Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 34878407)

Actually it gives undue power to bully/oppress people. Hitler, Stalin etc would have liked to have though of it.

Originally Posted by foreverwar (Post 34878474)

Excellent comparison - what next - gulags, death camps, invasion with tanks? :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 34878407)

Actually it gives undue power to bully/oppress people. Hitler, Stalin etc would have liked to have though of it.

Originally Posted by Flyboy (Post 34878795)

That is is exactly what will happen if these laws are ignored. The bullies and oppressors will just continue to get away with it. We do not have the freedom to bully people; no matter how much you scream "free speech."

Originally Posted by foreverwar (Post 34877986)

erm, no - this thread is about an arrest for

Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 34879433)

Or to look at it another way. taking people to court at the expense of tax payers. where it gets decided if one upset another enough over something they believe in.

Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 34879433)

Or to look at it another way. taking people to court at the expense of tax payers. where it gets decided if one upset another enough over something they believe in.

Originally Posted by papa smurf

with no actual proof to back up there religion/beliefs

Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 34879433)

Or to look at it another way. taking people to court at the expense of tax payers. where it gets decided if one upset another enough over something they believe in.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 34879436)

with no actual proof to back up there religion/beliefs :D

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 34879436)

with no actual proof to back up there religion/beliefs :D

Originally Posted by Russ B (Post 34879325)

Guess this means she can't "go home" then.

Originally Posted by Russ B (Post 34879439)

Religious people pay tax too....

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 34879461)

If you wanted to make a formal complaint, but it was totally at your own expense, would you more or less likely to make a formal complaint than if taxpayers are paying for it instead.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 34879324)

up date

They all but called me a terrorist ... Muslim woman hits back over race row with hotel couple

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz0SI9Fg2FH

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004 (Post 34879593)

I know precisely how she must have felt, I get the same feeling every time we fly out to America when I am singled out of the line for a pat down, I feel I am being treated like a Terrorist, but I just get my shoes back on and get on the plane like most do.

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 34879573)

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 34879599)

That because they do it to many people, they don't single you out in a room of people and start hurling abuse at you.

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004 (Post 34879600)

And you know that the " accused " hurled abuse at the " offended " ?
:erm:

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 34879648)

Well No, But that is what is the case is about. Since you decided to make a judgement on religious people being offended I pointed out that the accusation in this case is different to the example you give.

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004 (Post 34879794)

The people who decide in court will look at what was apparently said about mohammed and probably scratch their heads wondering why they are even sat where they are that particular day wasting everyones time

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 34879874)

Or do you want to bully/oppress others to make sure that Muslims can in no way be criticised no matter what they say or do?

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 34879874)

Or do you want to bully/oppress others to make sure that Muslims can in no way be criticised no matter what they say or do?

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 34879887)

So what are the repeated arrests of this type supposed to achieve, if not silencing people, making certain groups of people fearful of what they say, ie bullying/oppressing people. It's certainly not in order to have a free and open dialogue on things.

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004 (Post 34879794)

I am not making any judgement on " religious " people being offended, we are all made of the same stuff whoever you pray to, so I could go to a national paper, as the complainant has in their case and complain of being all but treated like a terrorist.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 34879887)

So what are the repeated arrests of this type supposed to achieve, if not silencing people, making certain groups of people fearful of what they say, ie bullying/oppressing people. It's certainly not in order to have a free and open dialogue on things.

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004 (Post 34879794)

I am not making any judgement on " religious " people being offended, we are all made of the same stuff whoever you pray to, so I could go to a national paper, as the complainant has in their case and complain of being all but treated like a terrorist.
Which is a strange thing really, because for apparent legal reasons the accused cannot say anything until the case goes to court but the alleged " offended " can.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 34879917)

But those that protested about returning soldiers were allowed to do so. Then there were the protests about the Danish cartoons of Mohammed with the placards they were carrying. The Police were escorting them and so could have taken immediate action, but didn't..

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 34879917)

But those that protested about returning soldiers were allowed to do so. Then there were the protests about the Danish cartoons of Mohammed with the placards they were carrying. The Police were escorting them and so could have taken immediate action, but didn't.

Came across this link as to why the cartoons were created in the first place.

Originally Posted by Russ B (Post 34879921)

Ever heard of evidence gathering first? Which is what the police did as I recall a load of them were arrested and prosecuted.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 34879942)

Define 'load of them'. IIRC The media had to kick up a very big fuss over it, before any action was taken.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 34879942)

Define 'load of them'. IIRC The media had to kick up a very big fuss over it, before any action was taken.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 34879948)

So if I deem something offensive then it will be banned? Decisions , Decisions, where do I start.:D

Originally Posted by Russ B (Post 34879945)

That's right, because even when people are breaking the law in front of them, the police will only take action if "a very big fuss" is kicked up.

As for a 'load of them' - why do I get the impression that not matter how many people I say were arrested, it won't come anywhere near your idea of "a load of them".

Originally Posted by Russ B (Post 34879954)

If it breaks the law then of course.....

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 34879958)

They walked quite a distance shouting and waving placards etc.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 34879958)

You didn't give any figures, so either you are unwilling to say or you don't know, which would give you no basis to use the term 'load of them'.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 34879958)

And which side gets to define that 'law'?

Originally Posted by Russ B (Post 34879969)

...giving themselves enough rope to hang themselves with? Although perhaps not in the way you'd like...



I know there were more than 4. I don't have the figure but it was more than that.



The CPS side.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 34879982)

I see now, you are all but calling me a terrorist?:rolleyes:
Gets the notion of someone being called a terrorist without actually saying that it was said, very sneaky.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 34879982)

It was a single news item I came across, I didn't say that it was the complete list, just that you weren't supplying a list yourself. Was the total number more or less than the number of people in the picture of this article? They were not arrested at the demo or even shortly afterwards, but in the following month.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 34879982)

The CPS aren't supposed to make the law.

Originally Posted by Russ B (Post 34879985)

If I wanted to call you a terrorist or anything else then i'd do it directly, be assured of that. Although how you came to the conclusion that's what I was calling you is beyond me. Or maybe not after all, everybody knows terrorist go around with....er rope don't they?



Yes, it's called 'evidence gathering'. A sneaky little the trick the police are known to do in order to secure a conviction.



You said 'define' not 'make'.

Originally Posted by Russ B (Post 34879969)

...giving themselves enough rope to hang themselves with? Although perhaps not in the way you'd like...

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 34880003)

Which is suggesting, in a not very subtle manner, that I wish violence actions to happen. Just another instance of bullying/oppression that is taking place. Putting completely false and nasty interpretations on things when people seek to criticise something.

Originally Posted by Xaccers (Post 34879993)

I seem to recall when that actually took place, one of the reasons arrests were not made at the time was that it could have inflamed the situation, which it doesn't take a genius to realise would be a very bad thing.
Now nomadking, could you please explain why you would have found it preferable for the police to turn a reasonably peaceful, if unpleasant, protest into a potential riot rather than gather evidence, track down those who have comitted crimes, and arrest them at a later date?

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 34880007)

But the following month? If incitement is taking place then it has to be stopped there and then, to stop the incitement. It's no good allowing any incitement to take place and then taking action long after the event. If immediate action had taken place, then maybe there might be case for saying that media pressure wasn't responsible for the arrests but as the arrests that did take place happened a very long time(relatively) afterwards, there can't.

Originally Posted by Russ B (Post 34880005)

OK. I can now see to avoid using irony in any further posts replying to you.

I've got no problem with people criticising anyone/thing as along as they do it constructively, intelligently and without malice and/or an agenda.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 34879982)

I see now, you are all but calling me a terrorist?:rolleyes:
Gets the notion of someone being called a terrorist without actually saying that it was said, very sneaky.

It was a single news item I came across, I didn't say that it was the complete list, just that you weren't supplying a list yourself. Was the total number more or less than the number of people in the picture of this article? They were not arrested at the demo or even shortly afterwards, but in the following month.

The CPS aren't supposed to make the law.

Originally Posted by Saaf_laandon_mo (Post 34880014)

Taking immediate action against protestors in a rally would probably involve using riot police, and the risk of puting others in danger. It's similar to football matches where intelligence is collected via cctv leading to subsequent arrests and bans.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 34880019)

So you think that suggesting that someone wishes that somebody else literally 'had enough rope to hang themselves' is not offensive? Your blatant intention was, as in the example I gave, to adversely colour people's opinion of any further comments I might make.

Just because you don't like something, doesn't meant it's not true.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 34880007)

There was recently, a protest planned and initially approved by the police, but then stopped because of the potential for violence, not from those whose protest was approved, but others. The others were violent anyway even though the first protest didn't really materialize.

But the following month? If incitement is taking place then it has to be stopped there and then, to stop the incitement. It's no good allowing any incitement to take place and then taking action long after the event. If immediate action had taken place, then maybe there might be case for saying that media pressure wasn't responsible for the arrests but as the arrests, that did take place, happened a very long time(relatively) afterwards, there can't.

Originally Posted by Flyboy (Post 34880020)

I believe the reason why it took a month to arrest them, as far as I was aware, was that they needed a formal complaint to be made and it took all that time for someone to actually make one, then they had to find them.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 34880019)

So you think that suggesting that someone wishes that somebody else literally 'had enough rope to hang themselves' is not offensive? Your blatant intention was, as in the example I gave, to adversely colour people's opinion of any further comments I might make.

Just because you don't like something, doesn't meant it's not true.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 34880029)

Complaints were made the same day.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 34880007)

But the following month? If incitement is taking place then it has to be stopped there and then, to stop the incitement. It's no good allowing any incitement to take place and then taking action long after the event. If immediate action had taken place, then maybe there might be case for saying that media pressure wasn't responsible for the arrests but as the arrests, that did take place, happened a very long time(relatively) afterwards, there can't.

Originally Posted by Flyboy (Post 34880027)

Well, seeing as (going by your logic) violence hadn't broken out, then they could hardly be accused of inciting it then. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Russ B (Post 34880032)

By who? Any links?

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 34880003)

I was, in part, taking a swipe at the complaint's own comment of having been 'all but' called a terrorist.

Your post said:-

Which is suggesting, in a not very subtle manner, that I wish violence actions to happen. Just another instance of bullying/oppression that is taking place. Putting completely false and nasty interpretations on things when people seek to criticise something.

I remember a TV documentary that was following the Anti-Defamation League in the US. A member of the League stated at a meeting with others and on camera that X was a 'Holocaust Denier'. He was then challenged by the documentary maker as to whether X had indeed denied the Holocaust. He replied that he didn't know whether X had or not, but that X was the sort of person who would. X had just been defamed by someone from the Anti-Defamation League just in order to make X look bad, although what X was saying is very widely seen as silly even to the point of him being called mad.

Originally Posted by Flyboy (Post 34880020)

I believe the reason why it took a month to arrest them, as far as I was aware, was that they needed a formal complaint to be made and it took all that time for someone to actually make one, then they had to find them.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 34880029)

Complaints were made the same day. How could anyone else make a complaint at the time, as nobody else was really allowed near.

Originally Posted by Russ B (Post 34880032)

By who? Any links?

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 34880038)

eg The media.

Originally Posted by Xaccers (Post 34880033)

Lets try that again shall we?
I said:
Now nomadking, could you please explain why you would have found it preferable for the police to turn a reasonably peaceful, if unpleasant, protest into a potential riot rather than gather evidence, track down those who have comitted crimes, and arrest them at a later date?

Originally Posted by foreverwar (Post 34880040)

Any chance of a link?

---------- Post added at 14:34 ---------- Previous post was at 14:29 ----------








So the media complained?

Anyone else confused? :confused:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 34880046)

How should I know who complained?

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 34880046)

Because they were inciting others at that time, not a month later. If there would have been a riot if the police intervened, then the protest should have been stopped beforehand. A peaceful protest can't turn into a riot. It was not just one or two unsupported people who were waving placards, shouting, using megaphones, wearing suicide bomber vests etc.

Originally Posted by Russ B (Post 34880051)

Well you were the one who said complaints were made, don't you think you ought to back it up with evidence?

I'm assuming by 'complaint' you meant it was reported to the police, as opposed to complaining by standing on a soapbox or writing in a newspaper etc?

Originally Posted by foreverwar (Post 34880040)

Any chance of a link?

---------- Post added at 14:34 ---------- Previous post was at 14:29 ----------








So the media complained?

Anyone else confused? :confused:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 34880038)

So because the incitement was for violence at a future date when there wouldn't such a big police and media presence, that makes it ok?

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 34880057)

I wasn't the one who said that a complaint(I assume not from the police) had to made by somebody, before any action could take place.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 34880057)

I wasn't the one who said that a complaint(I assume not from the police) had to made by somebody, before any action could take place.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 34880029)

Complaints were made the same day. How could anyone else make a complaint at the time, as nobody else was really allowed near.

Originally Posted by Xaccers (Post 34880053)

Peaceful protests can't turn into riots?
Really?
That's your reasoning?
Because there was no trouble, the police making arrests there and then wouldn't have caused any problems, and all the protesters you're objecting too, being decent chaps I suppose, would have just gone along quietly down to the station?

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 34880066)

If the people protesting are truly peaceful, then without others attacking them first it can't turn into a riot. 'Soliciting Murder' and 'stirring up racial hatred' is peaceful? That's what a few people were found guilty of.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 34880077)

The damage of 'solicitation of murder' had taken place. The arrests were over a month later. Did it take that long for someone to complain?
Link

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 34880077)

The damage of 'solicitation of murder' had taken place. The arrests were over a month later. Did it take that long for someone to complain?

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 34880084)

Official CPS policy on the issue
I think that defence covers everything the couple are even accused of. So why were they arrested? Especially as the policy goes on to say

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 34880093)

Are you saying you(and the police) can be sure that no violence or murder would take place in the following month as a result? They would also have to track down those who had been 'incited' or 'solicited', which would be impossible as the pictures had broadcast around the world on TV etc.

Originally Posted by Xaccers (Post 34880092)

I don't believe that is the CPS policy on the Crime and Disorder act, nor the Public order act. Oh wait, you're not talking about what the couple are actually accused of are you?

Originally Posted by Xaccers (Post 34880095)

So you would prefer the police to ignite a riot.
Inciting someone is a crime, being incited isn't, acting on that incitement in a criminal way is.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 34880096)

It's a cut and paste from the CPS website.

Originally Posted by nomadking

The point is to stop the incitement taking place in order to prevent further(in the future) violence. If removing troublemakers ignites a riot then the protest shouldn't have been allowed to form in the first place. After all the 'peaceful':rolleyes: organisers/participants would want any troublemakers removed.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 34880084)

Official CPS policy on the issue
I think that defence covers everything the couple are even accused of. So why were they arrested? Especially as the policy goes on to say

Originally Posted by Xaccers (Post 34880095)

So you would prefer the police to ignite a riot.
Inciting someone is a crime, being incited isn't, acting on that incitement in a criminal way is.
Am I missing something here though, you appear to be suggesting that someone's power to incite others suddenly stops once they're arrested, and those inititially incited would miraculously no longer be incited.
Or are you under the impression that in order to protest, a group must show all their plackards to the police for approval, along with a script of what slogans are going to be shouted, that way the police can stop something before it happens?

Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 34879873)

And decide what punishment to give out. if any.

Do you want compensation? or do you want them to sign a new offensive offenders register?
What's wrong with a good old fashioned ASBO?

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 34879874)

Or do you want to bully/oppress others to make sure that Muslims can in no way be criticised no matter what they say or do?

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 34879892)

"Repeated Arrests" is rather overkill, we still are not clear into why the Police and CPS are prosecuting this couple but it's not exactly part of a trend. I don't see it as bullying, I see it as an overreaction to the bulling this couple were alleged to have done.

They are alleged to have unleashed the verbal abuse on this woman at breakfast in front of an audience. That is bullying, it's certainly not a 'free and open' dialogue'.

Originally Posted by Flyboy (Post 34879893)

The victim in this case was not the one who went to the papers. It was the accused, at the behest of the Christian Institute. Now I would have thought that even a hint of their involvement would start to ring alarm bells. A lot has been written about the woman, who was on the receiving end of this couple's wrath, but there is precious little about the couple themselves. I wonder why the likes of the Daily Heil, The Sexpress and the Torygraph haven't delved into their background and bothered finding out anything about them?




Which I would have thought, as experience service providers such as these, should have known better to have not even started a discussion on the subject.



How do you know this? She was recovering from an operation, I hardly think she was in much of a position to "give as good as she got." But, on the presumption that this is what happened, what would you have expected her to have done? Just sit there meekly and take the abuse that was allegedly thrown at her?



But it is more than what was said about Mohammed, she was insulted by their assertions that her religious dress was oppressive and some kind of bondage. I dare say the was a whole lot more said than that as well, but we only the Daily Heil's et al version of what they want us to know.



Yes, I am sure you have, but then I don't think Stormfront's collective opinion holds much of an independent perspective to be honest. But I am sure they are just a little more than confused, to hear the the accused is an immigrant and the victim is a British born white woman.



I am sure a lot of people do see it as you do, but then I am sure there a lot of people who would rather Muslims were not allowed to stay in guest houses where white Christians go, but there you go.

This has nothing to do with an imagine PC conspiracy, what it has to do with is an individual's right, to live their lives as they wish, unharassed and unhindered by someone's yobbish behaviour and bigoted opinions.

As far as her husband is concerned, reading the woman's words, she sounds as though she has a mind of her own in these matters and her husband has little influence over her decisions. Which kind of flies in the face of the accused assertion that she was under some kind of bondage.

Originally Posted by Stuart C (Post 34880366)

Is there any evidence that the muslim woman "slagged off" Christianity? Not as far as I know.. I have to admit, I think that the thread title is possibly a bit inaccurate..

As for the comments. Was Mohammed a warlord. Yes, I believe he was. Assuming I am correct, I don't think any Muslim would deny it.

Maybe the comment about Muslim women's clothing being a form of bondage was actually more offensive. I certainly would class it as being being as offensive as, say, a Muslim saying that because Christians wear crosses (a symbol of torture) that they idolise torture.


Note: I know that Christians do not idolise torture and that the cross actually symbolises the sacrifice Christ made.

Originally Posted by Flyboy (Post 34880382)

Sorry, but I don't respond to "Waiting...."

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004 (Post 34880367)

You seem to write your post as if you were at the breakfast table.
So the " Bigotted " opinions were only one way were they?
People are entitled to stay where they want, but if i decided to convert to the muslim faith I would look into the history.
I dont recall it being a place only white christians go, maybe I read the wrong papers hey?
But again, freedom of speech is a two edged blade, do you agree on that?
Waiting....

---------- Post added at 23:09 ---------- Previous post was at 23:02 ----------




Stuart, all we know about what happened is what we are being force fed by the press.

Originally Posted by Stuart C (Post 34880391)

True, although they aren't force feeding it (nor could they).



It's not OK (which is actually why I made the point about Christianity), but what we have seen in the papers suggests that the Christians did all the attacking. I am not saying they did: I do not know.

This is why I said that the thread title is possibly inaccurate. Based on what we have seen so far, there is no evidence to suggest they were defending their beliefs


You are allowed to voice an opinion. You just have responsibilities that go with that right (something that has not actually changed).

We don't know what was said in that argument, but for it to go to court, I suspect it was a lot more serious than just some random comments about Mohammed being a warlord and bondage. I am sure Derek could tell you just how hard it can be to get CPS to prosecute a case.