This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Woman arrested for silent prayer, god save us
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Spiderman  Horsham 27 Dec 22 8.34am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
They are. In this thread they certainly are. Very strange second sentence imo
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| Spiderman Horsham 27 Dec 22 8.39am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
So there was no mention of women needing to be educated on what they should and shouldn't feel concerned about. Is the right answer.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 27 Dec 22 10.11am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
Whether they are aborting a nascent child or not, whether they are a man, a woman or one of the made-up genders or not, if they feel intimidated by someone standing silently in a public street, then they are probably mentally ill. People should not be held responsible for how other people, mentally ill or not, happen to feel or pretend to feel. They aren’t being held responsible. They are being expected to abide by the law just as everyone else is. Whether you, I or anyone else thinks that law is wise is another issue for which we all have the right to campaign to change. Whilst it exists we are all bound by it. That you believe that a woman going through the severe stress of having to decide whether to undergo an abortion ought not feel intimidated by someone whose deliberate actions are intended to influence her and, if she does, it means she is mentally ill, is your business. I don’t agree and it seems those making the law don’t either.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 27 Dec 22 10.14am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
Conveniently everyone without a selective memory will know the detail so no explanation is required. Very regrettably the precise reverse is true.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Teddy Eagle  27 Dec 22 10.22am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Very regrettably the precise reverse is true. As you didn't want an explanation that will have to remain the case.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 27 Dec 22 10.31am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Nicholas91
She was arrested for silently praying in her head. The police asked her if she was. You cannot equate silent prayer to a protest, that is a perversion of law and quite literally an enforcement of thought crime. I’m not condoning nor backing this women but it is a fine example of just how ideologically ruled we are and how incompetent, possibly nefarious and almost definitely bereft of intelligence both the law makers and enforcers are. As I said, an Orwellian nightmare. Apologies if that does not assist in your unending quest to play the antagonist for attention seeking purposes. Edited by Nicholas91 (26 Dec 2022 11.14pm) As neither of us were there we cannot be sure exactly what the arresting officer said but I don’t believe she could have been arrested just because she was praying. That it might be portrayed that way by religious groups with an agenda is, unfortunately par for the course that some of them use these days. They play victim! No better than... Mitrovic did yesterday. The offence was breaking an order about activities in a particular location and not the activity itself. There’s nothing Orwellian here. It’s just common sense. I don’t want attention! I just dislike reading this kind of nonsense.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| chris123 hove actually 27 Dec 22 10.35am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
As neither of us were there we cannot be sure exactly what the arresting officer said but I don’t believe she could have been arrested just because she was praying. That it might be portrayed that way by religious groups with an agenda is, unfortunately par for the course that some of them use these days. They play victim! No better than... Mitrovic did yesterday. The offence was breaking an order about activities in a particular location and not the activity itself. There’s nothing Orwellian here. It’s just common sense. I don’t want attention! I just dislike reading this kind of nonsense. It has to be anti social behaviour though, surely?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 27 Dec 22 10.45am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Very regrettably the precise reverse is true. . What I would like to avoid is seeing another thread get diverted onto a completely unrelated issue. This is done, not by yourself, by some to avoid having their prejudices exposed. There is no equivalence between the issue involving the use of female facilities by transgenders and this. The first has two stakeholders with genuinely competing rights, where one of them would not just feel intimidated but under real threat should one recommended solution be adopted. For this there is no simple and easy solution available. Time and adjustments are needed. For this issue there is a very obvious solution, instantly available, which disadvantages no-one. So if you want to discuss the first again I suggest you do so in another thread. It’s unlikely I will participate.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Teddy Eagle 27 Dec 22 10.53am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
. What I would like to avoid is seeing another thread get diverted onto a completely unrelated issue. This is done, not by yourself, by some to avoid having their prejudices exposed. There is no equivalence between the issue involving the use of female facilities by transgenders and this. The first has two stakeholders with genuinely competing rights, where one of them would not just feel intimidated but under real threat should one recommended solution be adopted. For this there is no simple and easy solution available. Time and adjustments are needed. For this issue there is a very obvious solution, instantly available, which disadvantages no-one. So if you want to discuss the first again I suggest you do so in another thread. It’s unlikely I will participate. No need for another thread. To me a naked man in a women's changing room represents a threat and a woman praying in the street doesn't. If she'd been waving a banner or shouting her objections there might be more point. But she wasn't.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 27 Dec 22 10.54am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by chris123
It has to be anti social behaviour though, surely? We would need to see the terms of the order but I don’t believe so. I think the order specifies a number of activities which may not be carried out within a determined area, not all of which would normally be regarded as anti social. They are looked at through the eyes of those using the facility and not the general public.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
PalazioVecchio  south pole 27 Dec 22 11.41am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by chris123
It has to be anti social behaviour though, surely? will we 'yellow card' footballers who do religious gestures on the pitch ? or that italian player who did the fascist salute ? or all other political stuff ? or is only half the political & religious stuff to be frowned upon ? and to pray in public ? maybe the tolerance of that should be commensurate with those religions tolerance of 'others' ? try being an atheist in General Franco's Spain, or being a Jew in Saudi.
Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 27 Dec 22 12.12pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
' No-one ever argued that a naked man in a women’s changing room wouldn’t be a threat but if you believe that is what that issue is about then I don’t. It’s very much more involved than that. It isn’t just about men taking advantage of a new environment. It’s about how we respond to the needs of the transgender community. Nor does anyone believe that a woman praying in the street is a threat. It depends on the street and the perceptions of those who might witness the activity. So if she choose another street, which impacts no-one, who loses? Christian kindness requires her to be sensitive to the feelings of others. The law demands it be followed by all. The two issues are completely different and cannot be conflated.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.