smac97 Posted December 27, 2022 Share Posted December 27, 2022 3 minutes ago, Calm said: Quote But I am quite surprised at the contempt and hostility being directed at this woman, Stop mindreading, I'm not reading minds. I'm reading published-on-the-Internet-words." "This was an attempt to intimidate people..." "She was there to protest and possibly to intimidate..." "Officer, I am sorry I was going 140 mph but in my defense, I was praying." "And let’s not forget the money…" "She would need no legal defense if she had chosen to pray a half a block down the street. God would have heard her just as well, right?" "She wanted to be seen and heard by men, not God. It feels like a misuse of a sacred act imo." "{W}hy didn’t she do it a half a block down the street?" "Standing in a restricted area. A very small restricted area that she could easily avoid and likely has to go out of her way to get to." "Then admit she was protesting and don’t lie about it..." And that's just from the first 2 pages. 3 minutes ago, Calm said: I dislike her tactics in this case and some of the other tactics she uses (chanting and confrontation in a residential area), I admire her willingness to devote her life to her cause. I guess I am more focused on the actions of the State. Thanks, -Smac Link to comment
Calm Posted December 27, 2022 Share Posted December 27, 2022 (edited) The police officer says, “I will ask you once more: will you voluntarily come down to the police station” to answer questions. The video does not show the previous request. It does not show the officer arriving or walking up to her. How much of the conversation is not shown and why is it not shown? I am suspicious about the missing parts of the confrontation given it seems unlikely the videographer would have not had enough time to get there to start recording once they saw the police car(s) arriving…there were two cars, weren’t there? Edited December 28, 2022 by Calm 2 Link to comment
pogi Posted December 27, 2022 Share Posted December 27, 2022 6 minutes ago, smac97 said: "This was an attempt to intimidate people..." Please show me the contempt in this assumption. Seems reasonable to me. If you can decipher that the author of this felt contempt and hostility towards this woman, then you, my friend, are a mind reader. 6 minutes ago, smac97 said: "She was there to protest and possibly to intimidate..." Same here. 6 minutes ago, smac97 said: "Officer, I am sorry I was going 140 mph but in my defense, I was praying." Same here. He seems to be using an analogy. 6 minutes ago, smac97 said: "And let’s not forget the money…" Same here 6 minutes ago, smac97 said: "She would need no legal defense if she had chosen to pray a half a block down the street. God would have heard her just as well, right?" Same here. 6 minutes ago, smac97 said: "She wanted to be seen and heard by men, not God. It feels like a misuse of a sacred act imo." It feels that way to me too. I don't feel hostility or contempt towards this woman, but I certainly don't approve of her methods and want to clear the room of smoke and shatter the mirrors. 6 minutes ago, smac97 said: "{W}hy didn’t she do it a half a block down the street?" Contempt? hostility? 6 minutes ago, smac97 said: "Standing in a restricted area. A very small restricted area that she could easily avoid and likely has to go out of her way to get to." Same question here. Where is the contempt and hostility in those words? 6 minutes ago, smac97 said: "Then admit she was protesting and don’t lie about it..." Suspecting someone of lying doesn't necessarily engender contempt or hostility. Please tell me how you objectively came to the conclusion that these authors wrote these words in contempt and hostility. Honestly! There seems to be a consistent theme here in making this about her thoughts, without evidence, while also making this about our thoughts, without objective evidence. A lot of mind reading going on. 2 Link to comment
smac97 Posted December 27, 2022 Share Posted December 27, 2022 (edited) 41 minutes ago, pogi said: If you want to make this about her thoughts, provide the evidence. Well, prima facie evidence would be her own statement. She said she was praying in her mind. She seems like a religiously devout person, so lying about praying when she wasn't would not only be counter-intuitive (in that her admission - if anything - inculpated her), but also in contravention of her moral code. So two questions for you: First, on what basis do you dispute the accuracy of her explanation of what her "thoughts" were? Second, do you see any problem with agents of the State questioning a person about her thoughts while standing on a public street? 41 minutes ago, pogi said: Unless you have proof that she was arrested and convicted for her thoughts, lets not just assume. The police questioned her. She admitted to praying in her mind. Then they arrested her. Seems like the video allows for more than an assumption. 41 minutes ago, pogi said: CFR. Provide the reference that she was arrested for praying (I have seen the video, it is not there) or please stop spreading your suspicion as facts. Again, look at the video. She was not arrested for her conduct, since all she was doing was standing on a public street. No gesticulating. No verbalized speech. No placards or posters. No signs or symbols. She was arrested after admitting to the police that A) she was standing there because of the abortion clinic, and B) she "might" have been praying in her mind. Res ipsa loquitur. 41 minutes ago, pogi said: Quote And did you notice that they only arrested her after she told them that she "might be" praying in her mind? Actually, I was careful to note that they didn't immediately arrest her after that. Actually, I didn't use the word "immediately." Also, at :16 of this video the officer asked if she was praying, and at :17 she answers "I might be praying in my head." He then arrests her at :34. Eighteen seconds = "they didn't immediately arrest her"? Are you sure? 41 minutes ago, pogi said: Next, they invited her to voluntarily go down to answer questions about "accusations" and to find out what she was doing there for the last several days. She had no legal or moral obligation to acquiesce to a police request. That's what "voluntarily" means. She said it: "If I've got a choice, then no {I will not agree to voluntarily go to the police station and be questioned." Are you seriously suggesting that it was wrong of her to do this? 41 minutes ago, pogi said: Clearly, there was more than her non-confession that they wanted to talk to her about. I suspect you haven't had much experience with the police. Go talk to any criminal defense lawyer and ask them if they would recommend "voluntarily" talking to the police (with or without a lawyer). I am reminded here of this presentation by law professor James Duane: I am very much a fan of law enforcement, but in a "trust, but verify" kind of way. We need to be constantly vigilant against State encroachment on the rights of the individual. 41 minutes ago, pogi said: If they had enough to arrest her because of her answer to the prayer question, they wouldn't have invited her to voluntarily go with them. Sure they would. 41 minutes ago, pogi said: They would have just arrested her "for praying". And yet . . . that seems to be what they did. 41 minutes ago, pogi said: Quote Again, I don't understand what you mean by "smoke and mirrors." Again, google it. I am familiar with the phrase. I do not understand your usage of it here. 41 minutes ago, pogi said: Now you are getting it! Yes she was indeed, and in a restricted zone of all places. A "restricted zone" in terms of protests. 41 minutes ago, pogi said: Her intent was not to be silent. Her intent, I think, was either A) to comply with the BSPO by not audibly praying (regardless of the outrageousness of that restriction), or B) to not comply with a law that is so broadly-worded as to be arbitrary and capricious. I lean toward A, but I'm open to B. Either way, I admire her nonviolent civil disobedience. 41 minutes ago, pogi said: Not with the camera. The the Greensboro Four use media coverage to their advantage? If so, do you find that usage reprehensible or improper? 41 minutes ago, pogi said: I am talking about the actual narrative of the video of why she was arrested. Their primary suspicion was protest. Why do people ignore that fact? Nobody is ignoring this. Instead, I think the problem here is the A) the existence of the order (in its broad wording), and/or B) the application of the order (applied, as here, to facilitate the arrest of a woman who apparently did nothing more than stand on a public street and think a thought the State dislikes). 41 minutes ago, pogi said: It is illegal to protest there, even non-violently. That is the problem. "It is illegal to order a cup of coffee at Woolworth's, even non-violently. That is the problem." Would you accept that as a criticism of the Greensboro sit-ins? 41 minutes ago, pogi said: Quote I am curious as to the overlap between A) the people in this thread who are outright angry and vituperative against a woman who did nothing more than stand on a street and pray in her mind, and B) the people in this thread who are pro-abortion / pro-choice. You know where I stand on the issue of abortion. I have always firmly been on the side of pro-life. This is about dishonesty for me. This lady is not being forthright. We all know what she is about. I question that. 41 minutes ago, pogi said: Do you honestly believe the police could not reasonably suspect her of protesting? That depends, I suppose, on the meaning of "protest." If "protest" can be stretched to mean "standing on a public street and thinking a thought the State dislikes, and nothing more," then I think any order which criminalizes such "protests" is deeply problematic. 41 minutes ago, pogi said: Who she is matters. What she does matters. Her conduct matters. It will not due for us to give to the State the power of arrest under such broad parameters. 41 minutes ago, pogi said: Her history matters. Indeed. Does she have a history of violence or making threats? If so, does that matter? If not, does that matter? 41 minutes ago, pogi said: The fact that it was an organized and pre-planned effort matters. How so? 41 minutes ago, pogi said: The fact that they were both from pro-life organizations and not religious liberty organizations matters. Again, how so? 41 minutes ago, pogi said: The fact that she specifically targeted an abortion clinic matters. "Specifically targeted an abortion clinic" = "standing quietly on a public street and thinking a thought the State dislikes, and nothing else." I have a problem with that. 41 minutes ago, pogi said: The fact that she was charged with 4 counts matters. Again, I'm coming to think you are a law-abiding fellow, with little experience with law enforcement. Also, do you have any particular preference for "innocent until proven guilty?" 41 minutes ago, pogi said: The fact that she was there multiple days with no signs of stopping without first getting a video of a police confrontation matters. How so? 41 minutes ago, pogi said: All reasonable grounds to suspect a planned and organized protest. Only if "protest" = "standing quietly on a public street and thinking a thought the State dislikes, and nothing else." I am not willing to give the State power to criminalize such conduct. 41 minutes ago, pogi said: How can you not at least acknowledge that it could reasonably appear that way to police? Because she was non-violent. Because she was standing on a public street. Because she was not saying or doing anything that could be reasonably construed as a "protest." Because she was honest (she admitted that she was there because of the abortion clinic, and that she "might" have been praying in her mind). Because she could have lied about why she was there and/or what thoughts she had in her head, either of which would have reduced the risk of arrest. Because the order itself is problematic and deserves to be challenged (not unlike the Jim Crow laws against which the Greensboro Four were acting). Thanks, -Smac Edited December 27, 2022 by smac97 1 Link to comment
provoman Posted December 27, 2022 Share Posted December 27, 2022 1 hour ago, Snodgrassian said: Protesting is prohibited in that zone. The police approached her because the was reason to believe that she was there in protest. The ONLY protest prohibited by the PSPO is protesting for or against abortion. So someone could protest in the same spot the woman was standing about abuse of authority by police. Link to comment
provoman Posted December 27, 2022 Share Posted December 27, 2022 4 hours ago, JAHS said: Right. If she was only there to pray, she could have done that at home, or at least walk up and down the street instead of just standing there. JAHS quipped, snide opinion about the persons motivation; which snide remark appears to border on defamation. You commented, in apparent agreement 4 hours ago, pogi said: Not to mention the ambushing camera man (not from a religious liberty group, but from a pro-life group). And your add your own snide opinion about the motivation. Then when questioned, you attempt to excuse your opinionated commentary 36 minutes ago, pogi said: What was her stated reason for being there? I didn't hear anything she admitted to. The only thing I heard her admit to is that she was specifically targeting the abortion clinic. I am not assuming anything about the camera man - that all happened. We know who he was and who he worked for (a pro-life activist group). What "falsehoods" am I spreading? And despite your opinionated commentary about motive, you label opinions not inline with yours as falsehood. Why do you seemingly and loudly present such a grotesque double-standard? Link to comment
Calm Posted December 27, 2022 Share Posted December 27, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, smac97 said: I'm not reading minds. I'm reading published-on-the-Internet-words." "This was an attempt to intimidate people..." "She was there to protest and possibly to intimidate..." "Officer, I am sorry I was going 140 mph but in my defense, I was praying." "And let’s not forget the money…" "She would need no legal defense if she had chosen to pray a half a block down the street. God would have heard her just as well, right?" "She wanted to be seen and heard by men, not God. It feels like a misuse of a sacred act imo." "{W}hy didn’t she do it a half a block down the street?" "Standing in a restricted area. A very small restricted area that she could easily avoid and likely has to go out of her way to get to." "Then admit she was protesting and don’t lie about it..." And that's just from the first 2 pages. I guess I am more focused on the actions of the State. Thanks, -Smac That’s your evidence? Seriously, smac, you seem way too willing to inflate the drama of what I say while insisting on going to dry technicalities for Vaughan-Spruce. You do ignore context in both cases though. Given my posting history plus the relatively low emotional choice of words I made (words I chose based on the PSPO), I don’t know why you are going to contempt and hostility for the woman herself. Most of the time when this happens I think to myself of what benefit to this poster is it to portray me as emotional/hostile/angry/whatever. I am debating whether I should ask that question now. Edited December 28, 2022 by Calm 2 Link to comment
Calm Posted December 27, 2022 Share Posted December 27, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, provoman said: The ONLY protest prohibited by the PSPO is protesting for or against abortion. So someone could protest in the same spot the woman was standing about abuse of authority by police. I so want to hear an English barrister on this issue. If she admits to protesting solely about the law and not about abortion, could she be let off the hook or is the fact the law is in essence about abortion because it is about the right to protest abortion enough to get her convicted. However, her public statements indicate she was praying about abortion in the sense she says she was praying for the women who had gone through the experience (in one of the videos in this thread she claims to detail what she was praying about). Will her public statements be able to be used against her in rebuttal to her ones to the police? Edited December 28, 2022 by Calm Link to comment
provoman Posted December 27, 2022 Share Posted December 27, 2022 (edited) On 12/23/2022 at 5:43 PM, The Nehor said: This was an attempt to intimidate people going to a clinic and using the "I am not actually touching you" playground defense. I doubt you will find praying on her arrest paperwork. She violated a law by going into an area that is protected from any possibility of harassment due to a history of rampant harassment. She wasn't arrested for praying. That is ridiculous spin. Basically if you aren't going into or leaving the clinic you don't go into those zones. She was there to protest and possibly to intimidate and is now using the "I didn't actually touch you" defense. Plus the Bible tells people not to pray in order to be seen so this is kind of wrong on a religious level too. Shirley, you can't be serious? Even if the restricted zone was ONLY the public street and public sidewalk, the PSPO does not restrict presence in the designated restricted area for only entering/leaving the clinic. (Unless I missed a specific section of the PSPO that does restrict it in such a manner) Edited December 27, 2022 by provoman Link to comment
Calm Posted December 27, 2022 Share Posted December 27, 2022 9 minutes ago, provoman said: JAHS quipped, snide opinion about the persons motivation; which snide remark appears to border on defamation What is the defamation part? How is pointing out if the sole purpose was to pray, she could have done that elsewhere? I made the same point earlier, so am curious why you think that is close to defamation rather than a statement of fact. 2 Link to comment
provoman Posted December 27, 2022 Share Posted December 27, 2022 3 minutes ago, Calm said: I so want to hear an English barrister on this issue. If she admits to protesting solely about the law and not about abortion, could she be let off the hook or is the fact the law is in essence about abortion because it is about the right to protest abortion enough to get her convicted. I too am interested. Link to comment
Calm Posted December 27, 2022 Share Posted December 27, 2022 (edited) 13 minutes ago, provoman said: Shirley, you can't be serious? Even if the restricted zone was ONLY the public street and public sidewalk, the PSPO does not restrict presence in the designated restricted area for only entering/leaving the clinic. (Unless I missed a specific section of the PSPO that does restrict it in such a manner) It would prevent access to quite a few homes and a couple of businesses and maybe a school iirc if everyone was barred from the restricted zone except for use of the clinic since the restricted zone is about a two block radius. I am not sure how they could make a no loitering ban, which is what makes the most sense if it could be enforced, as well given there are likely kids and adults hanging around the neighborhood because they live there or are visiting. A protestor could move into the area or make arrangements with a supportive resident to be technically visiting them and therefore not be able to be arrested for loitering if they made exceptions for residents. There is probably some lawyerly way of phrasing that though because it must have happened in the past over something. Edited December 27, 2022 by Calm Link to comment
provoman Posted December 27, 2022 Share Posted December 27, 2022 2 minutes ago, Calm said: What is the defamation part? How is pointing out if the sole purpose was to pray, she could have done that elsewhere? I made the same point earlier, so am curious why you think that is close to defamation rather than a statement of fact. The imputation on the persons character. Link to comment
The Nehor Posted December 27, 2022 Share Posted December 27, 2022 3 hours ago, smac97 said: I think some "staged" or performative lawsuits are unhelpful insofar as they waste public resources, or else address trivial matters, or are a vanity project, and so on. However, there are times when a law, if it is to be challenged, must must be broken in order for a legal controversy to arise, which in turn creates the court's jurisdiction, allows the parties to file suit, etc. And it is not uncommon for the breaking of the law to have a performative aspect (such as to garner publicity). Some of you seem to be implying that Vaughan-Spruce's legal grievance is not legitimate because she deliberately violated the PSPO, was intending to provoke an arrest, etc. I think that's unclear at this point. But even if she did intentionally violate the PSPO with the intent of challenging its legality, I see nothing wrong with that. I suspect none of you have disparaged Gandhi's Salt March, or the Montgomery Bus Boycott, the Greensboro sit-ins, and so on. I suspect some of you even approved of the BLM/Antifa riots/protests which involved both threatened and actualized violence. So Gandhi can march to the sea, the Women's Political Council can organize a bus boycott, the Greensboro Four can stage "sit-ins" at Woolworth's, lawyers can recruit a poor white woman for an abortion lawsuit, the NAACP can select and vet preferred plaintiffs to challenge Plessy, and so on. But Vaughan-Spruce cannot stand across from an abortion clinic and pray in her mind? Thanks, -Smac The difference being that those were done by people honest enough to admit that is what they were doing. This person is a liar and is bearing false witness about the whole thing. That makes them a contemptible git instead of someone honestly testing a law in the courts. 1 Link to comment
california boy Posted December 27, 2022 Share Posted December 27, 2022 17 hours ago, Calm said: For those who have not read the link provoman provided, I would encourage you to do so for more details, such as the below. This is a neighborhood that is mostly homes with a few small businesses embedded. Apparently without the protests the Clinic was quite discreet. With the protests though…heavy protesting (relative to a small neighborhood) for 40 days twice a year with smaller protests the rest of the year. If you read the complaints earlier you know that residents could not only see the disruption, they would be hearing the loud chanting and prayers even in their homes. This had gone on for 9 years at another clinic before this one was targeted. The approval of the various aspects of the PSPO was between 80 and 90% among the neighborhood. The committee exploring a possible PSPO also consulted with the protest group. She was past the 6 week deadline for challenging the PSPO. Any of the neighbors seeing the same woman standing day after day outside the clinic would know she was there to protest. The police asked her why she was there and she was at least straightforward about being there for the abortion clinic. With that history, her action of showing up day after day would read as a silent protest to anyone, imo. Standing there and refusing to leave isn’t much different in my view than chaining oneself to a gate or fence and daring the police to drag you off. And then whining about being treated to the standard procedure of being searched for contraband and weapons for the safety of both police and herself and any other prisoners…if she was so mortified about being treated that way all she had to do was agree to go down to the station on her own. She had to have known what was coming and since she had been involved in a lot of protests over the years, had likely experienced the same procedure in the past, a procedure that has saved lives because police do it to everyone. She is acting like she deserves special treatment as a victim when it was her choice to knowingly violated the restricted area and refuse to cooperate with the police. If she hadn’t played victim, but been up front about testing the law, I could admire her. Doing the ‘poor, little old me’ after years of harassing residents in their own homes, being willing to humiliate the employees and clients of the clinic for what she wants does not create any sympathy in me. She wants her own freedom of movement and privacy when she is on public property while refusing to allow the residents the same in their own homes. I would put more faith in her claim that she was against harassment, etc if her actions weren’t in direct response to the PSPO that was created to keep a group known for such behaviour out of the area. And churches are wondering why the fastest growing religion is NO religion. Literally millions are leaving organized religion every single year. People find their "we have the right to do whatever we want even if it intrudes and annoys others in the community" among other similar issues. Maybe at some point, organized religion will wake up and realize that they are their own worse enemy and leading many out the doors of their churches. 1 Link to comment
pogi Posted December 27, 2022 Share Posted December 27, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Well, prima facie evidence would be her own statement. She said she was praying in her mind. She seems like a religiously devout person, so lying about praying when she wasn't would not only be counter-intuitive (in that her admission - if anything - inculpated her), but also in contravention of her moral code. So two questions for you: First, on what basis do you dispute the accuracy of her explanation of what her "thoughts" were? Second, do you see any problem with agents of the State questioning a person about her thoughts while standing on a public street? The police questioned her. She admitted to praying in her mind. Then they arrested her. Seems like the video allows for more than an assumption. Again, look at the video. I watched the video enough to know that she never confessed to praying. Same non-confession at the police station - "I could have been praying, but I could have just as easily been thinking about something else..." 1 hour ago, smac97 said: She was not arrested for her conduct, since all she was doing was standing on a public street. No gesticulating. No verbalized speech. No placards or posters. No signs or symbols. Again, silent protest is a thing. When are you going to acknowledge this fact? I ask you once again, do you honestly believe that the police would have been unreasonable to arrest her on suspicion of silent protest given her confession that she was targeting an abortion clinic and that this was her 4th day there, and that she didn't appear to have any plans of stopping until she got her video footage? Do you think a judge would think they were unreasonable for suspecting a silent protest? Please answer this question. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: She was arrested after admitting to the police that A) she was standing there because of the abortion clinic, and B) she "might" have been praying in her mind. Don't state as fact what is only your assumption, please. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Res ipsa loquitur. I don't speak dead languages. Seems pointless when you could just use english. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Actually, I didn't use the word "immediately." Never said you did. She was also arrested after they first suspected her of protesting. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: "I might be praying in my head." So where is it that she admits and fully confesses to praying in her head, or that the police arrested her for her thoughts? 1 hour ago, smac97 said: She had no legal or moral obligation to acquiesce to a police request. That's what "voluntarily" means. She said it: "If I've got a choice, then no {I will not agree to voluntarily go to the police station and be questioned." Are you seriously suggesting that it was wrong of her to do this? I suspect you haven't had much experience with the police. Go talk to any criminal defense lawyer and ask them if they would recommend "voluntarily" talking to the police (with or without a lawyer). I am reminded here of this presentation by law professor James Duane: I am very much a fan of law enforcement, but in a "trust, but verify" kind of way. We need to be constantly vigilant against State encroachment on the rights of the individual. This is a tangent and is not an argument about anything I said. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: And yet . . . that seems to be what they did. No, it doesn't seem that way to me. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: That depends, I suppose, on the meaning of "protest." If "protest" can be stretched to mean "standing on a public street and thinking a thought the State dislikes, and nothing more," then I think any order which criminalizes such "protests" is deeply problematic. On what day would it be reasonable to suspect she was there to protest? 5, 6, 7, 10, 15, 30, 50? After the media pick up her story? After others start joining her when they find out who she is and what she stands for? She is literally standing for something. We all know what she stands for as a pro-life activist with a long history of protest at abortion clinics. All context that matters. there is context to her standing there, including that it wasn't alone, but was an organized effort targeting the clinic with other pro-life activists (I know you dislike activism, but that is what they do, that is who they are). Who brings a pro-life activist camera man when their only intent is to obey the law and pray in their head? Doesn't fit. Pretest on the other hand fits that context better. Its all about messaging. She had something to say, even though she is just standing there. Edited December 28, 2022 by pogi 3 Link to comment
pogi Posted December 27, 2022 Share Posted December 27, 2022 45 minutes ago, provoman said: And your add your own snide opinion about the motivation. The difference is that i don't state my opinion as fact. 45 minutes ago, provoman said: Then when questioned, you attempt to excuse your opinionated commentary Yes, I have the right to have an opinion. The facts are facts, and opinion is opinion. The organized efforts with a pro-life camera man who was in hiding is fact. 45 minutes ago, provoman said: And despite your opinionated commentary about motive, you label opinions not inline with yours as falsehood. Only when your opinion as fact. As in "she was arrested for praying", or "praying was the only suspicion that the police had", or "she was "charged with praying". 2 Link to comment
provoman Posted December 28, 2022 Share Posted December 28, 2022 here is the PSPO as enacted https://www.birmingham.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/24121/robert_clinic_station_road_b30.pdf The restricted area was reduced to streets / sidewalks Link to comment
Calm Posted December 28, 2022 Share Posted December 28, 2022 (edited) 3 hours ago, provoman said: The imputation on the persons character. I made the same conclusion as Pogi. It wasn’t about her character because I figured praying elsewhere didn’t suit her purpose, which was imo to challenge the PSPO so that they could continue to protest abortion clinics with their 40 Days For Life ministry. She has made comments elsewhere she has concerns about/is against them. I am pretty sure I provided at least one link where she is interviewed and they discuss this. There is also stuff on her FB. Edited December 28, 2022 by Calm Link to comment
Calm Posted December 28, 2022 Share Posted December 28, 2022 3 minutes ago, provoman said: here is the PSPO as enacted https://www.birmingham.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/24121/robert_clinic_station_road_b30.pdf The restricted area was reduced to streets / sidewalks Do they specify not including private yards/property? I am curious if someone could get around the restriction by buying a property and setting up an manned antiabortion booth in their own yard or having group prayers there. I can’t get that link to open and don’t want to go dig up your previous one, I should really just leave it open, I have looked at it so much. Link to comment
The Nehor Posted December 28, 2022 Share Posted December 28, 2022 46 minutes ago, provoman said: The imputation on the persons character. How dare anyone impugn the character of a person who *checks notes* is knowingly lying about the reason for her arrest when she knows it is a lie? Link to comment
Calm Posted December 28, 2022 Share Posted December 28, 2022 26 minutes ago, pogi said: organized efforts with a pro-life camera man who was in hiding is fact. I am not sure in hiding is the correct phrasing, though obviously not with her and likely not standing around drawing attention….otherwise they would have been reported too…unless they were the ones reporting, of course. They might have been outside the perimeter, which means she was probably out of sight if so. Was there a phone on her so she could have signaled police had arrived? Link to comment
Calm Posted December 28, 2022 Share Posted December 28, 2022 2 minutes ago, The Nehor said: How dare anyone impugn the character of a person who *checks notes* is knowingly lying about the reason for her arrest when she knows it is a lie? I think she believes she is lying in a good cause, to fight evil even if part of the lying is to protect herself from going to jail for her cause. Link to comment
provoman Posted December 28, 2022 Share Posted December 28, 2022 19 minutes ago, pogi said: The difference is that i don't state my opinion as fact. Yes, I have the right to have an opinion. The facts are facts, and opinion is opinion. The organized efforts with a pro-life camera man who was in hiding is fact. Only when your opinion as fact. As in "she was arrested for praying", or "praying was the only suspicion that the police had", or "she was "charged with praying". you don't do what? 29 minutes ago, pogi said: I watched the video enough to know that she never confessed to praying. Same non-confession at the police station - "I could have been praying, but I could have just as easily been thinking about something else..." Again, silent protest is a thing. When are you going to acknowledge this fact? I ask you once again, do you honestly believe that the police would have been unreasonable to arrest her on suspicion of silent protest given her confession that she was targeting an abortion clinic and that this was her 4th day there, and that she didn't appear to have any plans of stopping until she got her video footage? Do you think a judge would think they were unreasonable for suspecting a silent protest? Please answer this question. Don't state as fact what is only your assumption, please. I don't speak dead languages. Seems pointless when you could just use english. Never said you did. She was also arrested after they first suspected her of protesting. So where is it that she admits and fully confesses to praying in her head, or that the police arrested her for her thoughts? This is a tangent and is not an argument about anything I said. No, it doesn't seem that way to me. On what day would it be reasonable to suspect she was there to protest? 5, 6, 7, 10, 15, 30, 50? After the media pick up her story? After others start joining her when they find out who she is and what she stands for? She is literally standing for something. We all know what she stands for as a pro-life activist with a long history of protest at abortion clinics. All context that matters. there is context to her standing there, including that it wasn't alone, but was an organized effort targeting the clinic with other pro-life activists (I know you dislike activism, but that is what they do, that is who they are). Who brings a pro-life activist camera man when their only intent is to obey the law and pray in their head? Doesn't fit. Pretest on the other hand fits that context better. Its all about messaging. She had something to say, even though she is just standing there. Context does matter. And the context is, when question on the sidewalk she denied protesting - in the context of the PSPO. With the context of the PSPO, when asked if she was praying she responded "might be in my head". Within the context of the PSPO, the officer stated she was under arrest for violation of the PSPO. Within the context of the PSPO, the suspicion is her prayer, as prayer for or against abortion or for or against abortion services is prohibited. So taken in context, she was arrested on the suspicion that she prayed for or against abortion or for or against abortion services. Will you continue to claim an opinion based on context is a falsehood while your opinion based on context is not a falsehood? (In a different video, made after the arrest, she states she was praying for specific people.) Link to comment
Calm Posted December 28, 2022 Share Posted December 28, 2022 (edited) 4 minutes ago, provoman said: Within the context of the PSPO, the suspicion is her prayer, as prayer for or against abortion or for or against abortion services is prohibited. Why isn’t the suspicion in your view she is doing a silent protest? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_protest Can prayer be a form of protest at times in your view? Edited December 28, 2022 by Calm Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now