Christians arrested for defending their beliefs

[Russ]

Originally Posted by nomadking

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

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?

Originally Posted by nomadking

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.

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

Originally Posted by nomadking

The CPS aren't supposed to make the law.

You said 'define' not 'make'.

[Xaccers]

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?

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Russ B

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'.

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

Your post said:-

Originally Posted by Russ B

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

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.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by nomadking

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.

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.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

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?

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.

[Saaf_laandon_mo]

Originally Posted by nomadking

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.

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.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Russ B

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.

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.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by nomadking

I see now, you are all but calling me a terrorist?
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.

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.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Saaf_laandon_mo

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.

But if incitement to violence was taking place at a football match was taking place, action would be taken immediately.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by nomadking

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.

No, I don't think people need me to help make up their minds, people are intelligent enough to do that on their own.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by nomadking

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.

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

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

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.

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

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by nomadking

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.

Oh, I think you've done a very good job of doing that yourself.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Complaints were made the same day.

By who? Any links?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by nomadking

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.

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?