The denial of reality is entirely yours. You will find the reality more extensively explained in the link I provided, which you conveniently ignore. Replying without considering the information it contains is just ignorance.

Was that all the policeman said, or only the bit that was included in the propaganda video?

It is, of course, true. She was arrested for praying, but what is being deliberately ignored is the context. She was behaving (in this instance praying) in a way and in a place where such behaviour is not allowed. She was free to behave like that in a million other places. Her freedom to do so was never impacted. She was just restricted from making a nuisance of herself in one specific location.

It’s not difficult to understand. Only the wilfully blind and deaf refuse to see past the propaganda that’s being blown over them.

The police apologised for the delay. Not for her arrest.

Silent praying is not unlawful. Braverman writing to the police stating the obvious is just her playing to the crowd in her populist way. What’s unlawful is breaking exclusion orders.

Those who believe propaganda are bound to remain uninformed.

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.

You could get the impression that the regime want to essentially make it illegal to protest abortion.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

That would be my grievance, and what I would suggest this is actually about, not her praying. 'We don't want you disturbing that which we condone, for whatever reason or because it suits our narrative'.

I do take umbrage at that, especially where there are probably plenty of other similar things/instances which suit the narrative so they're more hesitant about it as opposed to just nicking someone straight away.

Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!

I have no idea nor do I see the relevance of this.

If the establishment desperately wanted to protect Jews or persecute Muslims/a particular Muslim however, and caught a Muslim who was already on their radar atop a prayer mate within close vicinity to a Synagogue, I'd pretty much guarantee they'd arrest them.

Again, I'd use the analogy of someone with a restraining order against them loitering 1m outside of that distance, near whomever the order was enacted for, perhaps this time solving a Rubiks Cube.

They wouldn't be arrested for the Rubiks cube, but for their physical presence and perceived intention, given the context and albeit technically outside of that zone.

Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!

I watch your links because I want to understand both sides of an argument. Unlike yourself who has a completely closed mind and decides things are “coercive” without even viewing them. Maybe you cannot see just how hypocritical that is. Maybe others can.

It’s a well produced and scripted video. I have no doubt that this lady is sincere in her beliefs but she is being used. She condemns herself by what she says, and even more by what she doesn’t say. She wasn’t’t arrested for “having silent thoughts in her head”! She was arrested for standing where she was not allowed to be and having what she admitted to the police. Who asked her to move to somewhere where there weren’t any restrictions but she refused. She gave the police no options. What she doesn’t say, in my view very deliberately not in the script, was that where she stood was covered by an exclusion order. She admits that she prays outside abortion centres so standing close to one, in an area covered by an order and admitting to the police that she was praying “silently”, was to invite arrest.

Her crime was not the thought. It was breaking the requirements of the exclusion order. It’s not difficult to understand that, no matter how many times you pretend not to. That’s what’s obvious. Orwell would, I am quite sure, agree for he was an intelligent man.

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.