Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Arrested for praying


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It's in the video.  The name of the woman is Isabel Vaughan-Spruce:

  • Officer: What are you here for today?
  • Vaughan-Spruce: Physically, I'm just standing here.
  • Officer: Okay.  Why here of all places?  I know you don't live nearby.
  • Vaughan-Spruce: That this is an abortion center.
  • Officer: Okay.  That's why you're here.  Is you standing here part of the protest?
  • Vaughan-Spruce: No.  I'm not protesting.
  • Officer: Are you praying?
  • Vaughan-Spruce: I might be praying in my head.

And how did the person who reported her for praying see the video before it was made?

I am suspicious that she was not just praying in her mind. 

My guess is she was making some physical gestures indicating prayer or she may have gotten tired of standing there day after day, so she had an acquaintance report her for possibly praying. 

I visited her FB after reading the article. It is obvious she doesn’t like the law restricting protest. It appears she and her colleagues decided to do something about it. I am just wondering if the legal team was on board beforehand too.  I am thinking they were based on her carefully phrased responses to the police, which including the choice of prayer as their protest behaviour. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Calm said:

And how did the person who reported her for praying see the video before it was made?

I don't understand the question.

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am suspicious she was just praying in her mind. 

You think she was lying?

And do you think praying ought to be categorized by the government as criminalized  "anti-social behavior?"

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

My guess is she was making some physical gestures indicating prayer or she may have gotten tired of standing there day after day, so she had an acquaintance report her for possibly praying. 

Any evidence of this?

Quote

I visited her FB after reading the article. It is obvious she doesn’t like the law restricting protest.

Nor do I.  I think she ought to be allowed to not like it.

Quote

It appears she and her colleagues decided to do something about it.

The "something" being . . . standing on a public street and praying "in {her} head."

Quote

I am just wondering if the legal team was on board beforehand too.  

So her arrest becomes more legitimate if she gave some forethought to the legal repercussions of her behavior (which, in my view, seemed to involve her complying with the law, not breaking it, as she was not praying vocally).

Quote

I am thinking they were based on her carefully phrased responses to the police, which including the choice of prayer as their protest behaviour. 

Lots of speculation.  But even if so, how is this a problem?  She sought to confine her behavior to within the boundaries of the law, and this is . . . a bad thing?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment

From this article:

Quote

Vaughan-Spruce was subsequently charged last week with four counts of failing to comply with a Public Space Protection Order, which prohibits certain activities that foster “anti-social behaviour,” according to the policy. The directive is supposed to allow local authorities to “counter unreasonable and persistent behaviour that affects the quality of life of its residents,” though it remains unclear which specific behaviors violate the law.

In the London Borough of Brent, for example, the PSPO was designed to combat public defecation, alcohol use, aggressive solicitations for employment, and the running of an unlicensed transport service. The PSPO guidebook also has a section for controlling dangerous dogs.

"Anti-social behaviors."

Public defecation.

Public intoxication.

"Aggressive solicitations for employment."

And . . . prayer.

Quote

Five local councils have already created such zones, with some carefully advertised with signs detailing that free speech is limited on the premises. In October, a PSPO was declared around an abortion facility in Bournemouth, U.K. A picture of a sign, obtained by ChristianConcern.com, outlined the surface area in red where a number of activities were banned. Among them were “prayer or counseling” as well as “holding vigils where members audibly pray, recite scripture, genuflect, sprinkle holy water on the ground or cross themselves if they perceive a service-users is passing by.”

From the above link:

Quote

Follows Bournemouth buffer zone

This follows swiftly off the back of a buffer zone being set up around an abortion clinic in Bournemouth just last week. This buffer zone specifically criminalises “prayer or counselling.” It also makes it an offence to “genuflect” or “cross themselves.”

misc-picture-abortion-bournemouth-buffer

"Protesting, namely engaging in an act of approval/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 counseling." 

"Holding vigils where members audibly pray, recite scripture, genuflect, sprinkle holy water on the ground or cross themselves..."

Quote

The PSPO order that Vaughan-Spruce allegedly broke was imposed by the Birmingham City Council on September 7, outlawing all abortion demonstrations outside the clinic. When she stood in front of the building by herself, Vaughan-Spruce reportedly did not carry a poster, candles for a vigil, or graphic pictures that might be deemed disturbing to local residents, according to the video. Vaughan-Spruce is scheduled to appear at Birmingham Magistrates Court on February 2, 2023.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 minute ago, smac97 said:

"Anti-social behaviors."

Public defecation.

Public intoxication.

"Aggressive solicitations for employment."

And . . . prayer.

Yep, these laws weren’t written this way randomly. Prayer has been weaponized as a tool of intimidation. Good job you religious whack jobs.

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Will you voluntarily come with us now to the police station for me to ask you some questions about today and other days where there are allegations that you've broken the public space protection order?

Scott seems to enjoy ignoring this bolded part of the conversation. He also seems to make his perspective depend on the woman praying in her head. It's still the "I'm not touching you!" nonsense. The fact that Scott refuses to address this part after several posts about it shows exactly what hill Scott is willing to die on.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yep, these laws weren’t written this way randomly. Prayer has been weaponized as a tool of intimidation. Good job you religious whack jobs.

I'm a big fan of Free Speech.  I think we ought to be able to have discussions about difficult topics.

The history of using threatened and/or actual violence to suppress speech has a long and sordid history.  For example, "{t}he Brownshirts are infamous for their operation outside of the law and their violent intimidation of Germany’s leftists and Jewish population."  How very ironic to see today's haters of Free Speech adopt the intimidation tactics of the Nazis, and not only that, but incorporate "Nazi" as an epithet to be arbitrarily attached to the targets of the speech suppression efforts.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment

I realize Europe doesn't do free speech like they do in the United States. I think recently there has been a few reports of police enforcing some sort of new laws against hurting people's feelings. Like saying mean or conservative things on social media. Is this another  example?

Link to comment
49 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This buffer zone specifically criminalises “prayer or counselling.” It also makes it an offence to “genuflect” or “cross themselves.”

Within a 150 meter buffer zone.  Oh, the oppression to require someone to walk 150 meters.

Link to comment
59 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But even if so, how is this a problem?  She sought to confine her behavior to within the boundaries of the law, and this is . . . a bad thing?

I don’t have a problem with it as long as she is honest she is actually protesting and is willing to take the consequences.  Rosa Parks did not pretend she wasn’t sitting on the bus seat she was asked to move from.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The history of using threatened and/or actual violence to suppress speech has a long and sordid history.  For example, "{t}he Brownshirts are infamous for their operation outside of the law and their violent intimidation of Germany’s leftists and Jewish population."  How very ironic to see today's haters of Free Speech adopt the intimidation tactics of the Nazis, and not only that, but incorporate "Nazi" as an epithet to be arbitrarily attached to the targets of the speech suppression efforts.

Wait, what?

Did we watch the same video?

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Calm said:

Seriously?  When it has her that arranged to have someone there to record the arrest?

If her plot (such as it was) was to make a spectacle of herself by standing there and doing nothing but praying silently in her mind so that somebody would have her arrested, then the prudent thing would have been to let her be. No one would have been harmed or intimidated and there would have been no arrest for the videographers to record and post. 
 

Voila! The nefarious scheme would have been foiled. 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If her plot (such as it was) was to make a spectacle of herself by standing there and doing nothing but praying silently in her mind so that somebody would have her arrested, then the prudent thing would have been to let her be. No one would have been harmed or intimidated and there would have been no arrest for the videographers to record and post. 
 

Voila! The nefarious scheme would have been foiled. 

Your point?  Who there was interested in foiling her scheme?  The police were there to do their job.  She was there to get arrested.  
 

I am not interested in foiling her scheme.  I just think the description of her case and the law should be accurate.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Congrats to these protestors for working to make prayer a repulsive practice.

At least they weren’t assaulting an 81-year-old woman who was using a walker to get around to prevent her from going where she wanted to go, eh Nehor? 😉

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Your point?  Who there was interested in foiling her scheme?  The police were there to do their job.  She was there to get arrested.  
 

I am not interested in foiling her scheme.  I just think the description of her case should be accurate.

Apparently you’re convinced, without a whole lot of evidence that I’ve seen, that she stood silently on the street, praying in her mind as a means to provoke somebody into calling the the police on her so she could use the arrest to gain publicity. I’m just saying if you don’t like that, blame those who took the bait (if that’s what it was, and I remain unconvinced). Don’t blame her for trying to draw attention to her cause (if indeed that’s what she was doing). 

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Apparently you’re convinced, without a whole lot of evidence that I’ve seen….

Why are you making this about me?  How absurd.

She has posted on her Facebook page others’ protests about the new law, demonstrating likely disagreement with the law.  As well as extensive involvement in other protests. 

She is the UK head of March for Life.  My guess she has a lot to do and yet she is casually standing within 150 meters of an abortion clinic for multiple days because it seems like a good place to pray?

She doesn’t live in the area.

She admits to being there because there is an abortion clinic.  

She has been there for multiple days, but managed to only be there while it was closed.

She uses quite carefully chosen language imo with police when she is confronted and interrogated, avoiding statements she was definitely praying and instead just that she might have been, suggesting she got legal advice beforehand on what to say.

She appears to have arranged for her arrest to be filmed, otherwise how do you explain how AllThingsProLife members being close enough to be in for the arrest, but not being arrested themselves…unlikely they were also in the no harrassment zone.

If I am understanding what is being said, the police woman is searching her for her own and others’ safety since they aren’t going to handcuff her before she is placed in the car (the two men are standing at a respectful distance), the police woman asked her if Vaughan-Spruce could remove a clip from her hair as it is sticking and she refuses.  Got to wonder if she was told to not help because of optics as there are rants about how vile she was searched.

There was a legal team in place to defend her including pitching a fundraiser immediately after her arrested (they were the ones circulating her video).

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Damien the Leper said:

Scott seems to enjoy ignoring this bolded part of the conversation. He also seems to make his perspective depend on the woman praying in her head. It's still the "I'm not touching you!" nonsense. The fact that Scott refuses to address this part after several posts about it shows exactly what hill Scott is willing to die on.

To quote a very recent post from Calm, “Why are you making this about me?  How absurd.”

Link to comment
35 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’m only responding to your posts. 

You are choosing how to respond and doing so as if I was personally involved, needing to blame someone etc which is what I was talking about…

What I care about in her case is accurate reporting.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I'm a big fan of Free Speech.  I think we ought to be able to have discussions about difficult topics.

The history of using threatened and/or actual violence to suppress speech has a long and sordid history.  For example, "{t}he Brownshirts are infamous for their operation outside of the law and their violent intimidation of Germany’s leftists and Jewish population."  How very ironic to see today's haters of Free Speech adopt the intimidation tactics of the Nazis, and not only that, but incorporate "Nazi" as an epithet to be arbitrarily attached to the targets of the speech suppression efforts.

Thanks,

-Smac

Who are the brownshirts here? Seriously….who? The people wanting to go to a clinic without being harassed? The people who are harassing people trying to go to a clinic? The police enforcing the law against the harassers? Where are the brownshirts you are so worried about?

Or is this a huge stretch because you are still sad that I think fascists need a good punching and want to tie this into that somehow even if the connection is strained and ridiculous?

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, Calm said:

You are choosing how to respond and doing so as if I was personally involved, needing to blame someone etc which is what I was talking about…

What I care about in her case is accurate reporting.

I’m going to forego replying to this particular post lest I be seen, incorrectly, as “making this about [you].”

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...