UK thought police arrest woman for silent prayer

[TomC]

I reject the basis of your question.

The basis of my question is "Can a community decide to shut down anti-social members?"

I'm saying, " Yes, they can."

Birmingham decided to stop the anti-abortionists from trashing their city. Took years, but they did.

Nothing about abortion. Nothing about freedom of thought. Nothing about freedom of speech. It's about freedom to get rid of dumbasses in the neighborhood who won't go away.

Ms. V-S is perfectly free to pray her brains out, up the street a couple of blocks at her church.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

I reject the basis of your question.

The basis of my question is "Can a community decide to shut down anti-social members?"

I'm saying, " Yes, they can."

Birmingham decided to stop the anti-abortionists from trashing their city. Took years, but they did.

Nothing about abortion. Nothing about freedom of thought. Nothing about freedom of speech. It's about freedom to get rid of dumbasses in the neighborhood who won't go away.

Ms. V-S is perfectly free to pray her brains out, up the street a couple of blocks at her church.
Tom

So in fact you do agree the PSPO bans any kind of prayer. It's just that you are okay with it and think it is justified.

I'm not okay with it banning silent prayer.

 

[Rhea]

THE ACTIVITIES
The Activities prohibited by the Order are:
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,

I totally do not see the word “silent” there, and hence, it is not, even a tiny bit, “explicitly included.”

We’ve been watching you not know that for a while now.

 

[TomC]

So in fact you do agree the PSPO bans any kind of prayer.

No.
I know it doesn't.

It's just that you are okay with it and think it is justified.

I'm okay with the PSPO, as written.
Not banning prayer, which it doesn't.

Do you understand the difference?

The PSPO doesn't ban any kind of behavior, thought, opinion, or religion. None.

Do you understand that?
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

So in fact you do agree the PSPO bans any kind of prayer.

No.
I know it doesn't.

It's just that you are okay with it and think it is justified.

I'm okay with the PSPO, as written.
Not banning prayer, which it doesn't.

Do you understand the difference?

The PSPO doesn't ban any kind of behavior, thought, opinion, or religion. None.

Sure Jan. If it bans nothing then it does nothing.

Do you understand that?
Tom

No.

 

[Jarhyn]

that is not the typical use of the word 'occupy', like occupying a toilet.

It is. They were in the space. They are occupying the space such that nobody can use it without having to pass by an angry, unhinged, lawbreaking protestor.

You think that when someone occupies a country that they are the only ones who can use it? The point is that they are in the vicinity and capable of leveraging against others there to an undue extent.

They occupied the space, and made anyone else who wished to also occupy that space have to deal with their hostile presence.

Where is this "using the space for transit" wording

It's implicit, as using the space for transit is the only kind of use that is not loitering. In that specific space, any kind of loitering would be construed as intimidation, harassment, or protest.

If you can figure out another use for that space that would not obstruct the business, or be an act which in action delivers a message of disapproval or intimidation, then by all means add that to the list of allowed activities. Incidentally, the location was a street, which was chartered specifically as a space to be used for transit.

Maybe kids playing kickball? ... But only that assuming they weren't put up to it by adults for the purposes of discussing protest against the business or it's clients.

As soon as it becomes an action whose nature includes disapproval of the business, it needs to go elsewhere.

And praying is considered protest.

When it is done as an act of protest, yes. Prayer can be done as an act of protest. Zero acts of protest of any kind to include prayer we're allowed there.

She was arrested for protesting.

She disrespects all who would pray by using prayer as a form of intimidation and harassment.

It's like saying "it should never be illegal to give someone a flower, they should not have been arrested for that" when the delivery of the flower is "frozen hard and stabbed into an eye."

It does nothing to defend the actions and everything to make them that more repugnant, in trying to profane prayer to use it as a lever against such an order. I'm not religious and even I see the profanity in that. Even the bible she claims as her basis for behaving in such a repugnant way says that is profane.

 

[Metaphor]

that is not the typical use of the word 'occupy', like occupying a toilet.

It is. They were in the space. They are occupying the space such that nobody can use it without having to pass by an angry, unhinged, lawbreaking protestor.

She was standing silently. Your adjectives are your own.

You think that when someone occupies a country that they are the only ones who can use it? The point is that they are in the vicinity and capable of leveraging against others there to an undue extent.

They occupied the space, and made anyone else who wished to also occupy that space have to deal with their hostile presence.

Two people cannot occupy the same space. Do you mean people who walked by her? Yes, people who walked by her had to walk by her.

Where is this "using the space for transit" wording

It's implicit, as using the space for transit is the only kind of use that is not loitering.

It's not implicit. It's not in there. The PSPO has many faults, but it does not specify the exclusion zone as only for transit. It excludes the act of protesting. If there was a park where people were having a picnic, that would not violate the PSPO, unless the picnic was a protest.

In that specific space, any kind of loitering would be construed as intimidation, harassment, or protest.

Loitering is your language, not mine, and not the PSPO's.

If you can figure out another use for that space that would not obstruct the business, or be an act which in action delivers a message of disapproval or intimidation, then by all means add that to the list of allowed activities. Incidentally, the location was a street, which was chartered specifically as a space to be used for transit.

The location was a sidewalk, not a street.

Maybe kids playing kickball? ... But only that assuming they weren't put up to it by adults for the purposes of discussing protest against the business or it's clients.

Or two people chatting, or somebody waiting for a friend, or indeed anything that isn't protesting.

BTW, in case it is not clear, and I don't know how it could not be clear since I've been very explicit: VS was clearly protesting and was arrested for it. I simply do not believe silent prayer should come into it and it should be taken out of the PSPO.

As soon as it becomes an action whose nature includes disapproval of the business, it needs to go elsewhere.

And praying is considered protest.

When it is done as an act of protest, yes. Prayer can be done as an act of protest. Zero acts of protest of any kind to include prayer we're allowed there.

The PSPO defines prayer as an act of protest.

She was arrested for protesting.

She disrespects all who would pray by using prayer as a form of intimidation and harassment.

It's like saying "it should never be illegal to give someone a flower, they should not have been arrested for that" when the delivery of the flower is "frozen hard and stabbed into an eye."

Except no, it is not saying anything like that. Silent prayer is not intimidating or harassing, and even if it were, the gov't has no business banning silent prayer.

It does nothing to defend the actions and everything to make them that more repugnant, in trying to profane prayer to use it as a lever against such an order. I'm not religious and even I see the profanity in that. Even the bible she claims as her basis for behaving in such a repugnant way says that is profane.

The Bible condemns public praying when it is used as virtue signallning, not private prayer.

 

[Bomb#20]

A web search shows that all of the FOX news and faux outrage outlets have picked up on the outrage wording that this is “what she was arrested for,” when it is not at all what she was arrested for. They have a purpose and an agenda. They have no compunctions about using false headlines to further their goal of creating outrage.

I was able to find at least one outlet on the frist page of search returns that said “hold up, that is not the reason for the arrest, that is a false statement.” I’m not sure how reliable this source is - their page has the vibe of a tabloid - but I found it a relief that at least one publication was not running with a misleading headline. They refer to some “corrective statement” on twitter (not sure whose, nor who made them run it), which appears to be the police trying to stop the spread of the lie via misleading headlines.

The lies further harm the neighborhood and the staff and patients of the clinic, playing into the hands of the bullies.

The evidence it's a lie is a bunch of people saying it's a lie. The evidence it's true is the text of the PSPO and the video. When you tell us it's a lie again and call what the police say "corrective" again, that will most likely be about as convincing to the readers of a freethinkers' forum as proof by repetition and argument from authority typically are.

What is the lie you are talking about?

There was no lie; I'm not the one who said there was a lie. What there was was a perception on some people's part of what had happened, a perception that conflicted with the perception of a previous poster who has no compunctions about libeling her opponents by calling disagreements "lies".

Are you saying it's true Ms. Vaughan-Spruce was arrested for praying silently in her head? Or are you saying it's true she was arrested on suspicion she was violating the PSPO and had done so in the past? Because only one of those claims is supported by the video.

I watched the same video as you and it's clear to me that both of those claims are supported by the video. Curious how different people perceive the same events so differently -- people bring different brain wiring and different experiences and different background premises to the computational task of processing low-level sensory input into high-level description.

It sounds like you're assuming those claims conflict with each other -- that she has to have been arrested for one or the other and can't have been arrested for both. But I don't see any conflict between the claims. Since the PSPO prohibits praying it makes perfect sense for one and the same act to be both praying and violating the PSPO; therefore when she's arrested for that act "She was arrested for praying" and "She was arrested for violating the PSPO" are both true, same as "Someone was arrested for murder" and "Someone was arrested for breaking the law against murder" are both true. As for "had done so in the past", well, that's why she was charged with "four counts of failing to comply with a Public Space Protection Order". Piling on three more charges doesn't delete the arrest on the fourth charge; it just adds three more things she was also arrested for.

Anyway, that's all I have to add to Metaphor's able replies.

 

[laughing dog]

People you don't get it: context, evidence and reason don't matter here. The principle of free speech is inviolate so it is more important to enable protesters to actively prevent access to legal health care option to those who are in vulnerable health and emotional conditions than it is to require those protesters to shift their asses to different location. There is a denial of these vulnerability in their responses as if they (both men) have any real clue what a pregnant women might be going through in the process of either making the decision to have an abortion or in getting one.

The PSPO places restrictions on behavior in a specific location. That is it. Nothing more or nothing less. The threat to worldwide freedoms is nil. It is a legal local response to a longstanding local problem.

it takes threads like these to remind me how disheartening it is to watch people dismiss evidence and context, employ sophistry , or the downright dismissal the emotional turmoil that some face in making difficult situations in order to virtue signal their ideology.

 

[Jarhyn]

She was standing silently.

In a place. Occupying that place. After having communicated vociferously that her in that space was as protest, which other people can't not pass through to get to that place.

Protesting the normal activities of normal people is harassment and intimidation. If I told you I didn't approve of you and started showing up outside your workplace, that would be intimidation and harassment, even especially if I was standing silently

Your attempt to carve out acts which by themselves without context are "to be protected" are laughable.

She went out of her way to be there, obstructing the space, and occupying it such that nobody could pass by without contending with her existence.

Two people cannot occupy the same space

Yes they can. Russia can occupy Ukraine, and it's still Ukraine. They do not have an immediate presence in every square millimeter of Ukraine, but they are still occupying it.

Your attempt to pretend that you cannot have a multiple occupancy site is laughable. My garage can only be occupied by a single car. My parents' garage has 3 car occupancy. A room at the hotel has a placard that says "max occupancy:120" insofar as 120 people are legally allowed to occupy that space.

Two people can occupy the same room. It's a lot harder for two people to occupy the same toilet (not impossible...). I think as a child I even managed to co-occupy underpants once.

The Bible condemns public praying when it is used as virtue signallning, not private prayer.

No, it condemns literally all prayer in public for any purpose other than to fucking pray.

She was using "praying" as an excuse for unlawfully occupying space in an area covered by a PSPO.

The bible literally recommends only praying in alone at home and not telling anyone you are doing it.

 

[Metaphor]

She was standing silently.

In a place. Occupying that place. After having communicated vociferously

She was standing silently. I don't think you know what 'vociferously' means.

that her in that space was as protest, which other people can't not pass through to get to that place.

She did not enfold space into a Klein bottle around her.

Protesting the normal activities of normal people is harassment and intimidation. If I told you I didn't approve of you and started showing up outside your workplace, that would be intimidation and harassment, even especially if I was standing silently

Your attempt to carve out acts which by themselves without context are "to be protected" are laughable.

She went out of her way to be there, obstructing the space, and occupying it such that nobody could pass by without contending with her existence.

Ajme! Imagine contending with somebody's existence. The gov't must stamp out such a possibility!

Two people cannot occupy the same space

Yes they can. Russia can occupy Ukraine, and it's still Ukraine. They do not have an immediate presence in every square millimeter of Ukraine, but they are still occupying it.

Your attempt to pretend that you cannot have a multiple occupancy site is laughable. My garage can only be occupied by a single car.

Correct. And while a car is in there, you can't fit another car.

However, I am not interested in a semantic debate about the word 'occupy'.

The Bible condemns public praying when it is used as virtue signallning, not private prayer.

No, it condemns literally all prayer in public for any purpose other than to fucking pray.

No, it condemns prayers that are made expressly to be seen by others. I do not see how it condemns non-virtue signalling public prayer.

She was using "praying" as an excuse for unlawfully occupying space in an area covered by a PSPO.

I don't see any claims that praying was an 'excuse'.

 

[Bomb#20]

...and she declines to accompany the police without arrest, which they offer her as a courtesy, so she is arrested.

People keep claiming this; but that's not what happened. They didn't ask her if she'd accompany the police without arrest -- they asked her if she'd come with them voluntarily. She didn't say she wouldn't come without arrest -- she said "If I've got a choice, then no." Seeing as how they then arrested her and took her away, it would be Orwellian to claim she had a choice -- she was going with them regardless. So her answer was a hypothetical about some alternate universe in which she had a choice; it was not an answer about whether she'd go with them in this universe where she didn't. The police could perfectly well have replied "You don't have a choice.", and then she'd presumably have said something like "So when you said 'voluntarily' you weren't being very honest, were you?", and then the police would presumably have said "Fine. Will you accompany us without being arrested?", and then she'd have said, well, we don't know what she would have said.

 

[Jarhyn]

She was standing silently.

After having loudly and publicly proclaimed her purpose and opposition to the business.

Let's say someone has a blog stating how they want nuclear power to fail and the believe that sabotaging nuclear sites is an acceptable tactic to that end.

Would you allow this person to "stand silently" anywhere in a nuclear power plant?

They stated their intents before the fact, to protest, and put social pressure (to harass) people who are in that space.

No amount of your bad faith can wash that away.

contending with somebody's existence

And if you had to contend with someone's existence, perhaps a dirty person who looks like a drifter, outside your house leering at you every morning as you went to your car, after telling you were a dirty sinner and "praying" about Sodom and Gomorrah and purging sinners in hellfire, I very much doubt you would accept the continuation of that.

I expect you would get a restraining order to keep them some minimum distance from your property and person.

I am not interested in a semantic debate about the word 'occupy'.

That ship sailed when you attempted to start a semantic debate about what occupancy means.

No, it condemns prayers that are made expressly to be seen by others.

It was an action expressly to be seen by others. If it was not, she could have fulfilled that purpose praying at home. Instead she was out there protesting, an inherently communicative and "seen" act, by "praying" there.

 

[bilby]

They didn't ask her if she'd accompany the police without arrest -- they asked her if she'd come with them voluntarily.

How are these two things different?

In English law, arrest has a specific meaning, and that meaning doesn't include voluntarily attending a police station to assist police with their enquiries.

She was given the choice of volunteering to be removed from the PSPO area and taken to the police station; OR of being arrested, with all of the various other procedures - such as being searched, for example - that an arrest implies.

Had she said that she would go voluntarily, and not then failed to do so, she would not have been searched. She would also have had the right to leave the police station at any time, once there, unless the police made the further decision to place her under arrest - which would be unlikely to happen, particularly if she had legal representation, unless she gave them reason to believe that she intended to break further laws (eg by returning to the area prohibited to her by the PSPO), or they felt that they had sufficient evidence to charge her.

There are a number of criminal lawyers in the UK who provide free advice on their websites regarding the difference between arrest and voluntary interviews, for example: https://www.noblesolicitors.co.uk/about/a-guide-to-voluntary-police-interview.html

Whether or not you feel that it is Orwellian or Kafkaesque that they arrested her when she refused to accompany them voluntarily, it is nevertheless a real and legally important distinction in English law whether a person is arrested or is voluntary accompanying police to an interview.

 

[Metaphor]

She was standing silently.

After having loudly and publicly proclaimed her purpose and opposition to the business.

You mean in previous weeks - not on the day she was arrested.

Let's say someone has a blog stating how they want nuclear power to fail and the believe that sabotaging nuclear sites is an acceptable tactic to that end.

Would you allow this person to "stand silently" anywhere in a nuclear power plant?

Is the nuclear plant private property inside a fencline, instead of public space? No, I wouldn't.

Did this woman say that 'sabotaging' abortion clinics was an acceptable tactic? Did she make bomb threats?

They stated their intents before the fact, to protest, and put social pressure (to harass) people who are in that space.

Jarhyn, you have championed social pressure before--for the causes you believe in.

No amount of your bad faith can wash that away.

contending with somebody's existence

And if you had to contend with someone's existence, perhaps a dirty person who looks like a drifter, outside your house leering at you every morning as you went to your car, after telling you were a dirty sinner and "praying" about Sodom and Gomorrah and purging sinners in hellfire, I very much doubt you would accept the continuation of that.

On my private property? No.

I expect you would get a restraining order to keep them some minimum distance from your property and person.

Yeah, the exact same ASBO I recommended that VS ought have been served with.

Instead I get multiple people defending gov't persection of private prayer.

I am not interested in a semantic debate about the word 'occupy'.

That ship sailed when you attempted to start a semantic debate about what occupancy means.

No, it condemns prayers that are made expressly to be seen by others.

It was an action expressly to be seen by others. If it was not, she could have fulfilled that purpose praying at home. Instead she was out there protesting, an inherently communicative and "seen" act, by "praying" there.

I have never denied she was protesting. She was obviously protesting.

 

[Metaphor]

They didn't ask her if she'd accompany the police without arrest -- they asked her if she'd come with them voluntarily.

How are these two things different?

In English law, arrest has a specific meaning, and that meaning doesn't include voluntarily attending a police station to assist police with their enquiries.

She was given the choice of volunteering to be removed from the PSPO area and taken to the police station; OR of being arrested, with all of the various other procedures - such as being searched, for example - that an arrest implies.

Had she said that she would go voluntarily, and not then failed to do so, she would not have been searched. She would also have had the right to leave the police station at any time, once there, unless the police made the further decision to place her under arrest - which would be unlikely to happen, particularly if she had legal representation, unless she gave them reason to believe that she intended to break further laws (eg by returning to the area prohibited to her by the PSPO),

The area is not prohibited to her by the PSPO. That is a false statement.

or they felt that they had sufficient evidence to charge her.

There are a number of criminal lawyers in the UK who provide free advice on their websites regarding the difference between arrest and voluntary interviews, for example: https://www.noblesolicitors.co.uk/about/a-guide-to-voluntary-police-interview.html

Whether or not you feel that it is Orwellian or Kafkaesque that they arrested her when she refused to accompany them voluntarily, it is nevertheless a real and legally important distinction in English law whether a person is arrested or is voluntary accompanying police to an interview.

The police officer should have made clear her 'choice': accompany us to the police station without arrest, or we will arrest you.

 

[Jarhyn]

You mean in previous weeks - not on the day she was arrested.

Correct. When did I say anything but? That's a rhetorical question insofar as I didn't.

On my private property

On any part of the land that is owned by the city or state, but which you might still have to navigate to actually leave your property with your vehicle. Say, at the bottom of your driveway.

Restraining orders protect within a radius of property as much as the property itself for exactly this reason.

This is no different than a restraining order, except one issued by a community on behalf of a business in relation to a group rather than one issued by a single magistrate on behalf of an individual in relation to another individual.

It is simply a matter of scale.

I have never denied she was protesting. She was obviously protesting.

Then you agree that she was not merely praying in private, but praying in public.

If her actions were equally "praying" and "protesting" then the prayer was an inherently public act, as protest is an inherently public act...

And on and on it goes. Where it stops? Probably elsewhere.

 

[Metaphor]

You mean in previous weeks - not on the day she was arrested.

Correct. When did I say anything but? That's a rhetorical question insofar as I didn't.

She did not loudly proclaim her opposition on the day she was arrested.

On my private property

On any part of the land that is owned by the city or state, but which you might still have to navigate to actually leave your property with your vehicle. Say, at the bottom of your driveway.

Restraining orders protect within a radius of property as much as the property itself for exactly this reason.

This is no different than a restraining order, except one issued by a community on behalf of a business in relation to a group rather than one issued by a single magistrate on behalf of an individual in relation to another individual.

Of course it is different to a restraining order, for all the reasons I've already explained.

It is simply a matter of scale.

No. It is different in substantive other ways.

I have never denied she was protesting. She was obviously protesting.

Then you agree that she was not merely praying in private, but praying in public.

No.

If her actions were equally "praying" and "protesting" then the prayer was an inherently public act, as protest is an inherently public act...'

She was protesting, as was clear from her choice of standing near the clinic.

That private prayer is banned by the PSPO is an unjustified intrusion by the gov't.

 

[Jarhyn]

That private prayer is banned by the PSPO is an unjustified intrusion by the gov't.

All activity was banned except mundane use of the space for what it is actually meant for: transit. They just listed a variety of things that the defendants said they were doing there to protest.

The fact is, I've seen this kind of dogged sophistry before. It's the kind of thing that gets people ejected from groups, and is in fact well understood as falling under the clear definition of "evil" in a variety of frameworks (attempting to undermine valid purposes with the flaws in a set of rules). The full name for it is "lawful evil".

You keep trying to claim that her use of the space was valid when her use of the space was not.

Her use of the space was in protest of the other users of the space. It doesn't actually matter what she tried to call her activity other than "protest". The intent of the prayer was the communication of protest.

So not only is she a shitty criminal, she is a shitty criminal who does insult to everyone who prays for the purposes of grandstanding.

You are bending over backwards and twisting in knots to try to defend it, which means you don't actually care about the peace of a community, but rather that there is not a loophole for trolling.

The only way you would not see this is, in fact, willfully blindness to the reality of what she is doing: harassing folks who provide and seek abortions so as to stand in their path in disapproval.

It makes you really wonder why a "gay person in Australia" has such a vested interest in pushing spun narratives.

 

[laughing dog]

The police asked Ms V-S if she voluntarily go the the police station. I think it would be obvious that the police were not extending an open-ended invitation for her to show up whenever she felt like it. It seems pretty obvious from the situation, they meant to accompany her. The argument that she was not asked asked to accompany the police is a distinction without a difference that is meaningful to anyone but a pedantic sophist

More importantly, going to the police station on a voluntary basis would not have been an arrest. We know that because when she refused the offer, she was arrested.

If she had opted to accompany the police, it is possible that she may have avoided an arrest. Ms. V-S did not choose that option. Whether she knew what the result of her refusal would be is an open question. We may have differing opinions about her knowledge, but regardless in effect, she choose to be arrested. That is indisputable.