FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Freedom of speech and expression
Freedom of speech and expression
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People have _reedom of speech and people have the freedom to be offended by your speech. As long as you don't incite people to violence, as much as I may dislike someone's opinions or thoughts, they're free to express it. " Very eloquently put! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone has _reedom of speech. What we don't have is immunity from any repercussions of that. You say something completely over a line or offensive, expect backlash." Do the backlashers have a right to be offended ? and to backlash ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Free to speak your mind but you’re not free of consequences, that’s what some people can’t seem to fathom " Im half in half out with you on this. What consequences should someone levy against me for expressing my opinion that they don't agree with ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you’re offensive or offended someone was arrested for thinking not speaking out loud. Some people are offended with cartoons. Some people were offended with the truth. Where do we say what’s right and wrong and who has the right to say or not say?" We could start with the law. Then we could move on to context. There are things you can say in a swingers club but not at your great aunt's funeral. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you’re offensive or offended someone was arrested for thinking not speaking out loud. Some people are offended with cartoons. Some people were offended with the truth. Where do we say what’s right and wrong and who has the right to say or not say?" As others have pointed out, there are laws that define hate speech and websites such as this have guidelines around what can and cannot be said. To me, it's quite simple what is right and wrong, but everyone has different moral standards. And again, people also have the right to be offended and it's not for anyone to say they shouldn't be. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you’re offensive or offended someone was arrested for thinking not speaking out loud. Some people are offended with cartoons. Some people were offended with the truth. Where do we say what’s right and wrong and who has the right to say or not say? As others have pointed out, there are laws that define hate speech and websites such as this have guidelines around what can and cannot be said. To me, it's quite simple what is right and wrong, but everyone has different moral standards. And again, people also have the right to be offended and it's not for anyone to say they shouldn't be. " It's the go to put down for people who dislike being contradicted or open discussion though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you’re offensive or offended someone was arrested for thinking not speaking out loud. Some people are offended with cartoons. Some people were offended with the truth. Where do we say what’s right and wrong and who has the right to say or not say? We could start with the law. Then we could move on to context. There are things you can say in a swingers club but not at your great aunt's funeral. " it’s a good job I haven’t got a great aunt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you’re offensive or offended someone was arrested for thinking not speaking out loud. Some people are offended with cartoons. Some people were offended with the truth. Where do we say what’s right and wrong and who has the right to say or not say? As others have pointed out, there are laws that define hate speech and websites such as this have guidelines around what can and cannot be said. To me, it's quite simple what is right and wrong, but everyone has different moral standards. And again, people also have the right to be offended and it's not for anyone to say they shouldn't be. It's the go to put down for people who dislike being contradicted or open discussion though. " What is? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 
Peasants smh | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you’re offensive or offended someone was arrested for thinking not speaking out loud. Some people are offended with cartoons. Some people were offended with the truth. Where do we say what’s right and wrong and who has the right to say or not say? As others have pointed out, there are laws that define hate speech and websites such as this have guidelines around what can and cannot be said. To me, it's quite simple what is right and wrong, but everyone has different moral standards. And again, people also have the right to be offended and it's not for anyone to say they shouldn't be. It's the go to put down for people who dislike being contradicted or open discussion though. What is?" Saying people have no right to be offended. Sorry I wasn't clear iny answer  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you’re offensive or offended someone was arrested for thinking not speaking out loud. Some people are offended with cartoons. Some people were offended with the truth. Where do we say what’s right and wrong and who has the right to say or not say? As others have pointed out, there are laws that define hate speech and websites such as this have guidelines around what can and cannot be said. To me, it's quite simple what is right and wrong, but everyone has different moral standards. And again, people also have the right to be offended and it's not for anyone to say they shouldn't be. It's the go to put down for people who dislike being contradicted or open discussion though. What is? Saying people have no right to be offended. Sorry I wasn't clear iny answer "Sorry, I wasn't clear in my reading  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you’re offensive or offended someone was arrested for thinking not speaking out loud. Some people are offended with cartoons. Some people were offended with the truth. Where do we say what’s right and wrong and who has the right to say or not say? As others have pointed out, there are laws that define hate speech and websites such as this have guidelines around what can and cannot be said. To me, it's quite simple what is right and wrong, but everyone has different moral standards. And again, people also have the right to be offended and it's not for anyone to say they shouldn't be. It's the go to put down for people who dislike being contradicted or open discussion though. What is? Saying people have no right to be offended. Sorry I wasn't clear iny answer
Sorry, I wasn't clear in my reading "😊 Are we free to say sorry to each other ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you’re offensive or offended someone was arrested for thinking not speaking out loud. Some people are offended with cartoons. Some people were offended with the truth. Where do we say what’s right and wrong and who has the right to say or not say? As others have pointed out, there are laws that define hate speech and websites such as this have guidelines around what can and cannot be said. To me, it's quite simple what is right and wrong, but everyone has different moral standards. And again, people also have the right to be offended and it's not for anyone to say they shouldn't be. It's the go to put down for people who dislike being contradicted or open discussion though. What is? Saying people have no right to be offended. Sorry I wasn't clear iny answer
Sorry, I wasn't clear in my reading
😊 Are we free to say sorry to each other ? "We both have the right to apologise and make up | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You have the right to free speech but I have the right to be offended by it. Free speech comes with consequences." yes but what consequences only because your offended doesn't mean it offensive where is Ricky Gervais or Dave chappell on offense. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You have the right to free speech but I have the right to be offended by it. Free speech comes with consequences.yes but what consequences only because your offended doesn't mean it offensive where is Ricky Gervais or Dave chappell on offense." You can go round in circles with this. I think it's quite arrogant to assume that nobody has the right to find what one says offensive. I think it shows a certain insecurity in ones opinion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We don’t have _reedom of speech.. we would be better off having a purge day at this stage of humanity "The fact you can say that without any consequences other than people saying “mate, that bullshit” is proof that we have _reedom of speech. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You have the right to free speech but I have the right to be offended by it. Free speech comes with consequences.yes but what consequences only because your offended doesn't mean it offensive where is Ricky Gervais or Dave chappell on offense. You can go round in circles with this. I think it's quite arrogant to assume that nobody has the right to find what one says offensive. I think it shows a certain insecurity in ones opinion. " I think it's the opposite those that get offended easily are the ones with insecurity | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We don’t have _reedom of speech.. we would be better off having a purge day at this stage of humanity
The fact you can say that without any consequences other than people saying “mate, that bullshit” is proof that we have _reedom of speech."Yep. When I was watching people at the graveside of Alexey Navalny being filmed by people who weren't journalists I thought how brave they were and how lucky we are in this country that we could do something like that without fear of retribution. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You have the right to free speech but I have the right to be offended by it. Free speech comes with consequences.yes but what consequences only because your offended doesn't mean it offensive where is Ricky Gervais or Dave chappell on offense. You can go round in circles with this. I think it's quite arrogant to assume that nobody has the right to find what one says offensive. I think it shows a certain insecurity in ones opinion. I think it's the opposite those that get offended easily are the ones with insecurity " How do you know someone takes offence easily? Nobody knows another person's background. What does taking offence look like to you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We don’t have _reedom of speech.. we would be better off having a purge day at this stage of humanity
The fact you can say that without any consequences other than people saying “mate, that bullshit” is proof that we have _reedom of speech."Do you understand the concept of _reedom of speech yes it’s a democracy but you can be beaten/jailed and god knows what for saying your mind … and I will defend if necessary | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We don’t have _reedom of speech.. we would be better off having a purge day at this stage of humanity
The fact you can say that without any consequences other than people saying “mate, that bullshit” is proof that we have _reedom of speech.
Do you understand the concept of _reedom of speech yes it’s a democracy but you can be beaten/jailed and god knows what for saying your mind … and I will defend if necessary "“Beaten / jailed and god knows what for saying your mind” … erm, no. You can call the king a bellend, the PM a thundercunt etc etc etc etc. But do you firmly believe that racist comments, incitement to violence etc should come under _reedom of speech without consequences? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Some people write stuff on the Internet that they wouldn't dream of saying out loud in public and, then claim _reedom of speech. You can say and write whatever you want, and there will be consequences. Instead of someone punching you when you insult them they can respond with the written word instead. " Sometimes punching someone out is the great equaliser I have found in certain circumstances Cause and affect in harmony | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You have the right to free speech but I have the right to be offended by it. Free speech comes with consequences.yes but what consequences only because your offended doesn't mean it offensive where is Ricky Gervais or Dave chappell on offense. You can go round in circles with this. I think it's quite arrogant to assume that nobody has the right to find what one says offensive. I think it shows a certain insecurity in ones opinion. I think it's the opposite those that get offended easily are the ones with insecurity How do you know someone takes offence easily? Nobody knows another person's background. What does taking offence look like to you?" there they ones jumping around saying you can't say that.ive never been offended I've been shouted at called names before but offended no. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We don’t have _reedom of speech.. we would be better off having a purge day at this stage of humanity "So because there are certain things people can't say under some circumstances, you think we should be allowed a period of unrestricted murder?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Freedom of speech in the UK is pretty well defined. " are you sure? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you are hinting at restrictions on fab, based on your other thread, you agreed to the rules when you signed up. If you break those rules there are consequences including having a thread removed. That's nothing to do with _reedom of speech." All these comments and you're the only one who got what it's all about 🤣 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Freedom of speech in the UK is pretty well defined. are you sure?" Yeah. Common law plus Human Rights Act, off the top of my head | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Freedom of speech in the UK is pretty well defined. are you sure?" The majority of us seem to get it, so, yeah? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think everyone before me has covered it pretty well regarding free speech and what it actually means so I'll add the little wrinkle that it's also about knowing your audience. The things I'll feel comfortable speaking to and joking about with my friends will be sometimes better different to that in a work environment or on a public platform. The people who cry free speech usually lack the tact and nuance to know the difference." Or they think _reedom of speech only applies to them. Nah. If you're being an arse, my _reedom of speech includes verbally pushing back. (General you) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"🥶 🍑 " Every time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Freedom of speech in the UK is pretty well defined. are you sure?" Yes. As with everything it's open to interpretation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a trans Rohan I get a good level of _reedom of speech abuse hurled my way. Often when I humiliate the person back with my blunt _reedom of speech they get bent out of shape over it
Peasants smh "What's a Trans Rohan ? That's a new one on me | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you are hinting at restrictions on fab, based on your other thread, you agreed to the rules when you signed up. If you break those rules there are consequences including having a thread removed. That's nothing to do with _reedom of speech. All these comments and you're the only one who got what it's all about 🤣"
Well three of us anyway | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"do we have the right to say what we think or should we check with everyone that it doesn’t upset them who has the right to say what offensive offensive is it that something is offensive or that you find it offensive? What is the difference?" We dont have _reedom of speech or expression. We never did but freedoms are being eroded gradually and I am conflicted about that as some people say some horrific unpleasant untrue stuff through social media. Who chooses what's offensive.? The vocal minority seem to do a job, we are often told to be offended and many people choose to believe that. Never has the power of critical thinking been more required | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We don’t have _reedom of speech.. we would be better off having a purge day at this stage of humanity
The fact you can say that without any consequences other than people saying “mate, that bullshit” is proof that we have _reedom of speech.
Do you understand the concept of _reedom of speech yes it’s a democracy but you can be beaten/jailed and god knows what for saying your mind … and I will defend if necessary "I understand it better than you. Clearly you confuse it with hate speech/defamation and god knows what else. As I said before, there are rules and laws. It’s never been “I can say and do whatever I want”, it’s always been in the realm of law. Call someone a p^^^do without merit and you’ll get in trouble. Hate speech and you’ll get in trouble. Ask for people to hit police, politicians or minority and you end up in prison . And that’s perfectly normal. The reality is that all you keyboard warriors talking about free speech are simply scared of taking responsibility for your actions, and annoyed by smarter people exposing your BS. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Imagine going through life thinking how special you are, to think that you should never be offended by something someone said! Grow a pair! Mr F. " Imagine going through life thinking how special you are, to think that you would never offend someone with something you say. Grow a pair, and a backbone, and a sense of self reflection | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hello, Freedom of Speech. Yes, we have _reedom of speech, but that comes with responsibilities too - eg, you can't incite violence, which seems reasonable. What is it you think people are currently blocked from saying freely that should be allowed?" Luton is in London? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hello, Freedom of Speech. Yes, we have _reedom of speech, but that comes with responsibilities too - eg, you can't incite violence, which seems reasonable. What is it you think people are currently blocked from saying freely that should be allowed? Luton is in London?" You're not free to incite violence, Willy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hello, Freedom of Speech. Yes, we have _reedom of speech, but that comes with responsibilities too - eg, you can't incite violence, which seems reasonable. What is it you think people are currently blocked from saying freely that should be allowed? Luton is in London? You're not free to incite violence, Willy." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hello, Freedom of Speech. Yes, we have _reedom of speech, but that comes with responsibilities too - eg, you can't incite violence, which seems reasonable. What is it you think people are currently blocked from saying freely that should be allowed? Luton is in London?"  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"1. Don't be a dick " I'll alter that. 1. a) You may be a dick, except for illegal dickishness b) People may respond to you being a dick, both verbally and in terms of consequences/reputation. This is not censorship or tyranny: it's their _reedom of speech and action. c) Private businesses and associations may have additional requirements about the ways you may or may not be a dick. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Human Rights Act 1998 Article 10 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary." This is interesting. Speech may be legislated against for " the protection of morals" by a democratically elected government. That means that the US (for example) banning the discussion of homiosexuality in schools is not in contravention of the Human Rights Act unless it elsewhere stipulates whose/what morals are allowed to be upheld. Personally I believe morals to be far too subjective to be an allowed excuse to control speech | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Human Rights Act 1998 Article 10 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. This is interesting. Speech may be legislated against for " the protection of morals" by a democratically elected government. That means that the US (for example) banning the discussion of homiosexuality in schools is not in contravention of the Human Rights Act unless it elsewhere stipulates whose/what morals are allowed to be upheld. Personally I believe morals to be far too subjective to be an allowed excuse to control speech " The Human Rights Act is British legislation. British legislation has no bearing on the United States. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Human Rights Act 1998 Article 10 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. This is interesting. Speech may be legislated against for " the protection of morals" by a democratically elected government. That means that the US (for example) banning the discussion of homiosexuality in schools is not in contravention of the Human Rights Act unless it elsewhere stipulates whose/what morals are allowed to be upheld. Personally I believe morals to be far too subjective to be an allowed excuse to control speech The Human Rights Act is British legislation. British legislation has no bearing on the United States." I think he was using it as an example of how badly written legislation can be used in ways it was never intended. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Alex jones always frames his behaviour as a free speech issue. I don't think he understands the difference between free speech and slander." I think he understands it perfectly well. He just doesn't know the difference between being an advocate of free speech and being an obnoxious offensive cunt.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why are there so many profiles that seem to be dedicated to discussing culture war issues? Not saying swingers can't discuss politics but this does come across as astroturfing." Cos Putin /Vance/ Farage/ Trump/ Badenoch like it when we argue over bollocks. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""You have the right to free speech,as long as you're not dumb enough to actually try it" The Clash." Combat Rock - Know Your Rights, classic! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Human Rights Act 1998 Article 10 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. This is interesting. Speech may be legislated against for " the protection of morals" by a democratically elected government. That means that the US (for example) banning the discussion of homiosexuality in schools is not in contravention of the Human Rights Act unless it elsewhere stipulates whose/what morals are allowed to be upheld. Personally I believe morals to be far too subjective to be an allowed excuse to control speech The Human Rights Act is British legislation. British legislation has no bearing on the United States." I used the US as an example of what allowing the upholding of morals as a reason for curtailing free speech entails. I could have used examples from Afghanistan or Iran - countries that would argue strongly that their clamping down on free speech is to uphold morals. P | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Human Rights Act 1998 Article 10 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. This is interesting. Speech may be legislated against for " the protection of morals" by a democratically elected government. That means that the US (for example) banning the discussion of homiosexuality in schools is not in contravention of the Human Rights Act unless it elsewhere stipulates whose/what morals are allowed to be upheld. Personally I believe morals to be far too subjective to be an allowed excuse to control speech The Human Rights Act is British legislation. British legislation has no bearing on the United States. I used the US as an example of what allowing the upholding of morals as a reason for curtailing free speech entails. I could have used examples from Afghanistan or Iran - countries that would argue strongly that their clamping down on free speech is to uphold morals. P" Why would Afghanistan or Iran have anything to do with a British law, either? Australia also has nothing to do with it. Peru. Panama. Mongolia. All irrelevant. This British law derives from the European Union, if memory serves, and their dedication to retaining individual national culture and identity in supranational organisation. Laws are always a series of compromises. The compromise was made on the basis of individual national identity, which is a good thing to uphold. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We think we have _reedom of speech but you also have to use it responsibly You wouldn't run into a packed cinema and shout " fire " even if you're entitled to would you " This is a silly comparison. Shouting "fire" in your scenario is not offensive. It's stupid. I think OP is meaning words we use that can be deemed offensive. Or say holding a door open for a woman. Yes it's manners. Unfortunately some may see it as "toxic masculinity" say. Free speech is important. So long as the intention to cause offence is not intended. I am not offended by words. It's actions that are more likely to offend me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We think we have _reedom of speech but you also have to use it responsibly You wouldn't run into a packed cinema and shout " fire " even if you're entitled to would you This is a silly comparison. Shouting "fire" in your scenario is not offensive. It's stupid. I think OP is meaning words we use that can be deemed offensive. Or say holding a door open for a woman. Yes it's manners. Unfortunately some may see it as "toxic masculinity" say. Free speech is important. So long as the intention to cause offence is not intended. I am not offended by words. It's actions that are more likely to offend me. " So people can do what they like, as long as they don't "intend" to cause offence? Even if they're told they do? I think that someone who is asked not to do something and persists is still a jackass. (I'm not saying you can't be a jackass, but jackasses will be treated as such) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We think we have _reedom of speech but you also have to use it responsibly You wouldn't run into a packed cinema and shout " fire " even if you're entitled to would you This is a silly comparison. Shouting "fire" in your scenario is not offensive. It's stupid. I think OP is meaning words we use that can be deemed offensive. Or say holding a door open for a woman. Yes it's manners. Unfortunately some may see it as "toxic masculinity" say. Free speech is important. So long as the intention to cause offence is not intended. I am not offended by words. It's actions that are more likely to offend me. So people can do what they like, as long as they don't "intend" to cause offence? Even if they're told they do? I think that someone who is asked not to do something and persists is still a jackass. (I'm not saying you can't be a jackass, but jackasses will be treated as such)" How do you mean persistent in doing so after being told not to? That would suggest 1 particular person? In that case they are a jackass. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We think we have _reedom of speech but you also have to use it responsibly You wouldn't run into a packed cinema and shout " fire " even if you're entitled to would you This is a silly comparison. Shouting "fire" in your scenario is not offensive. It's stupid. I think OP is meaning words we use that can be deemed offensive. Or say holding a door open for a woman. Yes it's manners. Unfortunately some may see it as "toxic masculinity" say. Free speech is important. So long as the intention to cause offence is not intended. I am not offended by words. It's actions that are more likely to offend me. So people can do what they like, as long as they don't "intend" to cause offence? Even if they're told they do? I think that someone who is asked not to do something and persists is still a jackass. (I'm not saying you can't be a jackass, but jackasses will be treated as such) How do you mean persistent in doing so after being told not to? That would suggest 1 particular person? In that case they are a jackass. " If your name is Christopher and I call you Bruce, you might say "my name isn't Bruce, please call me Christopher" Even if I intend the best thing in the world by calling you Bruce, no matter what's in my heart - if I keep calling you Bruce, I'm being a jackass. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We think we have _reedom of speech but you also have to use it responsibly You wouldn't run into a packed cinema and shout " fire " even if you're entitled to would you This is a silly comparison. Shouting "fire" in your scenario is not offensive. It's stupid. I think OP is meaning words we use that can be deemed offensive. Or say holding a door open for a woman. Yes it's manners. Unfortunately some may see it as "toxic masculinity" say. Free speech is important. So long as the intention to cause offence is not intended. I am not offended by words. It's actions that are more likely to offend me. So people can do what they like, as long as they don't "intend" to cause offence? Even if they're told they do? I think that someone who is asked not to do something and persists is still a jackass. (I'm not saying you can't be a jackass, but jackasses will be treated as such) How do you mean persistent in doing so after being told not to? That would suggest 1 particular person? In that case they are a jackass. If your name is Christopher and I call you Bruce, you might say "my name isn't Bruce, please call me Christopher" Even if I intend the best thing in the world by calling you Bruce, no matter what's in my heart - if I keep calling you Bruce, I'm being a jackass." Yeah you are because that in my opinion would fall under basic manners. To keep calling someone wrong name is ignorant and stupid. But it's not offensive. In your hypothetic scenario. If it's Bruce than now wants to be addressed as Brenda and you have been told multiple times then yes that becomes offensive to "Brenda' | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We think we have _reedom of speech but you also have to use it responsibly You wouldn't run into a packed cinema and shout " fire " even if you're entitled to would you This is a silly comparison. Shouting "fire" in your scenario is not offensive. It's stupid. I think OP is meaning words we use that can be deemed offensive. Or say holding a door open for a woman. Yes it's manners. Unfortunately some may see it as "toxic masculinity" say. Free speech is important. So long as the intention to cause offence is not intended. I am not offended by words. It's actions that are more likely to offend me. So people can do what they like, as long as they don't "intend" to cause offence? Even if they're told they do? I think that someone who is asked not to do something and persists is still a jackass. (I'm not saying you can't be a jackass, but jackasses will be treated as such) How do you mean persistent in doing so after being told not to? That would suggest 1 particular person? In that case they are a jackass. If your name is Christopher and I call you Bruce, you might say "my name isn't Bruce, please call me Christopher" Even if I intend the best thing in the world by calling you Bruce, no matter what's in my heart - if I keep calling you Bruce, I'm being a jackass. Yeah you are because that in my opinion would fall under basic manners. To keep calling someone wrong name is ignorant and stupid. But it's not offensive. In your hypothetic scenario. If it's Bruce than now wants to be addressed as Brenda and you have been told multiple times then yes that becomes offensive to "Brenda'" I feel like "offensive" has become unnecessarily weaponised by some for a political purpose. To me it's a subset of rudeness. I speak a different dialect of English to most around me. I found out that an innocent word in my dialect of English was an anti-Semitic slur in another dialect of English. I apologised for making that mistake, felt bad, and have worked on never saying that word again. I didn't double down, say that people were stupid and sensitive and only snowflakes get offended etc. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"do we have the right to say what we think or should we check with everyone that it doesn’t upset them who has the right to say what offensive offensive is it that something is offensive or that you find it offensive? What is the difference?" There's a difference between _reedom of speech and just saying what's in your head. Trump being a prime example of someone abusing the first and doing the latter. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequence. That is what people seem to get confused about. " Exactly this! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequence. That is what people seem to get confused about. Exactly this! " Not really. If you get banged up for saying something it's not really _reedom of speech is it? If you applied the same thought process to let's say...theft, burglary, fraud, abj, murder, you can make exactly the same statement... Youre free to steal cars but there are consequences. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequence. That is what people seem to get confused about. Exactly this! Not really. If you get banged up for saying something it's not really _reedom of speech is it? If you applied the same thought process to let's say...theft, burglary, fraud, abj, murder, you can make exactly the same statement... Youre free to steal cars but there are consequences. " You are conflating the two and linking them together. I do not perceive it that way at all. Each is a separate entity in my mind. FOS is exactly that and that alone. You can say what you like. The consequences come after the speech has been made. They are separate. Yes, they might follow as a result, but you are still free to say the thing that preceded them. In other words, you are free to decide if you wish to be arrested or not. You have that freedom to decide. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You have the right to free speech but I have the right to be offended by it. Free speech comes with consequences." Absolutely agree … another person’s freedom will impact on others Responsibly and how it’s done is critical in my view, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequence. That is what people seem to get confused about. Exactly this! Not really. If you get banged up for saying something it's not really _reedom of speech is it? If you applied the same thought process to let's say...theft, burglary, fraud, abj, murder, you can make exactly the same statement... Youre free to steal cars but there are consequences. " Imprisonment isn't the only consequence of anything. You can say things and lose your job. Lose your reputation. Lose friends. Be sued. Freedom of speech usually means the government won't come after you. So Alex Jones can say that those small children weren't murdered. Government does nothing. But he gets sued to hell and back, because defamation is still a thing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Imagine going through life thinking how special you are, to think that you should never be offended by something someone said! Grow a pair! Mr F. Imagine going through life thinking how special you are, to think that you would never offend someone with something you say. Grow a pair, and a backbone, and a sense of self reflection "Hurty words... Tut tut!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's surprising how many people who believe they should be able to say what they like and how others should grow a pair get very offended when they hear or see something that they disagree with "It's not offended if they do it. It's (synonyms for offended that make them seem important) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's surprising how many people who believe they should be able to say what they like and how others should grow a pair get very offended when they hear or see something that they disagree with "I get offended by nothing, absolutely nothing because they're just words, and words don't hurt me. That's the difference! So absolutely say what you like to me, I don't actually care what anyone says 👍 Mr F. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Imagine going through life thinking how special you are, to think that you should never be offended by something someone said! Grow a pair! Mr F. Imagine going through life thinking how special you are, to think that you would never offend someone with something you say. Grow a pair, and a backbone, and a sense of self reflection
Hurty words... Tut tut!! "I'm sorry if you thought my statement could cause hurt in anyway. Wow, that was a tough 10 seconds to type out. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequence. That is what people seem to get confused about. Exactly this! Not really. If you get banged up for saying something it's not really _reedom of speech is it? If you applied the same thought process to let's say...theft, burglary, fraud, abj, murder, you can make exactly the same statement... Youre free to steal cars but there are consequences. Imprisonment isn't the only consequence of anything. You can say things and lose your job. Lose your reputation. Lose friends. Be sued. Freedom of speech usually means the government won't come after you. So Alex Jones can say that those small children weren't murdered. Government does nothing. But he gets sued to hell and back, because defamation is still a thing." Exactly my point. But arguing one is free to do something and ignoring the imprisonment or reputational damage or loss of job or whatever doesn't make it freedom at all. Are we free to injure and all the other stuff that is against the law? I'd suggest not and if anyone thinks we are they haven't got the message. So why would we argue that we have _reedom of speech when we very well know that in some cases it's going to cost you your job or land you in clink | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequence. That is what people seem to get confused about. Exactly this! Not really. If you get banged up for saying something it's not really _reedom of speech is it? If you applied the same thought process to let's say...theft, burglary, fraud, abj, murder, you can make exactly the same statement... Youre free to steal cars but there are consequences. Imprisonment isn't the only consequence of anything. You can say things and lose your job. Lose your reputation. Lose friends. Be sued. Freedom of speech usually means the government won't come after you. So Alex Jones can say that those small children weren't murdered. Government does nothing. But he gets sued to hell and back, because defamation is still a thing. Exactly my point. But arguing one is free to do something and ignoring the imprisonment or reputational damage or loss of job or whatever doesn't make it freedom at all. Are we free to injure and all the other stuff that is against the law? I'd suggest not and if anyone thinks we are they haven't got the message. So why would we argue that we have _reedom of speech when we very well know that in some cases it's going to cost you your job or land you in clink" Are you saying that if freedom isn't absolute, it doesn't exist? That's bonkers. By that logic, if you're not free to run over (insert politician or celebrity here), you're not free to drive. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So many posts I can’t read them all so my apologies if someone said this but… We don’t have _reedom of speech in the UK or in most countries. There have always been protections going right back to blasphemy laws and probably before " I agree. It really comes down to what the definition of "freedom" is in relation to speech. Do we have 100% _reedom of speech? No, we don't. We have more than others though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People have been arrested* for what they were thinking, let alone what they actually verbalised, so no, _reedom of speech isnt really a thing. I dont advocate for deliberately going out of your way to insult or otherwise belittle others verbally, but we should be free to express our opinions, however unpopular that might be. Others are free to disagree with those opinions, its called a democracy. *(A guy was stood (silently, as he was mindful of a ban on vocal protests near the building) outside an abortion clinic, and was approached by Police, asked what he was doing there, and he replied that he was praying in his mind for the soul of his unborn baby that an ex partner had had terminated.) " Absolute horse shit. "Adam Smith-Connor, 51, was convicted at Poole Magistrates’ Court for breaching the safe zone around an abortion centre." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/christian-bournemouth-christchurch-uk-parliament-army-b2631603.html | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People have been arrested* for what they were thinking, let alone what they actually verbalised, so no, _reedom of speech isnt really a thing. I dont advocate for deliberately going out of your way to insult or otherwise belittle others verbally, but we should be free to express our opinions, however unpopular that might be. Others are free to disagree with those opinions, its called a democracy. *(A guy was stood (silently, as he was mindful of a ban on vocal protests near the building) outside an abortion clinic, and was approached by Police, asked what he was doing there, and he replied that he was praying in his mind for the soul of his unborn baby that an ex partner had had terminated.) Absolute horse shit. "Adam Smith-Connor, 51, was convicted at Poole Magistrates’ Court for breaching the safe zone around an abortion centre." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/christian-bournemouth-christchurch-uk-parliament-army-b2631603.html " A horse by any other name is still a horse  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People have been arrested* for what they were thinking, let alone what they actually verbalised, so no, _reedom of speech isnt really a thing. I dont advocate for deliberately going out of your way to insult or otherwise belittle others verbally, but we should be free to express our opinions, however unpopular that might be. Others are free to disagree with those opinions, its called a democracy. *(A guy was stood (silently, as he was mindful of a ban on vocal protests near the building) outside an abortion clinic, and was approached by Police, asked what he was doing there, and he replied that he was praying in his mind for the soul of his unborn baby that an ex partner had had terminated.) Absolute horse shit. "Adam Smith-Connor, 51, was convicted at Poole Magistrates’ Court for breaching the safe zone around an abortion centre." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/christian-bournemouth-christchurch-uk-parliament-army-b2631603.html A horse by any other name is still a horse "If by that you mean "standing in a space you're prohibited from is the same as being prosecuted for thought", then yes. Why not. Infanticide is also the same as fraud. Breach of contract is the same as war crimes. Words mean nothing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you breach a restraining order of some kind, then you can hardly claim _reedom of speech. "Apparently this is what _reedom of speech is now. Everything is fine as long as there's speech or thought attached. Meanwhile, on planet earth... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People have been arrested* for what they were thinking, let alone what they actually verbalised, so no, _reedom of speech isnt really a thing. I dont advocate for deliberately going out of your way to insult or otherwise belittle others verbally, but we should be free to express our opinions, however unpopular that might be. Others are free to disagree with those opinions, its called a democracy. *(A guy was stood (silently, as he was mindful of a ban on vocal protests near the building) outside an abortion clinic, and was approached by Police, asked what he was doing there, and he replied that he was praying in his mind for the soul of his unborn baby that an ex partner had had terminated.) Absolute horse shit. "Adam Smith-Connor, 51, was convicted at Poole Magistrates’ Court for breaching the safe zone around an abortion centre." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/christian-bournemouth-christchurch-uk-parliament-army-b2631603.html A horse by any other name is still a horse
If by that you mean "standing in a space you're prohibited from is the same as being prosecuted for thought", then yes. Why not. Infanticide is also the same as fraud. Breach of contract is the same as war crimes. Words mean nothing "It isn't illegal to stand in this space, or walk across it. He was arrested because he refused to move on when ordered to do so. Read the whole article next time | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People have been arrested* for what they were thinking, let alone what they actually verbalised, so no, _reedom of speech isnt really a thing. I dont advocate for deliberately going out of your way to insult or otherwise belittle others verbally, but we should be free to express our opinions, however unpopular that might be. Others are free to disagree with those opinions, its called a democracy. *(A guy was stood (silently, as he was mindful of a ban on vocal protests near the building) outside an abortion clinic, and was approached by Police, asked what he was doing there, and he replied that he was praying in his mind for the soul of his unborn baby that an ex partner had had terminated.) Absolute horse shit. "Adam Smith-Connor, 51, was convicted at Poole Magistrates’ Court for breaching the safe zone around an abortion centre." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/christian-bournemouth-christchurch-uk-parliament-army-b2631603.html A horse by any other name is still a horse
If by that you mean "standing in a space you're prohibited from is the same as being prosecuted for thought", then yes. Why not. Infanticide is also the same as fraud. Breach of contract is the same as war crimes. Words mean nothing "Is standing there prohibited though? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People have been arrested* for what they were thinking, let alone what they actually verbalised, so no, _reedom of speech isnt really a thing. I dont advocate for deliberately going out of your way to insult or otherwise belittle others verbally, but we should be free to express our opinions, however unpopular that might be. Others are free to disagree with those opinions, its called a democracy. *(A guy was stood (silently, as he was mindful of a ban on vocal protests near the building) outside an abortion clinic, and was approached by Police, asked what he was doing there, and he replied that he was praying in his mind for the soul of his unborn baby that an ex partner had had terminated.) Absolute horse shit. "Adam Smith-Connor, 51, was convicted at Poole Magistrates’ Court for breaching the safe zone around an abortion centre." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/christian-bournemouth-christchurch-uk-parliament-army-b2631603.html " From the above news article... "The order, which was due to be in place for three years, is intended to prevent “protesting… with respect to issues relating to abortion services”, whether approving or disapproving, and “includes but is not limited to graphic, verbal or written means, prayer or counselling”. Another restricted activity is listed as “holding vigils’ [sic] where members audibly pray if they perceive a service-users [sic] is passing by”." The article seems to back up what I said, even though it states that "The conviction was not related to Mr Smith-Connor’s thoughts while he was in the safe zone." However... "...intended to prevent “protesting… with respect to issues relating to abortion services”, whether approving or disapproving, and “includes but is not limited to graphic, verbal or written means, prayer or counselling" in other words, he got done for his thoughts, even though they wrapped it up as him being in the zone. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People have been arrested* for what they were thinking, let alone what they actually verbalised, so no, _reedom of speech isnt really a thing. I dont advocate for deliberately going out of your way to insult or otherwise belittle others verbally, but we should be free to express our opinions, however unpopular that might be. Others are free to disagree with those opinions, its called a democracy. *(A guy was stood (silently, as he was mindful of a ban on vocal protests near the building) outside an abortion clinic, and was approached by Police, asked what he was doing there, and he replied that he was praying in his mind for the soul of his unborn baby that an ex partner had had terminated.) Absolute horse shit. "Adam Smith-Connor, 51, was convicted at Poole Magistrates’ Court for breaching the safe zone around an abortion centre." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/christian-bournemouth-christchurch-uk-parliament-army-b2631603.html From the above news article... "The order, which was due to be in place for three years, is intended to prevent “protesting… with respect to issues relating to abortion services”, whether approving or disapproving, and “includes but is not limited to graphic, verbal or written means, prayer or counselling”. Another restricted activity is listed as “holding vigils’ [sic] where members audibly pray if they perceive a service-users [sic] is passing by”." The article seems to back up what I said, even though it states that "The conviction was not related to Mr Smith-Connor’s thoughts while he was in the safe zone." However... "...intended to prevent “protesting… with respect to issues relating to abortion services”, whether approving or disapproving, and “includes but is not limited to graphic, verbal or written means, prayer or counselling" in other words, he got done for his thoughts, even though they wrapped it up as him being in the zone. " Check the green arrow. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People have been arrested* for what they were thinking, let alone what they actually verbalised, so no, _reedom of speech isnt really a thing. I dont advocate for deliberately going out of your way to insult or otherwise belittle others verbally, but we should be free to express our opinions, however unpopular that might be. Others are free to disagree with those opinions, its called a democracy. *(A guy was stood (silently, as he was mindful of a ban on vocal protests near the building) outside an abortion clinic, and was approached by Police, asked what he was doing there, and he replied that he was praying in his mind for the soul of his unborn baby that an ex partner had had terminated.) Absolute horse shit. "Adam Smith-Connor, 51, was convicted at Poole Magistrates’ Court for breaching the safe zone around an abortion centre." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/christian-bournemouth-christchurch-uk-parliament-army-b2631603.html A horse by any other name is still a horse
If by that you mean "standing in a space you're prohibited from is the same as being prosecuted for thought", then yes. Why not. Infanticide is also the same as fraud. Breach of contract is the same as war crimes. Words mean nothing
Is standing there prohibited though?"Yes. During those hours, for certain purposes. In places where normal rules and laws apply, which is apparently not the wank fantasies of the forced birth brigade and their allies 🤷♀️ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People have been arrested* for what they were thinking, let alone what they actually verbalised, so no, _reedom of speech isnt really a thing. I dont advocate for deliberately going out of your way to insult or otherwise belittle others verbally, but we should be free to express our opinions, however unpopular that might be. Others are free to disagree with those opinions, its called a democracy. *(A guy was stood (silently, as he was mindful of a ban on vocal protests near the building) outside an abortion clinic, and was approached by Police, asked what he was doing there, and he replied that he was praying in his mind for the soul of his unborn baby that an ex partner had had terminated.) Absolute horse shit. "Adam Smith-Connor, 51, was convicted at Poole Magistrates’ Court for breaching the safe zone around an abortion centre." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/christian-bournemouth-christchurch-uk-parliament-army-b2631603.html A horse by any other name is still a horse
If by that you mean "standing in a space you're prohibited from is the same as being prosecuted for thought", then yes. Why not. Infanticide is also the same as fraud. Breach of contract is the same as war crimes. Words mean nothing
It isn't illegal to stand in this space, or walk across it. He was arrested because he refused to move on when ordered to do so. Read the whole article next time "You are correct. He admitted praying silently which put him in breach of the order. He didn’t move when ordered to do so by a pcso. So yes, silent praying is a crime if you do it in a public space protection designated area. The crime is committed in his mind. Isn’t that thought crime? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People have been arrested* for what they were thinking, let alone what they actually verbalised, so no, _reedom of speech isnt really a thing. I dont advocate for deliberately going out of your way to insult or otherwise belittle others verbally, but we should be free to express our opinions, however unpopular that might be. Others are free to disagree with those opinions, its called a democracy. *(A guy was stood (silently, as he was mindful of a ban on vocal protests near the building) outside an abortion clinic, and was approached by Police, asked what he was doing there, and he replied that he was praying in his mind for the soul of his unborn baby that an ex partner had had terminated.) Absolute horse shit. "Adam Smith-Connor, 51, was convicted at Poole Magistrates’ Court for breaching the safe zone around an abortion centre." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/christian-bournemouth-christchurch-uk-parliament-army-b2631603.html A horse by any other name is still a horse
If by that you mean "standing in a space you're prohibited from is the same as being prosecuted for thought", then yes. Why not. Infanticide is also the same as fraud. Breach of contract is the same as war crimes. Words mean nothing
It isn't illegal to stand in this space, or walk across it. He was arrested because he refused to move on when ordered to do so. Read the whole article next time "He was asked repeatedly to move away from the area during a conversation where it was explained to him what he was in breach of with a community officer which lasted in excess of 90 minutes before being arrested.. He had ample warning.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People have been arrested* for what they were thinking, let alone what they actually verbalised, so no, _reedom of speech isnt really a thing. I dont advocate for deliberately going out of your way to insult or otherwise belittle others verbally, but we should be free to express our opinions, however unpopular that might be. Others are free to disagree with those opinions, its called a democracy. *(A guy was stood (silently, as he was mindful of a ban on vocal protests near the building) outside an abortion clinic, and was approached by Police, asked what he was doing there, and he replied that he was praying in his mind for the soul of his unborn baby that an ex partner had had terminated.) Absolute horse shit. "Adam Smith-Connor, 51, was convicted at Poole Magistrates’ Court for breaching the safe zone around an abortion centre." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/christian-bournemouth-christchurch-uk-parliament-army-b2631603.html A horse by any other name is still a horse
If by that you mean "standing in a space you're prohibited from is the same as being prosecuted for thought", then yes. Why not. Infanticide is also the same as fraud. Breach of contract is the same as war crimes. Words mean nothing
Is standing there prohibited though?
Yes. During those hours, for certain purposes.
In places where normal rules and laws apply, which is apparently not the wank fantasies of the forced birth brigade and their allies 🤷♀️"No, standing there is not illegal. Protesting, silently or otherwise is. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People have been arrested* for what they were thinking, let alone what they actually verbalised, so no, _reedom of speech isnt really a thing. I dont advocate for deliberately going out of your way to insult or otherwise belittle others verbally, but we should be free to express our opinions, however unpopular that might be. Others are free to disagree with those opinions, its called a democracy. *(A guy was stood (silently, as he was mindful of a ban on vocal protests near the building) outside an abortion clinic, and was approached by Police, asked what he was doing there, and he replied that he was praying in his mind for the soul of his unborn baby that an ex partner had had terminated.) Absolute horse shit. "Adam Smith-Connor, 51, was convicted at Poole Magistrates’ Court for breaching the safe zone around an abortion centre." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/christian-bournemouth-christchurch-uk-parliament-army-b2631603.html A horse by any other name is still a horse
If by that you mean "standing in a space you're prohibited from is the same as being prosecuted for thought", then yes. Why not. Infanticide is also the same as fraud. Breach of contract is the same as war crimes. Words mean nothing
It isn't illegal to stand in this space, or walk across it. He was arrested because he refused to move on when ordered to do so. Read the whole article next time
You are correct. He admitted praying silently which put him in breach of the order. He didn’t move when ordered to do so by a pcso. So yes, silent praying is a crime if you do it in a public space protection designated area. The crime is committed in his mind. Isn’t that thought crime?"No. The circumstances included an action. Stay out of the zone during the proscribed hours. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People have been arrested* for what they were thinking, let alone what they actually verbalised, so no, _reedom of speech isnt really a thing. I dont advocate for deliberately going out of your way to insult or otherwise belittle others verbally, but we should be free to express our opinions, however unpopular that might be. Others are free to disagree with those opinions, its called a democracy. *(A guy was stood (silently, as he was mindful of a ban on vocal protests near the building) outside an abortion clinic, and was approached by Police, asked what he was doing there, and he replied that he was praying in his mind for the soul of his unborn baby that an ex partner had had terminated.) Absolute horse shit. "Adam Smith-Connor, 51, was convicted at Poole Magistrates’ Court for breaching the safe zone around an abortion centre." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/christian-bournemouth-christchurch-uk-parliament-army-b2631603.html A horse by any other name is still a horse
If by that you mean "standing in a space you're prohibited from is the same as being prosecuted for thought", then yes. Why not. Infanticide is also the same as fraud. Breach of contract is the same as war crimes. Words mean nothing
It isn't illegal to stand in this space, or walk across it. He was arrested because he refused to move on when ordered to do so. Read the whole article next time
You are correct. He admitted praying silently which put him in breach of the order. He didn’t move when ordered to do so by a pcso. So yes, silent praying is a crime if you do it in a public space protection designated area. The crime is committed in his mind. Isn’t that thought crime?
No. The circumstances included an action. Stay out of the zone during the proscribed hours. "No law against being in the area. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People have been arrested* for what they were thinking, let alone what they actually verbalised, so no, _reedom of speech isnt really a thing. I dont advocate for deliberately going out of your way to insult or otherwise belittle others verbally, but we should be free to express our opinions, however unpopular that might be. Others are free to disagree with those opinions, its called a democracy. *(A guy was stood (silently, as he was mindful of a ban on vocal protests near the building) outside an abortion clinic, and was approached by Police, asked what he was doing there, and he replied that he was praying in his mind for the soul of his unborn baby that an ex partner had had terminated.) Absolute horse shit. "Adam Smith-Connor, 51, was convicted at Poole Magistrates’ Court for breaching the safe zone around an abortion centre." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/christian-bournemouth-christchurch-uk-parliament-army-b2631603.html A horse by any other name is still a horse
If by that you mean "standing in a space you're prohibited from is the same as being prosecuted for thought", then yes. Why not. Infanticide is also the same as fraud. Breach of contract is the same as war crimes. Words mean nothing
It isn't illegal to stand in this space, or walk across it. He was arrested because he refused to move on when ordered to do so. Read the whole article next time
You are correct. He admitted praying silently which put him in breach of the order. He didn’t move when ordered to do so by a pcso. So yes, silent praying is a crime if you do it in a public space protection designated area. The crime is committed in his mind. Isn’t that thought crime?
No. The circumstances included an action. Stay out of the zone during the proscribed hours.
No law against being in the area. "So are these words just decoration to you? "In October 2022, Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council imposed a public space protection order around the area of Ophir Road in Bournemouth, following a public consultation. This was carried out under the powers granted by section 59 of the Anti-social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014, as spelled out in the accompanying documentation, and specifically focuses on the clinic run by BPAS (British Pregnancy Advice Service)." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People have been arrested* for what they were thinking, let alone what they actually verbalised, so no, _reedom of speech isnt really a thing. I dont advocate for deliberately going out of your way to insult or otherwise belittle others verbally, but we should be free to express our opinions, however unpopular that might be. Others are free to disagree with those opinions, its called a democracy. *(A guy was stood (silently, as he was mindful of a ban on vocal protests near the building) outside an abortion clinic, and was approached by Police, asked what he was doing there, and he replied that he was praying in his mind for the soul of his unborn baby that an ex partner had had terminated.) Absolute horse shit. "Adam Smith-Connor, 51, was convicted at Poole Magistrates’ Court for breaching the safe zone around an abortion centre." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/christian-bournemouth-christchurch-uk-parliament-army-b2631603.html A horse by any other name is still a horse
If by that you mean "standing in a space you're prohibited from is the same as being prosecuted for thought", then yes. Why not. Infanticide is also the same as fraud. Breach of contract is the same as war crimes. Words mean nothing
It isn't illegal to stand in this space, or walk across it. He was arrested because he refused to move on when ordered to do so. Read the whole article next time
You are correct. He admitted praying silently which put him in breach of the order. He didn’t move when ordered to do so by a pcso. So yes, silent praying is a crime if you do it in a public space protection designated area. The crime is committed in his mind. Isn’t that thought crime?
No. The circumstances included an action. Stay out of the zone during the proscribed hours.
No law against being in the area. "Quite correct. How would people go into the clinic otherwise? If they stopped to tie their shoelace would they be arrested? Of course not. Some peoples' agenda blinds them to reality. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People have been arrested* for what they were thinking, let alone what they actually verbalised, so no, _reedom of speech isnt really a thing. I dont advocate for deliberately going out of your way to insult or otherwise belittle others verbally, but we should be free to express our opinions, however unpopular that might be. Others are free to disagree with those opinions, its called a democracy. *(A guy was stood (silently, as he was mindful of a ban on vocal protests near the building) outside an abortion clinic, and was approached by Police, asked what he was doing there, and he replied that he was praying in his mind for the soul of his unborn baby that an ex partner had had terminated.) Absolute horse shit. "Adam Smith-Connor, 51, was convicted at Poole Magistrates’ Court for breaching the safe zone around an abortion centre." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/christian-bournemouth-christchurch-uk-parliament-army-b2631603.html A horse by any other name is still a horse
If by that you mean "standing in a space you're prohibited from is the same as being prosecuted for thought", then yes. Why not. Infanticide is also the same as fraud. Breach of contract is the same as war crimes. Words mean nothing
It isn't illegal to stand in this space, or walk across it. He was arrested because he refused to move on when ordered to do so. Read the whole article next time
You are correct. He admitted praying silently which put him in breach of the order. He didn’t move when ordered to do so by a pcso. So yes, silent praying is a crime if you do it in a public space protection designated area. The crime is committed in his mind. Isn’t that thought crime?
No. The circumstances included an action. Stay out of the zone during the proscribed hours.
No law against being in the area.
So are these words just decoration to you?
"In October 2022, Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council imposed a public space protection order around the area of Ophir Road in Bournemouth, following a public consultation. This was carried out under the powers granted by section 59 of the Anti-social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014, as spelled out in the accompanying documentation, and specifically focuses on the clinic run by BPAS (British Pregnancy Advice Service).""Do you actually read what you quote? Or just use it as wank fodder for people who disagree with your view? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People have been arrested* for what they were thinking, let alone what they actually verbalised, so no, _reedom of speech isnt really a thing. I dont advocate for deliberately going out of your way to insult or otherwise belittle others verbally, but we should be free to express our opinions, however unpopular that might be. Others are free to disagree with those opinions, its called a democracy. *(A guy was stood (silently, as he was mindful of a ban on vocal protests near the building) outside an abortion clinic, and was approached by Police, asked what he was doing there, and he replied that he was praying in his mind for the soul of his unborn baby that an ex partner had had terminated.) Absolute horse shit. "Adam Smith-Connor, 51, was convicted at Poole Magistrates’ Court for breaching the safe zone around an abortion centre." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/christian-bournemouth-christchurch-uk-parliament-army-b2631603.html A horse by any other name is still a horse
If by that you mean "standing in a space you're prohibited from is the same as being prosecuted for thought", then yes. Why not. Infanticide is also the same as fraud. Breach of contract is the same as war crimes. Words mean nothing
It isn't illegal to stand in this space, or walk across it. He was arrested because he refused to move on when ordered to do so. Read the whole article next time
You are correct. He admitted praying silently which put him in breach of the order. He didn’t move when ordered to do so by a pcso. So yes, silent praying is a crime if you do it in a public space protection designated area. The crime is committed in his mind. Isn’t that thought crime?
No. The circumstances included an action. Stay out of the zone during the proscribed hours.
No law against being in the area.
Quite correct. How would people go into the clinic otherwise? If they stopped to tie their shoelace would they be arrested? Of course not. Some peoples' agenda blinds them to reality."Indeed they do. He was asked to leave. He refused. They ascertained the purpose of him standing there was against the order. I know in your minds, laws only apply to people you don't like, and this is hard, but the order applied to him. He was pushing his luck like a small child. And then he went crying to social media, who have had a circle jerk about it ever since. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People have been arrested* for what they were thinking, let alone what they actually verbalised, so no, _reedom of speech isnt really a thing. I dont advocate for deliberately going out of your way to insult or otherwise belittle others verbally, but we should be free to express our opinions, however unpopular that might be. Others are free to disagree with those opinions, its called a democracy. *(A guy was stood (silently, as he was mindful of a ban on vocal protests near the building) outside an abortion clinic, and was approached by Police, asked what he was doing there, and he replied that he was praying in his mind for the soul of his unborn baby that an ex partner had had terminated.) Absolute horse shit. "Adam Smith-Connor, 51, was convicted at Poole Magistrates’ Court for breaching the safe zone around an abortion centre." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/christian-bournemouth-christchurch-uk-parliament-army-b2631603.html A horse by any other name is still a horse
If by that you mean "standing in a space you're prohibited from is the same as being prosecuted for thought", then yes. Why not. Infanticide is also the same as fraud. Breach of contract is the same as war crimes. Words mean nothing
It isn't illegal to stand in this space, or walk across it. He was arrested because he refused to move on when ordered to do so. Read the whole article next time
You are correct. He admitted praying silently which put him in breach of the order. He didn’t move when ordered to do so by a pcso. So yes, silent praying is a crime if you do it in a public space protection designated area. The crime is committed in his mind. Isn’t that thought crime?
No. The circumstances included an action. Stay out of the zone during the proscribed hours.
No law against being in the area.
Quite correct. How would people go into the clinic otherwise? If they stopped to tie their shoelace would they be arrested? Of course not. Some peoples' agenda blinds them to reality.
Indeed they do.
He was asked to leave. He refused. They ascertained the purpose of him standing there was against the order.
I know in your minds, laws only apply to people you don't like, and this is hard, but the order applied to him. He was pushing his luck like a small child. And then he went crying to social media, who have had a circle jerk about it ever since. "More wank fodder… you must be nearly there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People have been arrested* for what they were thinking, let alone what they actually verbalised, so no, _reedom of speech isnt really a thing. I dont advocate for deliberately going out of your way to insult or otherwise belittle others verbally, but we should be free to express our opinions, however unpopular that might be. Others are free to disagree with those opinions, its called a democracy. *(A guy was stood (silently, as he was mindful of a ban on vocal protests near the building) outside an abortion clinic, and was approached by Police, asked what he was doing there, and he replied that he was praying in his mind for the soul of his unborn baby that an ex partner had had terminated.) Absolute horse shit. "Adam Smith-Connor, 51, was convicted at Poole Magistrates’ Court for breaching the safe zone around an abortion centre." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/christian-bournemouth-christchurch-uk-parliament-army-b2631603.html A horse by any other name is still a horse
If by that you mean "standing in a space you're prohibited from is the same as being prosecuted for thought", then yes. Why not. Infanticide is also the same as fraud. Breach of contract is the same as war crimes. Words mean nothing
It isn't illegal to stand in this space, or walk across it. He was arrested because he refused to move on when ordered to do so. Read the whole article next time
You are correct. He admitted praying silently which put him in breach of the order. He didn’t move when ordered to do so by a pcso. So yes, silent praying is a crime if you do it in a public space protection designated area. The crime is committed in his mind. Isn’t that thought crime?
No. The circumstances included an action. Stay out of the zone during the proscribed hours.
No law against being in the area.
So are these words just decoration to you?
"In October 2022, Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council imposed a public space protection order around the area of Ophir Road in Bournemouth, following a public consultation. This was carried out under the powers granted by section 59 of the Anti-social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014, as spelled out in the accompanying documentation, and specifically focuses on the clinic run by BPAS (British Pregnancy Advice Service)."
Do you actually read what you quote? Or just use it as wank fodder for people who disagree with your view?"Yes, I do in fact know what words mean. Do you? The local authority applied their power under a section of a law. They even asked the public first. Just because it's a category of a section of a law, doesn't mean it's not "law". "Law", used colloquially, can be understood as the threat of force or enforcement by the government against a particular action or inaction, when written in statute or understood through pronouncements of the judiciary. Orders resulting from laws are clearly within this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People have been arrested* for what they were thinking, let alone what they actually verbalised, so no, _reedom of speech isnt really a thing. I dont advocate for deliberately going out of your way to insult or otherwise belittle others verbally, but we should be free to express our opinions, however unpopular that might be. Others are free to disagree with those opinions, its called a democracy. *(A guy was stood (silently, as he was mindful of a ban on vocal protests near the building) outside an abortion clinic, and was approached by Police, asked what he was doing there, and he replied that he was praying in his mind for the soul of his unborn baby that an ex partner had had terminated.) Absolute horse shit. "Adam Smith-Connor, 51, was convicted at Poole Magistrates’ Court for breaching the safe zone around an abortion centre." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/christian-bournemouth-christchurch-uk-parliament-army-b2631603.html A horse by any other name is still a horse
If by that you mean "standing in a space you're prohibited from is the same as being prosecuted for thought", then yes. Why not. Infanticide is also the same as fraud. Breach of contract is the same as war crimes. Words mean nothing
It isn't illegal to stand in this space, or walk across it. He was arrested because he refused to move on when ordered to do so. Read the whole article next time
You are correct. He admitted praying silently which put him in breach of the order. He didn’t move when ordered to do so by a pcso. So yes, silent praying is a crime if you do it in a public space protection designated area. The crime is committed in his mind. Isn’t that thought crime?
No. The circumstances included an action. Stay out of the zone during the proscribed hours.
No law against being in the area.
Quite correct. How would people go into the clinic otherwise? If they stopped to tie their shoelace would they be arrested? Of course not. Some peoples' agenda blinds them to reality.
Indeed they do.
He was asked to leave. He refused. They ascertained the purpose of him standing there was against the order.
I know in your minds, laws only apply to people you don't like, and this is hard, but the order applied to him. He was pushing his luck like a small child. And then he went crying to social media, who have had a circle jerk about it ever since.
More wank fodder… you must be nearly there."No, darling. I'm saying you get off on this. I despair at the lack of civics education at this country and how many people are taken in by obvious horse shit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People have been arrested* for what they were thinking, let alone what they actually verbalised, so no, _reedom of speech isnt really a thing. I dont advocate for deliberately going out of your way to insult or otherwise belittle others verbally, but we should be free to express our opinions, however unpopular that might be. Others are free to disagree with those opinions, its called a democracy. *(A guy was stood (silently, as he was mindful of a ban on vocal protests near the building) outside an abortion clinic, and was approached by Police, asked what he was doing there, and he replied that he was praying in his mind for the soul of his unborn baby that an ex partner had had terminated.) Absolute horse shit. "Adam Smith-Connor, 51, was convicted at Poole Magistrates’ Court for breaching the safe zone around an abortion centre." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/christian-bournemouth-christchurch-uk-parliament-army-b2631603.html A horse by any other name is still a horse
If by that you mean "standing in a space you're prohibited from is the same as being prosecuted for thought", then yes. Why not. Infanticide is also the same as fraud. Breach of contract is the same as war crimes. Words mean nothing
It isn't illegal to stand in this space, or walk across it. He was arrested because he refused to move on when ordered to do so. Read the whole article next time
You are correct. He admitted praying silently which put him in breach of the order. He didn’t move when ordered to do so by a pcso. So yes, silent praying is a crime if you do it in a public space protection designated area. The crime is committed in his mind. Isn’t that thought crime?
No. The circumstances included an action. Stay out of the zone during the proscribed hours.
No law against being in the area.
So are these words just decoration to you?
"In October 2022, Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council imposed a public space protection order around the area of Ophir Road in Bournemouth, following a public consultation. This was carried out under the powers granted by section 59 of the Anti-social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014, as spelled out in the accompanying documentation, and specifically focuses on the clinic run by BPAS (British Pregnancy Advice Service)."
Do you actually read what you quote? Or just use it as wank fodder for people who disagree with your view?
Yes, I do in fact know what words mean. Do you?
The local authority applied their power under a section of a law. They even asked the public first.
Just because it's a category of a section of a law, doesn't mean it's not "law". "Law", used colloquially, can be understood as the threat of force or enforcement by the government against a particular action or inaction, when written in statute or understood through pronouncements of the judiciary. Orders resulting from laws are clearly within this."Have another read, but this time spare the legal wank fodder and feel to point out the part that says being there is a contravention. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People have been arrested* for what they were thinking, let alone what they actually verbalised, so no, _reedom of speech isnt really a thing. I dont advocate for deliberately going out of your way to insult or otherwise belittle others verbally, but we should be free to express our opinions, however unpopular that might be. Others are free to disagree with those opinions, its called a democracy. *(A guy was stood (silently, as he was mindful of a ban on vocal protests near the building) outside an abortion clinic, and was approached by Police, asked what he was doing there, and he replied that he was praying in his mind for the soul of his unborn baby that an ex partner had had terminated.) Absolute horse shit. "Adam Smith-Connor, 51, was convicted at Poole Magistrates’ Court for breaching the safe zone around an abortion centre." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/christian-bournemouth-christchurch-uk-parliament-army-b2631603.html A horse by any other name is still a horse
If by that you mean "standing in a space you're prohibited from is the same as being prosecuted for thought", then yes. Why not. Infanticide is also the same as fraud. Breach of contract is the same as war crimes. Words mean nothing
It isn't illegal to stand in this space, or walk across it. He was arrested because he refused to move on when ordered to do so. Read the whole article next time
You are correct. He admitted praying silently which put him in breach of the order. He didn’t move when ordered to do so by a pcso. So yes, silent praying is a crime if you do it in a public space protection designated area. The crime is committed in his mind. Isn’t that thought crime?
No. The circumstances included an action. Stay out of the zone during the proscribed hours.
No law against being in the area.
Quite correct. How would people go into the clinic otherwise? If they stopped to tie their shoelace would they be arrested? Of course not. Some peoples' agenda blinds them to reality.
Indeed they do.
He was asked to leave. He refused. They ascertained the purpose of him standing there was against the order.
I know in your minds, laws only apply to people you don't like, and this is hard, but the order applied to him. He was pushing his luck like a small child. And then he went crying to social media, who have had a circle jerk about it ever since.
More wank fodder… you must be nearly there.
No, darling. I'm saying you get off on this.
I despair at the lack of civics education at this country and how many people are taken in by obvious horse shit. "Why so salty? Can’t you debate without resorting to abuse? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People have been arrested* for what they were thinking, let alone what they actually verbalised, so no, _reedom of speech isnt really a thing. I dont advocate for deliberately going out of your way to insult or otherwise belittle others verbally, but we should be free to express our opinions, however unpopular that might be. Others are free to disagree with those opinions, its called a democracy. *(A guy was stood (silently, as he was mindful of a ban on vocal protests near the building) outside an abortion clinic, and was approached by Police, asked what he was doing there, and he replied that he was praying in his mind for the soul of his unborn baby that an ex partner had had terminated.) Absolute horse shit. "Adam Smith-Connor, 51, was convicted at Poole Magistrates’ Court for breaching the safe zone around an abortion centre." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/christian-bournemouth-christchurch-uk-parliament-army-b2631603.html A horse by any other name is still a horse
If by that you mean "standing in a space you're prohibited from is the same as being prosecuted for thought", then yes. Why not. Infanticide is also the same as fraud. Breach of contract is the same as war crimes. Words mean nothing
It isn't illegal to stand in this space, or walk across it. He was arrested because he refused to move on when ordered to do so. Read the whole article next time
You are correct. He admitted praying silently which put him in breach of the order. He didn’t move when ordered to do so by a pcso. So yes, silent praying is a crime if you do it in a public space protection designated area. The crime is committed in his mind. Isn’t that thought crime?
No. The circumstances included an action. Stay out of the zone during the proscribed hours.
No law against being in the area.
So are these words just decoration to you?
"In October 2022, Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council imposed a public space protection order around the area of Ophir Road in Bournemouth, following a public consultation. This was carried out under the powers granted by section 59 of the Anti-social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014, as spelled out in the accompanying documentation, and specifically focuses on the clinic run by BPAS (British Pregnancy Advice Service)."
Do you actually read what you quote? Or just use it as wank fodder for people who disagree with your view?
Yes, I do in fact know what words mean. Do you?
The local authority applied their power under a section of a law. They even asked the public first.
Just because it's a category of a section of a law, doesn't mean it's not "law". "Law", used colloquially, can be understood as the threat of force or enforcement by the government against a particular action or inaction, when written in statute or understood through pronouncements of the judiciary. Orders resulting from laws are clearly within this.
Have another read, but this time spare the legal wank fodder and feel to point out the part that says being there is a contravention.
"Do you not know the difference between explaining what law is and wank fodder? I pity you. That section does not say that. It's in the article. You asked whether there was a law. I quoted the section that pointed out the law. The relevant passage is this "Remaining in the safe zone after being asked to leave by a police officer, PCSO “or any other person designated by BCP Council” contravenes the order, which “could result in a fine or prosecution”." He stayed after being asked to leave. "Contravenes the order" means "breaks the (subset of) the law". Generally things resulting in fines or prosecutions tend to be against the law, in case we needed more help on this | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People have been arrested* for what they were thinking, let alone what they actually verbalised, so no, _reedom of speech isnt really a thing. I dont advocate for deliberately going out of your way to insult or otherwise belittle others verbally, but we should be free to express our opinions, however unpopular that might be. Others are free to disagree with those opinions, its called a democracy. *(A guy was stood (silently, as he was mindful of a ban on vocal protests near the building) outside an abortion clinic, and was approached by Police, asked what he was doing there, and he replied that he was praying in his mind for the soul of his unborn baby that an ex partner had had terminated.) Absolute horse shit. "Adam Smith-Connor, 51, was convicted at Poole Magistrates’ Court for breaching the safe zone around an abortion centre." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/christian-bournemouth-christchurch-uk-parliament-army-b2631603.html A horse by any other name is still a horse
If by that you mean "standing in a space you're prohibited from is the same as being prosecuted for thought", then yes. Why not. Infanticide is also the same as fraud. Breach of contract is the same as war crimes. Words mean nothing
It isn't illegal to stand in this space, or walk across it. He was arrested because he refused to move on when ordered to do so. Read the whole article next time
You are correct. He admitted praying silently which put him in breach of the order. He didn’t move when ordered to do so by a pcso. So yes, silent praying is a crime if you do it in a public space protection designated area. The crime is committed in his mind. Isn’t that thought crime?
No. The circumstances included an action. Stay out of the zone during the proscribed hours.
No law against being in the area.
So are these words just decoration to you?
"In October 2022, Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council imposed a public space protection order around the area of Ophir Road in Bournemouth, following a public consultation. This was carried out under the powers granted by section 59 of the Anti-social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014, as spelled out in the accompanying documentation, and specifically focuses on the clinic run by BPAS (British Pregnancy Advice Service)."
Do you actually read what you quote? Or just use it as wank fodder for people who disagree with your view?
Yes, I do in fact know what words mean. Do you?
The local authority applied their power under a section of a law. They even asked the public first.
Just because it's a category of a section of a law, doesn't mean it's not "law". "Law", used colloquially, can be understood as the threat of force or enforcement by the government against a particular action or inaction, when written in statute or understood through pronouncements of the judiciary. Orders resulting from laws are clearly within this.
Have another read, but this time spare the legal wank fodder and feel to point out the part that says being there is a contravention.
Do you not know the difference between explaining what law is and wank fodder?
I pity you.
That section does not say that. It's in the article.
You asked whether there was a law.
I quoted the section that pointed out the law.
The relevant passage is this
"Remaining in the safe zone after being asked to leave by a police officer, PCSO “or any other person designated by BCP Council” contravenes the order, which “could result in a fine or prosecution”."
He stayed after being asked to leave. "Contravenes the order" means "breaks the (subset of) the law".
Generally things resulting in fines or prosecutions tend to be against the law, in case we needed more help on this "So, still the salty approach. Now re read what I posted earlier about why he was arrested. You still can’t point the law that says people can’t be there. They can’t protest, silently or otherwise. He admitted praying silently and refused to move. That’s why he was arrested. He breached the order. Why do you feel the need to be so disrespectful towards others who disagree with your point of view? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People have been arrested* for what they were thinking, let alone what they actually verbalised, so no, _reedom of speech isnt really a thing. I dont advocate for deliberately going out of your way to insult or otherwise belittle others verbally, but we should be free to express our opinions, however unpopular that might be. Others are free to disagree with those opinions, its called a democracy. *(A guy was stood (silently, as he was mindful of a ban on vocal protests near the building) outside an abortion clinic, and was approached by Police, asked what he was doing there, and he replied that he was praying in his mind for the soul of his unborn baby that an ex partner had had terminated.) Absolute horse shit. "Adam Smith-Connor, 51, was convicted at Poole Magistrates’ Court for breaching the safe zone around an abortion centre." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/christian-bournemouth-christchurch-uk-parliament-army-b2631603.html A horse by any other name is still a horse
If by that you mean "standing in a space you're prohibited from is the same as being prosecuted for thought", then yes. Why not. Infanticide is also the same as fraud. Breach of contract is the same as war crimes. Words mean nothing
It isn't illegal to stand in this space, or walk across it. He was arrested because he refused to move on when ordered to do so. Read the whole article next time
You are correct. He admitted praying silently which put him in breach of the order. He didn’t move when ordered to do so by a pcso. So yes, silent praying is a crime if you do it in a public space protection designated area. The crime is committed in his mind. Isn’t that thought crime?
No. The circumstances included an action. Stay out of the zone during the proscribed hours.
No law against being in the area.
So are these words just decoration to you?
"In October 2022, Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council imposed a public space protection order around the area of Ophir Road in Bournemouth, following a public consultation. This was carried out under the powers granted by section 59 of the Anti-social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014, as spelled out in the accompanying documentation, and specifically focuses on the clinic run by BPAS (British Pregnancy Advice Service)."
Do you actually read what you quote? Or just use it as wank fodder for people who disagree with your view?
Yes, I do in fact know what words mean. Do you?
The local authority applied their power under a section of a law. They even asked the public first.
Just because it's a category of a section of a law, doesn't mean it's not "law". "Law", used colloquially, can be understood as the threat of force or enforcement by the government against a particular action or inaction, when written in statute or understood through pronouncements of the judiciary. Orders resulting from laws are clearly within this.
Have another read, but this time spare the legal wank fodder and feel to point out the part that says being there is a contravention.
Do you not know the difference between explaining what law is and wank fodder?
I pity you.
That section does not say that. It's in the article.
You asked whether there was a law.
I quoted the section that pointed out the law.
The relevant passage is this
"Remaining in the safe zone after being asked to leave by a police officer, PCSO “or any other person designated by BCP Council” contravenes the order, which “could result in a fine or prosecution”."
He stayed after being asked to leave. "Contravenes the order" means "breaks the (subset of) the law".
Generally things resulting in fines or prosecutions tend to be against the law, in case we needed more help on this
So, still the salty approach. Now re read what I posted earlier about why he was arrested.
You still can’t point the law that says people can’t be there.
They can’t protest, silently or otherwise. He admitted praying silently and refused to move. That’s why he was arrested.
He breached the order.
Why do you feel the need to be so disrespectful towards others who disagree with your point of view?"He breached the order, which is in essence breaking the law. An order is a power granted by the law. I feel I've given this view more respect than it deserves. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People have been arrested* for what they were thinking, let alone what they actually verbalised, so no, _reedom of speech isnt really a thing. I dont advocate for deliberately going out of your way to insult or otherwise belittle others verbally, but we should be free to express our opinions, however unpopular that might be. Others are free to disagree with those opinions, its called a democracy. *(A guy was stood (silently, as he was mindful of a ban on vocal protests near the building) outside an abortion clinic, and was approached by Police, asked what he was doing there, and he replied that he was praying in his mind for the soul of his unborn baby that an ex partner had had terminated.) Absolute horse shit. "Adam Smith-Connor, 51, was convicted at Poole Magistrates’ Court for breaching the safe zone around an abortion centre." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/christian-bournemouth-christchurch-uk-parliament-army-b2631603.html A horse by any other name is still a horse
If by that you mean "standing in a space you're prohibited from is the same as being prosecuted for thought", then yes. Why not. Infanticide is also the same as fraud. Breach of contract is the same as war crimes. Words mean nothing
It isn't illegal to stand in this space, or walk across it. He was arrested because he refused to move on when ordered to do so. Read the whole article next time
You are correct. He admitted praying silently which put him in breach of the order. He didn’t move when ordered to do so by a pcso. So yes, silent praying is a crime if you do it in a public space protection designated area. The crime is committed in his mind. Isn’t that thought crime?
No. The circumstances included an action. Stay out of the zone during the proscribed hours.
No law against being in the area.
So are these words just decoration to you?
"In October 2022, Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council imposed a public space protection order around the area of Ophir Road in Bournemouth, following a public consultation. This was carried out under the powers granted by section 59 of the Anti-social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014, as spelled out in the accompanying documentation, and specifically focuses on the clinic run by BPAS (British Pregnancy Advice Service)."
Do you actually read what you quote? Or just use it as wank fodder for people who disagree with your view?
Yes, I do in fact know what words mean. Do you?
The local authority applied their power under a section of a law. They even asked the public first.
Just because it's a category of a section of a law, doesn't mean it's not "law". "Law", used colloquially, can be understood as the threat of force or enforcement by the government against a particular action or inaction, when written in statute or understood through pronouncements of the judiciary. Orders resulting from laws are clearly within this.
Have another read, but this time spare the legal wank fodder and feel to point out the part that says being there is a contravention.
Do you not know the difference between explaining what law is and wank fodder?
I pity you.
That section does not say that. It's in the article.
You asked whether there was a law.
I quoted the section that pointed out the law.
The relevant passage is this
"Remaining in the safe zone after being asked to leave by a police officer, PCSO “or any other person designated by BCP Council” contravenes the order, which “could result in a fine or prosecution”."
He stayed after being asked to leave. "Contravenes the order" means "breaks the (subset of) the law".
Generally things resulting in fines or prosecutions tend to be against the law, in case we needed more help on this
So, still the salty approach. Now re read what I posted earlier about why he was arrested.
You still can’t point the law that says people can’t be there.
They can’t protest, silently or otherwise. He admitted praying silently and refused to move. That’s why he was arrested.
He breached the order.
Why do you feel the need to be so disrespectful towards others who disagree with your point of view?
He breached the order, which is in essence breaking the law. An order is a power granted by the law.
I feel I've given this view more respect than it deserves. "So you now agree. The fact that he admitted his private thoughts to the pcso put him in breach of the order. And was told to leave. Not being there, as you tried to say was in breach. Isn’t that the same as thought crime? You know, when thoughts put you in breach of a PSPO. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He broke the law, by standing in a prohibited zone. True. He was asked to leave. Also true. However, the law, act, or whatever they call it, says ... "The order, which was due to be in place for three years, is intended to prevent “protesting… with respect to issues relating to abortion services”, whether approving or disapproving, and “includes but is not limited to graphic, verbal or written means, prayer or counselling”. Another restricted activity is listed as “holding vigils’ [sic] where members audibly pray if they perceive a service-users [sic] is passing by”." The bit that catches my eye is “includes but is not limited to graphic, verbal or written means, prayer or counselling”, especially the "not limited to..." bit. If he had been stood there, and, when asked what he was doing, said something like "I'm just enjoying the peace and quiet", he might have got away with it, but because he told them what he was thinking, they decided he was breaking the law. Ergo, he was punished for what he was thinking." Laws are often made up of many parts. He was in an area, doing a thing that is not allowed in that area, during prohibited times. If he really was praying, the Christian God is meant to be almighty, all knowing, omnipresent. The only reason he needed to be there, rather than literally anywhere else, was to virtue signal. To get attention of law enforcement and cause a storm on social media. And you all fell for it 🤦♀️ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People have been arrested* for what they were thinking, let alone what they actually verbalised, so no, _reedom of speech isnt really a thing. I dont advocate for deliberately going out of your way to insult or otherwise belittle others verbally, but we should be free to express our opinions, however unpopular that might be. Others are free to disagree with those opinions, its called a democracy. *(A guy was stood (silently, as he was mindful of a ban on vocal protests near the building) outside an abortion clinic, and was approached by Police, asked what he was doing there, and he replied that he was praying in his mind for the soul of his unborn baby that an ex partner had had terminated.) Absolute horse shit. "Adam Smith-Connor, 51, was convicted at Poole Magistrates’ Court for breaching the safe zone around an abortion centre." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/christian-bournemouth-christchurch-uk-parliament-army-b2631603.html A horse by any other name is still a horse
If by that you mean "standing in a space you're prohibited from is the same as being prosecuted for thought", then yes. Why not. Infanticide is also the same as fraud. Breach of contract is the same as war crimes. Words mean nothing
It isn't illegal to stand in this space, or walk across it. He was arrested because he refused to move on when ordered to do so. Read the whole article next time
You are correct. He admitted praying silently which put him in breach of the order. He didn’t move when ordered to do so by a pcso. So yes, silent praying is a crime if you do it in a public space protection designated area. The crime is committed in his mind. Isn’t that thought crime?
No. The circumstances included an action. Stay out of the zone during the proscribed hours.
No law against being in the area.
So are these words just decoration to you?
"In October 2022, Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council imposed a public space protection order around the area of Ophir Road in Bournemouth, following a public consultation. This was carried out under the powers granted by section 59 of the Anti-social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014, as spelled out in the accompanying documentation, and specifically focuses on the clinic run by BPAS (British Pregnancy Advice Service)."
Do you actually read what you quote? Or just use it as wank fodder for people who disagree with your view?
Yes, I do in fact know what words mean. Do you?
The local authority applied their power under a section of a law. They even asked the public first.
Just because it's a category of a section of a law, doesn't mean it's not "law". "Law", used colloquially, can be understood as the threat of force or enforcement by the government against a particular action or inaction, when written in statute or understood through pronouncements of the judiciary. Orders resulting from laws are clearly within this.
Have another read, but this time spare the legal wank fodder and feel to point out the part that says being there is a contravention.
Do you not know the difference between explaining what law is and wank fodder?
I pity you.
That section does not say that. It's in the article.
You asked whether there was a law.
I quoted the section that pointed out the law.
The relevant passage is this
"Remaining in the safe zone after being asked to leave by a police officer, PCSO “or any other person designated by BCP Council” contravenes the order, which “could result in a fine or prosecution”."
He stayed after being asked to leave. "Contravenes the order" means "breaks the (subset of) the law".
Generally things resulting in fines or prosecutions tend to be against the law, in case we needed more help on this
So, still the salty approach. Now re read what I posted earlier about why he was arrested.
You still can’t point the law that says people can’t be there.
They can’t protest, silently or otherwise. He admitted praying silently and refused to move. That’s why he was arrested.
He breached the order.
Why do you feel the need to be so disrespectful towards others who disagree with your point of view?
He breached the order, which is in essence breaking the law. An order is a power granted by the law.
I feel I've given this view more respect than it deserves.
So you now agree. The fact that he admitted his private thoughts to the pcso put him in breach of the order. And was told to leave. Not being there, as you tried to say was in breach.
Isn’t that the same as thought crime? You know, when thoughts put you in breach of a PSPO. "Only if theft is also a thought crime. Theft under English law is appropriation of property belonging to another with intention to permanently deprive. How can they know my thoughts? I was merely appropriating property belonging to another to... clean it. To keep it safe. Honest guv | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He broke the law, by standing in a prohibited zone. True. He was asked to leave. Also true. However, the law, act, or whatever they call it, says ... "The order, which was due to be in place for three years, is intended to prevent “protesting… with respect to issues relating to abortion services”, whether approving or disapproving, and “includes but is not limited to graphic, verbal or written means, prayer or counselling”. Another restricted activity is listed as “holding vigils’ [sic] where members audibly pray if they perceive a service-users [sic] is passing by”." The bit that catches my eye is “includes but is not limited to graphic, verbal or written means, prayer or counselling”, especially the "not limited to..." bit. If he had been stood there, and, when asked what he was doing, said something like "I'm just enjoying the peace and quiet", he might have got away with it, but because he told them what he was thinking, they decided he was breaking the law. Ergo, he was punished for what he was thinking. Laws are often made up of many parts. He was in an area, doing a thing that is not allowed in that area, during prohibited times. If he really was praying, the Christian God is meant to be almighty, all knowing, omnipresent. The only reason he needed to be there, rather than literally anywhere else, was to virtue signal. To get attention of law enforcement and cause a storm on social media. And you all fell for it 🤦♀️" He also proved that thought crime finally existed in the uk. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People have been arrested* for what they were thinking, let alone what they actually verbalised, so no, _reedom of speech isnt really a thing. I dont advocate for deliberately going out of your way to insult or otherwise belittle others verbally, but we should be free to express our opinions, however unpopular that might be. Others are free to disagree with those opinions, its called a democracy. *(A guy was stood (silently, as he was mindful of a ban on vocal protests near the building) outside an abortion clinic, and was approached by Police, asked what he was doing there, and he replied that he was praying in his mind for the soul of his unborn baby that an ex partner had had terminated.) Absolute horse shit. "Adam Smith-Connor, 51, was convicted at Poole Magistrates’ Court for breaching the safe zone around an abortion centre." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/christian-bournemouth-christchurch-uk-parliament-army-b2631603.html A horse by any other name is still a horse
If by that you mean "standing in a space you're prohibited from is the same as being prosecuted for thought", then yes. Why not. Infanticide is also the same as fraud. Breach of contract is the same as war crimes. Words mean nothing
It isn't illegal to stand in this space, or walk across it. He was arrested because he refused to move on when ordered to do so. Read the whole article next time
You are correct. He admitted praying silently which put him in breach of the order. He didn’t move when ordered to do so by a pcso. So yes, silent praying is a crime if you do it in a public space protection designated area. The crime is committed in his mind. Isn’t that thought crime?
No. The circumstances included an action. Stay out of the zone during the proscribed hours.
No law against being in the area.
So are these words just decoration to you?
"In October 2022, Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council imposed a public space protection order around the area of Ophir Road in Bournemouth, following a public consultation. This was carried out under the powers granted by section 59 of the Anti-social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014, as spelled out in the accompanying documentation, and specifically focuses on the clinic run by BPAS (British Pregnancy Advice Service)."
Do you actually read what you quote? Or just use it as wank fodder for people who disagree with your view?
Yes, I do in fact know what words mean. Do you?
The local authority applied their power under a section of a law. They even asked the public first.
Just because it's a category of a section of a law, doesn't mean it's not "law". "Law", used colloquially, can be understood as the threat of force or enforcement by the government against a particular action or inaction, when written in statute or understood through pronouncements of the judiciary. Orders resulting from laws are clearly within this.
Have another read, but this time spare the legal wank fodder and feel to point out the part that says being there is a contravention.
Do you not know the difference between explaining what law is and wank fodder?
I pity you.
That section does not say that. It's in the article.
You asked whether there was a law.
I quoted the section that pointed out the law.
The relevant passage is this
"Remaining in the safe zone after being asked to leave by a police officer, PCSO “or any other person designated by BCP Council” contravenes the order, which “could result in a fine or prosecution”."
He stayed after being asked to leave. "Contravenes the order" means "breaks the (subset of) the law".
Generally things resulting in fines or prosecutions tend to be against the law, in case we needed more help on this
So, still the salty approach. Now re read what I posted earlier about why he was arrested.
You still can’t point the law that says people can’t be there.
They can’t protest, silently or otherwise. He admitted praying silently and refused to move. That’s why he was arrested.
He breached the order.
Why do you feel the need to be so disrespectful towards others who disagree with your point of view?
He breached the order, which is in essence breaking the law. An order is a power granted by the law.
I feel I've given this view more respect than it deserves.
So you now agree. The fact that he admitted his private thoughts to the pcso put him in breach of the order. And was told to leave. Not being there, as you tried to say was in breach.
Isn’t that the same as thought crime? You know, when thoughts put you in breach of a PSPO.
Only if theft is also a thought crime.
Theft under English law is appropriation of property belonging to another with intention to permanently deprive.
How can they know my thoughts? I was merely appropriating property belonging to another to... clean it. To keep it safe. Honest guv "So you’re going for deflection now. Ok. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He broke the law, by standing in a prohibited zone. True. He was asked to leave. Also true. However, the law, act, or whatever they call it, says ... "The order, which was due to be in place for three years, is intended to prevent “protesting… with respect to issues relating to abortion services”, whether approving or disapproving, and “includes but is not limited to graphic, verbal or written means, prayer or counselling”. Another restricted activity is listed as “holding vigils’ [sic] where members audibly pray if they perceive a service-users [sic] is passing by”." The bit that catches my eye is “includes but is not limited to graphic, verbal or written means, prayer or counselling”, especially the "not limited to..." bit. If he had been stood there, and, when asked what he was doing, said something like "I'm just enjoying the peace and quiet", he might have got away with it, but because he told them what he was thinking, they decided he was breaking the law. Ergo, he was punished for what he was thinking. Laws are often made up of many parts. He was in an area, doing a thing that is not allowed in that area, during prohibited times. If he really was praying, the Christian God is meant to be almighty, all knowing, omnipresent. The only reason he needed to be there, rather than literally anywhere else, was to virtue signal. To get attention of law enforcement and cause a storm on social media. And you all fell for it 🤦♀️ He also proved that thought crime finally existed in the uk. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People have been arrested* for what they were thinking, let alone what they actually verbalised, so no, _reedom of speech isnt really a thing. I dont advocate for deliberately going out of your way to insult or otherwise belittle others verbally, but we should be free to express our opinions, however unpopular that might be. Others are free to disagree with those opinions, its called a democracy. *(A guy was stood (silently, as he was mindful of a ban on vocal protests near the building) outside an abortion clinic, and was approached by Police, asked what he was doing there, and he replied that he was praying in his mind for the soul of his unborn baby that an ex partner had had terminated.) Absolute horse shit. "Adam Smith-Connor, 51, was convicted at Poole Magistrates’ Court for breaching the safe zone around an abortion centre." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/christian-bournemouth-christchurch-uk-parliament-army-b2631603.html A horse by any other name is still a horse
If by that you mean "standing in a space you're prohibited from is the same as being prosecuted for thought", then yes. Why not. Infanticide is also the same as fraud. Breach of contract is the same as war crimes. Words mean nothing
It isn't illegal to stand in this space, or walk across it. He was arrested because he refused to move on when ordered to do so. Read the whole article next time
You are correct. He admitted praying silently which put him in breach of the order. He didn’t move when ordered to do so by a pcso. So yes, silent praying is a crime if you do it in a public space protection designated area. The crime is committed in his mind. Isn’t that thought crime?
No. The circumstances included an action. Stay out of the zone during the proscribed hours.
No law against being in the area.
So are these words just decoration to you?
"In October 2022, Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council imposed a public space protection order around the area of Ophir Road in Bournemouth, following a public consultation. This was carried out under the powers granted by section 59 of the Anti-social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014, as spelled out in the accompanying documentation, and specifically focuses on the clinic run by BPAS (British Pregnancy Advice Service)."
Do you actually read what you quote? Or just use it as wank fodder for people who disagree with your view?
Yes, I do in fact know what words mean. Do you?
The local authority applied their power under a section of a law. They even asked the public first.
Just because it's a category of a section of a law, doesn't mean it's not "law". "Law", used colloquially, can be understood as the threat of force or enforcement by the government against a particular action or inaction, when written in statute or understood through pronouncements of the judiciary. Orders resulting from laws are clearly within this.
Have another read, but this time spare the legal wank fodder and feel to point out the part that says being there is a contravention.
Do you not know the difference between explaining what law is and wank fodder?
I pity you.
That section does not say that. It's in the article.
You asked whether there was a law.
I quoted the section that pointed out the law.
The relevant passage is this
"Remaining in the safe zone after being asked to leave by a police officer, PCSO “or any other person designated by BCP Council” contravenes the order, which “could result in a fine or prosecution”."
He stayed after being asked to leave. "Contravenes the order" means "breaks the (subset of) the law".
Generally things resulting in fines or prosecutions tend to be against the law, in case we needed more help on this
So, still the salty approach. Now re read what I posted earlier about why he was arrested.
You still can’t point the law that says people can’t be there.
They can’t protest, silently or otherwise. He admitted praying silently and refused to move. That’s why he was arrested.
He breached the order.
Why do you feel the need to be so disrespectful towards others who disagree with your point of view?
He breached the order, which is in essence breaking the law. An order is a power granted by the law.
I feel I've given this view more respect than it deserves.
So you now agree. The fact that he admitted his private thoughts to the pcso put him in breach of the order. And was told to leave. Not being there, as you tried to say was in breach.
Isn’t that the same as thought crime? You know, when thoughts put you in breach of a PSPO.
Only if theft is also a thought crime.
Theft under English law is appropriation of property belonging to another with intention to permanently deprive.
How can they know my thoughts? I was merely appropriating property belonging to another to... clean it. To keep it safe. Honest guv
So you’re going for deflection now. Ok. "No. A law is made up of its parts. In this case the law is something like (forgive me, I don't have the law memorised) - being in a particular area - during a particular time - being asked to leave and failing to do so - under certain circumstances. Only if all elements are met does it become a violation. I can want to nick your stuff all day long. It only becomes illegal if I do it. Not a thought crime. He could have prayed anything he wanted to, and without the other parts, he's not violating an order. By the way, if you think theft is fun, fraud is even more murky | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People have been arrested* for what they were thinking, let alone what they actually verbalised, so no, _reedom of speech isnt really a thing. I dont advocate for deliberately going out of your way to insult or otherwise belittle others verbally, but we should be free to express our opinions, however unpopular that might be. Others are free to disagree with those opinions, its called a democracy. *(A guy was stood (silently, as he was mindful of a ban on vocal protests near the building) outside an abortion clinic, and was approached by Police, asked what he was doing there, and he replied that he was praying in his mind for the soul of his unborn baby that an ex partner had had terminated.) Absolute horse shit. "Adam Smith-Connor, 51, was convicted at Poole Magistrates’ Court for breaching the safe zone around an abortion centre." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/christian-bournemouth-christchurch-uk-parliament-army-b2631603.html A horse by any other name is still a horse
If by that you mean "standing in a space you're prohibited from is the same as being prosecuted for thought", then yes. Why not. Infanticide is also the same as fraud. Breach of contract is the same as war crimes. Words mean nothing
It isn't illegal to stand in this space, or walk across it. He was arrested because he refused to move on when ordered to do so. Read the whole article next time
You are correct. He admitted praying silently which put him in breach of the order. He didn’t move when ordered to do so by a pcso. So yes, silent praying is a crime if you do it in a public space protection designated area. The crime is committed in his mind. Isn’t that thought crime?
No. The circumstances included an action. Stay out of the zone during the proscribed hours.
No law against being in the area.
So are these words just decoration to you?
"In October 2022, Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council imposed a public space protection order around the area of Ophir Road in Bournemouth, following a public consultation. This was carried out under the powers granted by section 59 of the Anti-social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014, as spelled out in the accompanying documentation, and specifically focuses on the clinic run by BPAS (British Pregnancy Advice Service)."
Do you actually read what you quote? Or just use it as wank fodder for people who disagree with your view?
Yes, I do in fact know what words mean. Do you?
The local authority applied their power under a section of a law. They even asked the public first.
Just because it's a category of a section of a law, doesn't mean it's not "law". "Law", used colloquially, can be understood as the threat of force or enforcement by the government against a particular action or inaction, when written in statute or understood through pronouncements of the judiciary. Orders resulting from laws are clearly within this.
Have another read, but this time spare the legal wank fodder and feel to point out the part that says being there is a contravention.
Do you not know the difference between explaining what law is and wank fodder?
I pity you.
That section does not say that. It's in the article.
You asked whether there was a law.
I quoted the section that pointed out the law.
The relevant passage is this
"Remaining in the safe zone after being asked to leave by a police officer, PCSO “or any other person designated by BCP Council” contravenes the order, which “could result in a fine or prosecution”."
He stayed after being asked to leave. "Contravenes the order" means "breaks the (subset of) the law".
Generally things resulting in fines or prosecutions tend to be against the law, in case we needed more help on this
So, still the salty approach. Now re read what I posted earlier about why he was arrested.
You still can’t point the law that says people can’t be there.
They can’t protest, silently or otherwise. He admitted praying silently and refused to move. That’s why he was arrested.
He breached the order.
Why do you feel the need to be so disrespectful towards others who disagree with your point of view?
He breached the order, which is in essence breaking the law. An order is a power granted by the law.
I feel I've given this view more respect than it deserves.
So you now agree. The fact that he admitted his private thoughts to the pcso put him in breach of the order. And was told to leave. Not being there, as you tried to say was in breach.
Isn’t that the same as thought crime? You know, when thoughts put you in breach of a PSPO.
Only if theft is also a thought crime.
Theft under English law is appropriation of property belonging to another with intention to permanently deprive.
How can they know my thoughts? I was merely appropriating property belonging to another to... clean it. To keep it safe. Honest guv
So you’re going for deflection now. Ok.
No. A law is made up of its parts.
In this case the law is something like (forgive me, I don't have the law memorised)
- being in a particular area
- during a particular time
- being asked to leave and failing to do so
- under certain circumstances.
Only if all elements are met does it become a violation.
I can want to nick your stuff all day long. It only becomes illegal if I do it. Not a thought crime.
He could have prayed anything he wanted to, and without the other parts, he's not violating an order.
By the way, if you think theft is fun, fraud is even more murky "You would have to be in the designated area for the PSPO to be breached. Just being there is not a breach. The silent prayer was what triggered the breach. His private thoughts. They were the breach.,you do understand this, right? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's very Fab that a thread by a user having a flounce about their other thread being closed has been co-opted to make a point around "thought crime" using an example about a BPAS clinic exclusion zone. " Forgive me, I joined this party quite late. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's very Fab that a thread by a user having a flounce about their other thread being closed has been co-opted to make a point around "thought crime" using an example about a BPAS clinic exclusion zone. " Sounds like you're not a fan of, er, free speech. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's very Fab that a thread by a user having a flounce about their other thread being closed has been co-opted to make a point around "thought crime" using an example about a BPAS clinic exclusion zone. Forgive me, I joined this party quite late. " We'll have no parties on Forum please ! Sounds far too much like people enjoying themselves. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People have been arrested* for what they were thinking, let alone what they actually verbalised, so no, _reedom of speech isnt really a thing. I dont advocate for deliberately going out of your way to insult or otherwise belittle others verbally, but we should be free to express our opinions, however unpopular that might be. Others are free to disagree with those opinions, its called a democracy. *(A guy was stood (silently, as he was mindful of a ban on vocal protests near the building) outside an abortion clinic, and was approached by Police, asked what he was doing there, and he replied that he was praying in his mind for the soul of his unborn baby that an ex partner had had terminated.) Absolute horse shit. "Adam Smith-Connor, 51, was convicted at Poole Magistrates’ Court for breaching the safe zone around an abortion centre." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/christian-bournemouth-christchurch-uk-parliament-army-b2631603.html A horse by any other name is still a horse
If by that you mean "standing in a space you're prohibited from is the same as being prosecuted for thought", then yes. Why not. Infanticide is also the same as fraud. Breach of contract is the same as war crimes. Words mean nothing
It isn't illegal to stand in this space, or walk across it. He was arrested because he refused to move on when ordered to do so. Read the whole article next time
You are correct. He admitted praying silently which put him in breach of the order. He didn’t move when ordered to do so by a pcso. So yes, silent praying is a crime if you do it in a public space protection designated area. The crime is committed in his mind. Isn’t that thought crime?
No. The circumstances included an action. Stay out of the zone during the proscribed hours.
No law against being in the area.
So are these words just decoration to you?
"In October 2022, Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council imposed a public space protection order around the area of Ophir Road in Bournemouth, following a public consultation. This was carried out under the powers granted by section 59 of the Anti-social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014, as spelled out in the accompanying documentation, and specifically focuses on the clinic run by BPAS (British Pregnancy Advice Service)."
Do you actually read what you quote? Or just use it as wank fodder for people who disagree with your view?
Yes, I do in fact know what words mean. Do you?
The local authority applied their power under a section of a law. They even asked the public first.
Just because it's a category of a section of a law, doesn't mean it's not "law". "Law", used colloquially, can be understood as the threat of force or enforcement by the government against a particular action or inaction, when written in statute or understood through pronouncements of the judiciary. Orders resulting from laws are clearly within this.
Have another read, but this time spare the legal wank fodder and feel to point out the part that says being there is a contravention.
Do you not know the difference between explaining what law is and wank fodder?
I pity you.
That section does not say that. It's in the article.
You asked whether there was a law.
I quoted the section that pointed out the law.
The relevant passage is this
"Remaining in the safe zone after being asked to leave by a police officer, PCSO “or any other person designated by BCP Council” contravenes the order, which “could result in a fine or prosecution”."
He stayed after being asked to leave. "Contravenes the order" means "breaks the (subset of) the law".
Generally things resulting in fines or prosecutions tend to be against the law, in case we needed more help on this
So, still the salty approach. Now re read what I posted earlier about why he was arrested.
You still can’t point the law that says people can’t be there.
They can’t protest, silently or otherwise. He admitted praying silently and refused to move. That’s why he was arrested.
He breached the order.
Why do you feel the need to be so disrespectful towards others who disagree with your point of view?
He breached the order, which is in essence breaking the law. An order is a power granted by the law.
I feel I've given this view more respect than it deserves.
So you now agree. The fact that he admitted his private thoughts to the pcso put him in breach of the order. And was told to leave. Not being there, as you tried to say was in breach.
Isn’t that the same as thought crime? You know, when thoughts put you in breach of a PSPO.
Only if theft is also a thought crime.
Theft under English law is appropriation of property belonging to another with intention to permanently deprive.
How can they know my thoughts? I was merely appropriating property belonging to another to... clean it. To keep it safe. Honest guv
So you’re going for deflection now. Ok.
No. A law is made up of its parts.
In this case the law is something like (forgive me, I don't have the law memorised)
- being in a particular area
- during a particular time
- being asked to leave and failing to do so
- under certain circumstances.
Only if all elements are met does it become a violation.
I can want to nick your stuff all day long. It only becomes illegal if I do it. Not a thought crime.
He could have prayed anything he wanted to, and without the other parts, he's not violating an order.
By the way, if you think theft is fun, fraud is even more murky
You would have to be in the designated area for the PSPO to be breached. Just being there is not a breach. The silent prayer was what triggered the breach.
His private thoughts. They were the breach.,you do understand this, right?"I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse or not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's very Fab that a thread by a user having a flounce about their other thread being closed has been co-opted to make a point around "thought crime" using an example about a BPAS clinic exclusion zone. Sounds like you're not a fan of, er, free speech. "I haven't attempted to restrict anyone's freedoms, just observing how ridiculous it is | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's very Fab that a thread by a user having a flounce about their other thread being closed has been co-opted to make a point around "thought crime" using an example about a BPAS clinic exclusion zone. Sounds like you're not a fan of, er, free speech.
I haven't attempted to restrict anyone's freedoms, just observing how ridiculous it is " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's very Fab that a thread by a user having a flounce about their other thread being closed has been co-opted to make a point around "thought crime" using an example about a BPAS clinic exclusion zone. " Yeah 🤷♀️ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
