And when they don't respond or say no?
Well as long as someone thought there was harassment that's fine then, we should ignore due process.
This is why people are losing respect for the police...
- Thread starter RossGReds
- Start date
- Status
Associate
that's not for you to decide.
The people going to the clinic decide if they feel thats what it is.
Commissario
And the issue is that this sort of thing is usually done as a test to see how the police respond.
Chances are if it's ignored it'll end up being a dozen or more in fairly short order.
If there is say a court order to protect the people going into the clinic, and someone has broken it in various ways in the past then the police aren't going to give the benefit of the doubt.
Associate
This is true, this seams more of a "don't even think about it, just jog on"approach, shut it down before it starts.
Personally to stop accusations they should just expand the exlusion zone to include loitering or something, literally a pass through only not hanging around standing about etc.
Last edited:
Only in your eyes...
The police arrested her because of what she was thinking, they didn't take issue with her standing there until she said she was praying, she wouldn't have been arrested if she wasn't thinking of prayer inside her head. That is basically the definition of thought crime.
If you want to create a buffer zone to stop harassment then expand the area that the clinic own, don't arrest people for standing in a public street.
Spoken like a true statist. She wasn't protesting or giving out leaflets she was just standing there.
Last edited:
We'll make thoughtcrime illegal then, absolute clown world. People like you deserve the hell you are so eager to create.
Last edited:
So how does that work in your head? Give all the land anyone needs to have a buffer zone to someone, and have them take on the liability for the streets and public right of ways? Can they then sell it for profit? Develop on it? What if my drive way opens onto it, do they also own my drive way and the house my land sits on?
The buffer zone has done an excellent job, the real nastiness has stopped. This woman’s actions is the most they can do and she has pushed as far as she can before being stopped to prevent her harassment or her and her kind escalating to it. Well done to the police and council for protecting women from the loons who think their sky magic man is listening to them.
The solution is to build clinics with an expansive buffer zone like a car park, or a long driveway. The problem has really been caused by the poor planning of the design of these buildings.
She is an agitator, however human rights and due process apply to everyone no matter how much we might dislike them, you can never, ever justify thought crime. 1984 was supposed to a warning not a guidebook.
Commissario
No
The problem has been caused by the protesters, who will inevitably just shift themselves to whatever boundary you have for the the building, so if you put it huge site they'll crowd around the access points to that site.
The buildings are fine for what they need to do.
Soldato
Then you end up with protestors standing at the entrance to the buffer zone - e.g. the same issue you have at present.
As far as "design" goes, this particular building is essentially just a normal house on a residential street, there is already a footpath to the front door, so it's not like they're standing right in the doorway, but they do (did) aggressively block the gate, and this would be no different whether the path is 10m long or 10 miles long.
As far as the lady who got arrested for silently praying outside goes, fair enough, she's certainly not as bad as the chap we encountered, and wouldn't really bother me, but I'd question why she has to be there - why can't she just pray at home? Surely if her god is as powerful and all-knowing as she supposedly believes, then she could pray-from-home, saving on commuting costs, not risking arrest, and not intimidating vulnerable young women at one of the scariest and saddest moments of their lives?
Granted I haven't studied Christianity since school, but I was always under the impression that the core teachings were around tolerance, kindness and compassion (despite how it - and various other religions - have been corrupted over the years by people seeking to manipulate others for their own gain)? Instead these protestors are trying to cause pain and suffering, all the ones I've encountered have been horrible, nasty vindictive people - I don't get it, it's like they've flipped the religion they supposedly follow on its head?
Last edited:
So the onus is on the clinics? Do they pay for them, or do tax payers?
So you often victim blame like this? Say a woman gets raped, should she have done more to protect herself rather than blame the rapist for raping her?
You have criminal agitators wilfully and repeatedly harassing and abusing vulnerable victims, and your solution is allow the abuse because the victims don’t have infinite resources to set up land fortresses with vast entrances so large that no protest group could be large enough to encircle it?!
Associate
... I don't think this is worth continuing, ill leave you to the Daily Mail comment section.
I agree this is purely victim blaming, especially the whole "oh the govenment wants to stop my thoughts" it's such a BS argument.
Personally it should simply be a no loitering area, literally no hanging around outside at all just pass through if you need to walk past it. People can still access the area but standing around would be banned.
I would love to see how all these people would act and behave if a bunch of us turned up outside their houses and just stood there... silently. I 100% guarentee you people would call the police or ask us to move away which is no different to this situation.
Lol "victim blaming". You've gone full Godwin, we've gone from talking about incorporating a buffer zone in a building design to prevent protest/harassment to someone being brutally raped. Read up on the non-aggression principle.
Where do you draw the line on freedom of assembly? If there's enough people protesting do you create a 100km buffer zone where no protest is allowed?
It's not a no loitering area though is it, she was arrested for her thoughts. That is what so many liberals take issue with.
This applies equally to the government imposed buffer zone, women are going to have to travel through these lunatics either way.
We all despise these protesters for intimidating vulnerable women, but we can't make law based on emotion and create thought crime. Laws always need to be created objectively and must always respect human rights like freedom of assembly.
Last edited:
Soldato
I'm not entirely sure you understand what this means
As I understand it, she's a known activist/protester. If you have a known activist/protester acting suspiciously in an area where activists/protesters are excluding from activisting?activistitatifiying?/protesting then it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to put 2 and 2 together...
Last edited:
Associate
Yes you're right, but my point was to maike a no loitering area, that way even people want to do a silent prayer they can't stop to do it and have to walk through. If you make it a no loitering area you stop this sort of thing before it happens.
Soldato
I was assaulted on my work vehicle a few weeks ago.
Took police almost 2 weeks from reporting to actually contact me about it.
"what would you want done about it?" - Erm since I reported it to you I'd think that was fairly obvious.
"do you think you'd recognise them in a line up" - Given it's 2 weeks ago probably not but then there are at least 3 camera angles of the incident, including footage of him using his debit card to pay for his ticket prior to the assault, which was in the report and all the footage and card data is available to you on request to my company.
"if you can't recognise him then I don't think we'd get a result" - Why, as before CCTV and card details identify him with much more accuracy than victim eyewitness accounts.
"I'll request the footage and financials and get back to you"
This is a geniune interaction with my local f̶o̶r̶c̶e̶ farce (South Yorkshire), 18 days ago.
Took police almost 2 weeks from reporting to actually contact me about it.
"what would you want done about it?" - Erm since I reported it to you I'd think that was fairly obvious.
"do you think you'd recognise them in a line up" - Given it's 2 weeks ago probably not but then there are at least 3 camera angles of the incident, including footage of him using his debit card to pay for his ticket prior to the assault, which was in the report and all the footage and card data is available to you on request to my company.
"if you can't recognise him then I don't think we'd get a result" - Why, as before CCTV and card details identify him with much more accuracy than victim eyewitness accounts.
"I'll request the footage and financials and get back to you"
This is a geniune interaction with my local f̶o̶r̶c̶e̶ farce (South Yorkshire), 18 days ago.
Last edited:
Reminds me of the story which I think originated about a footballer taking to a referee but was altered to be a policeman. Anyway, it goes like this:
Person: "Can you arrest me for what I think?"
Policeman: "Of course not!"
Person: "I think you're a ****."
Never tried it myself I'll admit
.
Associate
If I stood still regulary outside your house for periods of time silently... would you find that normal?
I'm not entirely sure you understand what this means
As I understand it, she's a known activist/protester. If you have a known activist/protester acting suspiciously in an area where activists/protesters are excluding from activisting?activistitatifiying?/protesting then it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to put 2 and 2 together...
A Godwin argument is a form of a slippery slope and straw man where one takes an opinion or policy and then compares or extrapolates it to a ridiculous extreme to the point of it getting to a comparison to nazism like suggesting a more restrictive immigration policy will lead to a holocaust, or "victim blaming" (a very popular, nebulous term) in regards to the right to free assembly means someone is OK with rape, which then naturally leads onto murder and then concentration camps etc. It's an argument that reflects poorly on intelligence as it's an obvious attempt to try to score cheap points by disparaging someone.
And "acting suspiciously", how is standing in the street minding her own business "suspicious"?
Not normal and suspicious are not synonyms.
Christ, I never thought there would come a day when I actually had to defend these lunatics. Just shows you what an authoritarian direction this country has been heading in the last 25 years. All seems to have started with the war in Iraq and the anti-terrorism hysteria and propaganda
Last edited:
- Status