I don't see why there should be much debate about this, it's quite obvious what this women was trying to achieve or intending in her actions. To argue against it is at best an exhausting process which would never fully justify any differing hypothesis.

The debate should however be as to whether or not this should justify authority to arrest her? Whilst it may well be a very deliberate and obvious attempt to push limits, has the ball actually gone out of play? Does silent prayer constitute a protest or intimidation? I'd gently suggest not.

I do however have concerns about the law supposedly having authority to arrest individuals based upon the subjective feelings of others, whether they be plausible, logical or not. The act of standing silently in a place should not be a crime. Whether you agree with abortion or not you can't dictate to others how they must or must not act, in public, to suit your own needs/requirements of the world.

Furthermore, my beef primarily lies with the supposed police capacity to enforce such power whilst their inability to attend the likes of (very often mentioned) burglaries go massively under-investigated/resolved. That screams of an ideological thought police force as opposed to one that is seeking to actively solve and reduce cut and dry crimes and pursue actual criminals.

She said she was praying in order to get arrested. It's quite obvious what this woman was trying to achieve. She wanted to be arrested for praying silently to bring the concept of thought crime into the debate. And the poor copper fell for it. And mostly the American, but not UK, Press jumped on it due to their own strong and trenchant positions.

This woman makes herself famous by this stuff, she set up a charity to do it.

I don't.

An interesting quote

'it was 'obvious' that the anti-abortion campaigner was trying to martyr herself and she deliberately went to the abortion clinic to get arrested. It's so obvious she's martyring herself in the glare of the public as a way of publicising her beliefs, she knowingly went into that area to get arrested.'

I agree with this. I am sure you do too. And let's not forget she travelled at least 35 miles to get to the abortion clinic. There are plenty of cemeteries far closer.

Jesus was quite clear that people should pray quietly at home not conspicuously in the street "like the hypocrites do". ''Do not pray on like the hypocrites do, for they all like to be seen by men; they stand in prayer before synagogues and at street corners. I am telling you the truth, they already have the payment they crave. When you pray, enter into your room, shut the door behind you, and pray to your Father, Who is hidden.'' Matthew 6:5

According to Jesus, hypocrites appear righteous to others but are merely play-acting and are full of deceit.Matthew 23:28. That seems to cover it.

So, is she a hypocrite and/or was she standing in the street to discourage and humiliate vulnerable young women considering abortion?

We shall see what happens when she appears at Birmingham Magistrates Court on February 2 charged with four counts of failing to comply with a Public Space Protection Order.

Edited by Mapletree (29 Dec 2022 11.58am)

It's not bizarre to say that as they often do not deal with both, that's the point I was making. I was not suggesting they deal with some crimes and not others. Did you deliberately misread that? Or are you determined to push your own pro-abortion and defence of others agenda here and therefore deliberately manipulating the debate to paint me as the opposition to that?

The woman could well have creates a physical altercation, as can anyone, doing anything, anywhere. There is no link between silent prayer and physical altercation however, that is subjectively invented in the mind. Again, that is my point. That is 'thought policing' not 'police, policing'.

You're moving into Wisbech realms of ignoring the narrative in my post and twisting it/inventing your own to argue against Maple.

Very strange.

I didn't deflect. I started off by absolutely agreeing with you apropos this woman. I questioned the debate over her, or the point of it, as it seems quite obvious as to her identity and intentions. I also believed this was backed with 'previous' though my evidence was anecdotal. My point about policing was not a defence of her, nor was it a deflection, it was it's own point I was making and I believe had been earlier addressed. I believe it is you who was firstly defending this state of policing (which I interpreted as not logical in itself, only to align with your views on abortion) and whom is now arguing a separate point. - 'Wisbech-esque'.

If done so unintentionally, or due to my poor articulation, I am of course happy to note that and take responsibility where necessary. I was very much under the impression, however, you had inferred this yourself, or deliberately started arguing a separate point to further push your own agenda. The 'invention' of an enemy as opposed to responding to what it was that I was, at the very least poorly attempting to, communicate.

As for 'Muslims', I don't believe I even remotely came close to inferring any such point, let alone directly addressing it. That leads me to believe there was credence in my earlier interpretation of your posts/stance.

OK. I suspect I have lumped you in with others on this site, e.g. re Muslims as per Jimenez's post above.

So let's agree. The woman went to the abortion clinic (yet again) to further her own agenda, yet disguised that as for strongly held religious reasons. That cannot, however, be true assuming she has read Matthew's gospel.

This is a shameful waste of Police time, which is not exactly plentiful.

The arrest may not have been completed well, it looks like the Police Officer fell into the trap set for them.

We are getting this nonsense due to a massive US agenda that is funding and encouraging other countries to follow its divisive and fundamentalist lead.

Oh, and we should hear a bit more from the Jesus bloke, he seems to have a good head on him.