UK thought police arrest woman for silent prayer

[Gospel]

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?

I thought we were past this. Praying was restricted in that area and she admitted to praying. Can we move on from the in her head thing? Prayer is both verbal and non verbal. You can't be serious about not knowing that. Honestly if she was a real bible thumper she should have listened to Proverbs 21:23 where it says "Whoever keeps his mouth and his tongue keeps himself out of trouble."

​

 

[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?

I thought we were past this. Praying was restricted in that area and she admitted to praying.

No, she didn't. She said she was 'maybe' praying in her head.

Can we move on from the in her head thing?

Well, no. That's the entire point. The idea that the government can forbid praying in your head whilst inside a defined geography should be alarming to people. It beggars belief how easily this breach of human rights has been accepted. Perhaps the Americans on this board are even clamoring for more of it in their jurisdiction. My own government has forbidden people from praying already. If this law had been in effect when I was a teenager and still believed in god, I would have been in breach of it when I prayed to god to take the gay away from myself. (Obviously, she did not answer my prayers).

 

[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.

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

You don't know what she was actually thinking. All we know is this:

1. She was in an area covered by a PSPO that was enacted due to the actions of Ms. Vaughan-Spruce and her group on prior occasions.

2. The PSPO prohibits certain activities in the vicinity of the clinic, including but not limited to:

i Protesting, namely 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,
ii Interfering, or attempting to interfere, whether verbally or physically, with a Robert Clinic service user, visitor or member of staff,
iii Intimidating or harassing, or attempting to intimidate or harass, a Robert Clinic service user, visitor or a member of staff,
iv Recording or photographing a Robert Clinic service user, visitor or member of staff or
v Displaying any text or images relating directly or indirectly to the termination of pregnancy.

3. The PSPO includes this definition of protesting and these requirements:

‘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.

REQUIREMENTS 8. A person who is believed to have engaged in a breach of this order or in anti-social behaviour within the restricted area, is required to give their name and address to a police officer, police community support officer or other person designated by Birmingham City Council.
9. A person who is believed to have engaged in a breach of this order or in anti-social behaviour within the restricted area, is required to leave the area if asked to do so by a police officer, police community support officer or other person designated by Birmingham City Council.

4. We know from the video that when asked by the police what she was doing, Vaughan-Spruce said, "I'm just standing here". When the officer immediately asked the follow up question "Why here of all places?", she said "Because this is an abortion center". The officer then asked if her standing there was part of a protest, to which she said "no". The officer then said, "Are you praying?" and she said, "I might be in my head". The officer then said "I'll ask you once more, will you voluntarily come down with us to the station? We need to ask you some questions about today and other days where there are allegations you've broken the Public Space Protection Order". She answered "Well, if I've got a choice then, no". The officer then says "Okay, then you're under arrest on suspicion of failing to comply with the Public Spaces Protection Order which is under the Anti-Social behavior <something I can't quite make out but sounds like a reference to a law>. The officer then repeated the caution about her right to not say anything and placed her under arrest.

So to reiterate, Vaughan-Spruce was arrested on suspicion of failing to comply with a Public Spaces Protection Order. The suspicion arose from her standing where she was outside the clinic, her admission she was standing there because "this is an abortion center", and because of allegations she had violated the PSPO on other occasions, not because of the ephemeral, intangible, and unknowable thoughts in her head.

 

[Gospel]

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?

I thought we were past this. Praying was restricted in that area and she admitted to praying.

No, she didn't. She said she was 'maybe' praying in her head.

Can we move on from the in her head thing?

Well, no. That's the entire point. The idea that the government can forbid praying in your head whilst inside a defined geography should be alarming to people. It beggars belief how easily this breach of human rights has been accepted. Perhaps the Americans on this board are even clamoring for more of it in their jurisdiction. My own government has forbidden people from praying already. If this law had been in effect when I was a teenager and still believed in god, I would have been in breach of it when I prayed to god to take the gay away from myself. (Obviously, she did not answer my prayers).

Ahh I see now. I thought you were losing focus on the overarching issue by getting tied up over the prayer being in her head and the police not having proof she was praying rather than the actual issue of the government banning prayer.

I was wrong. Opps

 

[Gospel]

No, she didn't. She said she was 'maybe' praying in her head.

BTW if the police asked you what are you doing and you said "maybe hiding drugs in my pocket" what do you think they'll do or can do?

Just curious.

 

[Rhea]

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.

I believe that it is, and I said so. I’ve posted and reposted the parts of the order that I believe covers it.

”including but not limited to”

The order that was written to try to stop the bullying by this group of clinic patrons and a neighborhood. That they have been bullying for years. Bullies don’t get a free pass for finding new and creative ways to bully claiming it’s just one step outside of the rules created to stop the bullying.

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

I was looking at a different picture of her there. It may have been a different day, I suppose, but she was wearing the same coat.

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.

Nope. As you can see by the dialogue Arctish is quoting, she admits to the bullying behavior. That she is there because it is an abortion clinic and she intends to be in its space because it is an abortion clinic. She has a purpose and a goal and it is to disrupt the peace.

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?

You are. You’re saying that you think it’s okay to bully because no one can write an order specific enough to stop her from it. It’s overreach to stop her. She should be allowed to bully without interference from the cops.

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.

She got away with her bullying, harassment and intimidation for YEARS without anyone stopping her. She went too far. Now you are complaining on her behalf that the rules are too vague And that nothing can or should be written to stop her.


I am in full support of the order to STOP HER BULLYING. It is written the way it is to deal with the specific behaviors she is performing. To intimidate and harass in any way, including but not limited to the ways you’ve done it so far, lady, anticipating whatever you’re going to try next to continue your bullying and harassment. You’re going to try a thousand things to harass and intimidate. We will include all thousand things, plus the next thousand, in your deliberated and clearly stated objective to bully and harass and intimidate.

She is a harasser. The order is clearly written to stop her harassment. You support her continued harassment Under picayune nitpicking that the order doesn’t specifically anticipate the exact thing she’s doing to harass today, so therefore she okay to harass today. That is enabling, and I continue to be surprised that you are interested in coddling a bully and a harasser.

 

[Rhea]

The complaint that her arrest was “because of” her answer to only one of the multiple questions from the officer is exactly the kind of picayune deception that enables her bullying.

It was not, obviously. So the outrage over “arrest for thoughts in her head” is untrue. The officer had every reason to decide to arrest her for the first two answers, and had good reasons to ask additional questions. But the arrest was already justified when she said she was standing here “because it’s an abortion clinic.”

It’s specious and deceptive to claim she was wrong to be arrested because a subsequent question was also asked. She already admitted to her crime. Moreover, “today and other days” is another reason why the praying-in-my-head comment is not needed to make the arrest.

We know from the video that when asked by the police what she was doing, Vaughan-Spruce said, "I'm just standing here". When the officer immediately asked the follow up question "Why here of all places?", she said "Because this is an abortion center". The officer then asked if her standing there was part of a protest, to which she said "no". The officer then said, "Are you praying?" and she said, "I might be in my head". The officer then said "I'll ask you once more, will you voluntarily come down with us to the station? We need to ask you some questions about today and other days where there are allegations you've broken the Public Space Protection Order". She answered "Well, if I've got a choice then, no". The officer then says "Okay, then you're under arrest on suspicion of failing to comply with the Public Spaces Protection Order which is under the Anti-Social behavior <something I can't quite make out but sounds like a reference to a law>. The officer then repeated the caution about her right to not say anything and placed her under arrest.

One can see why the bullies would use their usual tactic to say, “don’t pay attention to the other 4 questions that justified her arrest, let’s talk only about this one question where I have a chance to argue it’s not justified and that’s what I will keep bringing up again and again and again in the hopes that you will forget the other four questions that absolutely justified her arrest, while I whine in outrage that this one question did not give a justification. Dodge, shift, obfuscate, make excuses try to hide the clear justification and hammer away at that straw man. That’s how bullies try to get away with their crimes.

So to reiterate, Vaughan-Spruce was arrested on suspicion of failing to comply with a Public Spaces Protection Order. The suspicion arose from her standing where she was outside the clinic, her admission she was standing there because "this is an abortion center", and because of allegations she had violated the PSPO on other occasions, not because of the ephemeral, intangible, and unknowable thoughts in her head.

And I continue to be surprised that you fall for the bully’s tactic of obfuscating the absolutely justified questions/answers to argue about only the one that you think is too weak to justify.

She did 9,999 things clearly wrong, and one thing that was only maybe wrong. And you fall for it when she tries to make the conversation only about the one thing.

She has been bullying for YEARS and continues to do so. Her arrest is justified on multiple levels and never needs that one answer to that one question.

 

[laughing dog]

Of course I read minds. Everyone who isn't autistic reads minds.

Bosh. People may make inferences but they cannot read 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.

No, it’s not rocket science, but it may be beyond your grasp. Since I mentioned no names, and there is more than one defender, why did you presume I targeted a specific poster?

[QUOTE="#Bomb20]
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.][/quote]
Unlike you, I made no baseless accusations. But you keep being you.

 

[Bomb#20]

Of course I read minds. Everyone who isn't autistic reads minds.

Bosh. People may make inferences but they cannot read minds.

Po-tay-toe, po-tat-oh. I made an inference, and since according to you people cannot read minds, when you replied to my inference with "You don't read minds." you were derailing the thread with a zero-information red herring, apparently to distract readers from the fact that you were unable to produce any evidential basis for your inference that "feigned obtuseness" was being displayed.

 

[Metaphor]

So to reiterate, Vaughan-Spruce was arrested on suspicion of failing to comply with a Public Spaces Protection Order. The suspicion arose from her standing where she was outside the clinic, her admission she was standing there because "this is an abortion center", and because of allegations she had violated the PSPO on other occasions, not because of the ephemeral, intangible, and unknowable thoughts in her head.

If someone other than VS was standing outside the abortion clinic, with no prior allegations of breaching the PSPO, and answering questions the same way, do you think they would be violating the PSPO? It seems to me the answer is 'yes', and therefore the PSPO is overreach.

 

[Metaphor]

I believe that it is, and I said so. I’ve posted and reposted the parts of the order that I believe covers it.

”including but not limited to”

The order that was written to try to stop the bullying by this group of clinic patrons and a neighborhood. That they have been bullying for years. Bullies don’t get a free pass for finding new and creative ways to bully claiming it’s just one step outside of the rules created to stop the bullying.

The law must be discoverable, Rhea, no matter how much you think standing silently somewhere is 'bullying'.

Nope. As you can see by the dialogue Arctish is quoting, she admits to the bullying behavior.

No, she does not. "Bullying" is your characterisation. I do not believe standing silently is "bullying" behaviour. My bullies did a hell of a lot more than 'stand silently'.

That she is there because it is an abortion clinic and she intends to be in its space because it is an abortion clinic. She has a purpose and a goal and it is to disrupt the peace.

"Disrupting the peace" is your characterisation.

You are. You’re saying that you think it’s okay to bully because no one can write an order specific enough to stop her from it.

No. I am saying writing a PSPO that is so subjective and wide-ranging that it forbids silent prayer and is reliant on a police officer's subjective interpretation of 'protesting activity' is bad.

It’s overreach to stop her. She should be allowed to bully without interference from the cops.

This is a straight up falsehood. Stop. In fact, I can think of multiple ways that involve the cops stopping her, and they don't involve this PSPO.

She got away with her bullying, harassment and intimidation for YEARS without anyone stopping her. She went too far. Now you are complaining on her behalf that the rules are too vague And that nothing can or should be written to stop her.

That she got away for years with undesirable behaviour is the government's failing, and now you approve of the government compounding its error with a terrible law. Except for the allegations under the PSPO, the prior protesting was presumably legal. Otherwise, they'd have arrested her before the PSPO came into effect. Nobody should be punished by the law for legal behaviour. And this PSPO is a bad policy response to the prior legal behaviour.

I am in full support of the order to STOP HER BULLYING. It is written the way it is to deal with the specific behaviors she is performing. To intimidate and harass in any way, including but not limited to the ways you’ve done it so far, lady, anticipating whatever you’re going to try next to continue your bullying and harassment. You’re going to try a thousand things to harass and intimidate. We will include all thousand things, plus the next thousand, in your deliberated and clearly stated objective to bully and harass and intimidate.

She is a harasser. The order is clearly written to stop her harassment. You support her continued harassment

False. Stop. Stop your dishonest and repeated slanders against what I believe and what I support.

Under picayune nitpicking that the order doesn’t specifically anticipate the exact thing she’s doing to harass today, so therefore she okay to harass today.

You are correct that I believe the law should be discoverable, and to the extent that a law is not discoverable, it is badly written. This particular law and laws like it--that ban a behaviour but won't tell you how you might be committing that behaviour--are terrible. And not only don't they tell you, whether you are committing the subjective elements of that behaviour is at the discretion and subjective judgment of a cop.

That is enabling, and I continue to be surprised that you are interested in coddling a bully and a harasser.

No. I object to bad laws, and this is one of them.

 

[Rhea]

So to reiterate, Vaughan-Spruce was arrested on suspicion of failing to comply with a Public Spaces Protection Order. The suspicion arose from her standing where she was outside the clinic, her admission she was standing there because "this is an abortion center", and because of allegations she had violated the PSPO on other occasions, not because of the ephemeral, intangible, and unknowable thoughts in her head.

If someone other than VS was standing outside the abortion clinic, with no prior allegations of breaching the PSPO, and answering questions the same way, do you think they would be violating the PSPO? It seems to me the answer is 'yes', and therefore the PSPO is overreach.

Oh darling, I love what you’ve done with your goal-posts! Did you use a designer?


If if if if if could we twist things to still make it as bad as I said it was before we realized it wasn’t bad to stop this bully?

 

[Metaphor]

Oh darling, I love what you’ve done with your goals-posts! Did you use a designer?

No. I haven't changed anything. I am trying to get you to understand my position by offering a counterfactual.

If if if if if could we twist things to still make it as bad as I said it was before we realized it wasn’t bad to stop this bully?

I don't understand the above sentence.

 

[laughing dog]

Po-tay-toe, po-tat-oh. I made an inference, and since according to you people cannot read minds, when you replied to my inference with "You don't read minds." you were derailing the thread with a zero-information red herring, apparently to distract readers from the fact that you were unable to produce any evidential basis for your inference that "feigned obtuseness" was being displayed.

I disputed your false statement. If that is a derail, then so was your original statement and your response.

No one asked for evidence. Repeating a question after it has been answered suggested obtuseness - feigned or real.

Moving away from your pathetic smoke-blowing, let's return to the topic.

There is a problem around the abortion clinic in Birmingham. Abortion protesters have disturbed the neighborhood and distressed clients of the clinic for years. The protesters do not have to protest near the clinic but they do so to intimidate potential users of a legal medical procedure or counseling. There is a tradeoff between free speech rights, free speech responsibilities (because all rights carry responsibilities) and the rights of people to have access to legal medical care.

Unless you feel that free speech rights trump people's access to legal medical care, what should be done to balance the rights of both sides? Requiring protesters to be far enough away from the clinic so as to allow potential users easy access does not keep anyone from protesting. Do you have a better solution?

 

[Rhea]

I am trying to get you to understand my position by offering a counterfactual.

I understand from everything that you’ve written that you do not understand the harm this woman has done, is doing, and plans to do in the future; and that subsequently the efforts to stop that harm seem like overreach to you.

 

[ZiprHead]

I am trying to get you to understand my position by offering a counterfactual.

Like this?


Makes about as much sense.

 

[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.

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.

And how is that different than a restraining order? Different label, same basic concept.

 

[Metaphor]

I understand from everything that you’ve written that you do not understand the harm this woman has done, is doing, and plans to do in the future; and that subsequently the efforts to stop that harm seem like overreach to you.

You don't 'understand' anything of the sort.

 

[Metaphor]

And how is that different than a restraining order? Different label, same basic concept.

Different in almost every conceivable aspect.

A "restraining order", AVO, ASBO, etc applies to a person and generally restricts who they can contact and how close they can be to another person.

A PSPO applies to everyone and forbids them from otherwise perfectly legal activities in a specific defined geography.

 

[Rhea]

I understand from everything that you’ve written that you do not understand the harm this woman has done, is doing, and plans to do in the future; and that subsequently the efforts to stop that harm seem like overreach to you.

You don't 'understand' anything of the sort.

On the contrary, that is exactly what I understand from your actions.

It may not be your intent, but it is what you’ve made people understand.

That’s how that phrase is used; to convey that the sequence of events has led the person to have this understanding. To convey what’s been received. Here’s my understanding of things based on what’s been presented. That’s what that means. It would be ridiculous for you to claim that I have a different understanding of events than the understanding of events that I jusy told you I have, wouldn’t it now?

A post was made about a woman violating a public space protection order multiple times and getting arrested for it.

You said from the get-go (well after you talked for a while about some other protest and how they deserved to be removed) that you don’t think she was doing anything intimidating and therefore don’t understand how she violated the law and that it was overreach.

And I find a woman who was not blocking anyone's day to day business and praying silently to be far less worthy of removal and arrest than the ones who intend and do in fact cause disruption, delay, and destruction of property.

Yes, someone uninvited on your private property is indeed intimidating and I would expect the law to intervene.

Now it seems to me that she was not forbidden to simply be there.

And so, yes, all of that leads me to have the following understanding:

I understand from everything that you’ve written that you do not understand the harm this woman has done, is doing, and plans to do in the future; and that subsequently the efforts to stop that harm seem like overreach to you.