinking about? I can't determine the truth of that matter and I'm uninterested in doing so.

Well, it's the same with Vaughan-Spruce and the thoughts in her head.

We don't know what she was thinking. We only know what she told the police officer who asked her what she was doing. So she didn't get arrested for the thoughts in her head, she was arrested for her actions.

I can make no sense of what you have written. Her action of answering police questions? Or the action of praying in her head?