Yes she was. In a video of the arrest, one of the six officers dealing with her, is heard telling her: “You’ve said you’ve been engaging in prayer, which is the offense.”

The police have now apologised to her and there will be no further action on the alleged offence.

A judge in Birmingham had already dismissed the first case against her along with that of Father Sean Gough, a Wolverhampton priest also arrested for praying silently.

Suella Braverman wrote to every police force in England and Wales to tell them that silent prayer was not a criminal offense.
In her letter, Braverman said that “silent prayer, within itself, is not unlawful” and that “holding lawful opinions, even if those opinions may offend others, is not a criminal offense.”

The woman involved in this is now, quite rightly, considering whether to sue the police for wrongful arrest and to seek compensation for the ordeal inflicted upon her.

The charges were dropped. That one policeman made an erroneous remark might be unfortunate but it does nothing at all to change the facts.

Facts which are routinely misrepresented by the religious and right wing press. Something you obviously consume far too much of.

This was a publicity stunt by a well known activist. Nothing more, nothing less. She wanted to be arrested and charged. The police did all they could to avoid that and then let her off.

Read this. It’s from somewhere usually more sympathetic to your views:-

[Link]

That you reference Braverman speaks volumes as she is wrong on almost everything but she isn’t on this. Silent Prayer is not a criminal offence. Nor is holding opinions. Breaking exclusion orders is though. If silently praying within an exclusion area is considered to be intimidatory then it becomes an offence.

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (11 Dec 2023 10.14pm)

The charges were dropped because it was not in anyone’s interest to proceed. Once she had been removed the task was complete. She now knows what will happen if she attempts the same stunt again.

You obviously didn’t read the link I provided or you would not be persisting with these erroneous claims.

The religious press and the right don’t rely on newspaper output. Their ideas, which you mirror, are all over the web. They all ignore the fact that there was an exclusion order in place prohibiting what she did, but only where she did it.

Campaign against exclusion orders if you wish but whilst they exist they must be accepted and respected. Break them and you will be arrested. It’s not complicated.

I see the 3 Ivy League Presidents are in real trouble after their disastrous appearance at congress.

All 3 failed to condemn antisemitism adequately at their universities citing freedom of speech or rather whining "Well what can you do!".

Of course all 3 have been active in banning and de platforming stuff they didn't like so showing themselves up to be hypocrites.

One has resigned, one is stepping down, whilst the 3rd is clinging on. Have they had a change of heart? Not really but money talks and rich white people have been threatening to withdraw their donations.

Freedom of speech at university should be for all.

Edited by Badger11 (12 Dec 2023 8.15am)

You at least make me laugh. I am as far from being either extreme or left wing as any normal middle of the road citizen could be. The only resemblance to Pravda here comes from your blinkered posts which have not even considered the alternatives.

If you don’t read information how will you learn anything? The internet searches on this return almost nothing other than identical propaganda from those who support the so called “pro-life” movement. It’s all distorted and twisted to present an entirely untrue picture. Something explained very well in the link. Here it is again. Kindly don’t respond until you have read it:-

[Link]

The title gives a flavour. There is indeed a lot more to be seen. Isabel Vaughan-Spruce is a well known “pro-life” activist who courts publicity for her stunts. She is supported by the “ADF” an American anti-abortion organisation which has been very successful in campaigning to get abortion banned in a variety of US states. They design her actions and provide the cameras to film them. She is deliberately trying to provoke being arrested. The police have no interest in seeing her either arrested or charged and only do so when left with no choice. Even when she was “cleared” the first time the CPS had dropped the charges on the basis it wasn’t worth a court’s time but she insisted on having her day in court. The magistrates let her off. It seems her argument that being silent isn’t praying caused sufficient doubt in their minds.

On the second occasion the CPS also dropped the charges. Removing her was the desired outcome. Not giving her more publicity. The only apology that was made was for the time it took to deal with things, the CPS having rather more important things to do. However those charges remain on the book and should she attempt anything similar they may be resurrected.

There is no doubt whatsoever that she, and the others doing similar stunts are not simply wanting to pray. They want to have the right to do so in places where others consider it undesirable. The same scenario has been engineered by the ADF many times in the USA.

Just ask yourself, do we really want to follow the way the USA has gone over this issue?

It seems to me that the ADF, which is a substantial and well funded organisation, is trying to find loopholes in the law and to then exploit them. Hence the “silently” !

That though does nothing to change the underlying intent of this. Which clearly conflicts with, and is intended to conflict with, the whole purpose of the exclusion zone being created.

So I hope and trust that the terms of any exclusion order are reviewed and revised to ensure that this and any other loopholes are closed so it becomes watertight and impervious to the activities of those whose only intention is to avoid compliance.

Read the link.