Christians arrested for defending their beliefs - Page 19

nomadking · 28-09-2009, 13:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyboy

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

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?

---------- Post added at 14:29 ---------- Previous post was at 14:28 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ B

By who? Any links?

eg The media.

**Hugh** · 28-09-2009, 13:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking

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.

Any chance of a link?

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ B

By who? Any links?

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking

eg The media.

So the media complained?

Anyone else confused?

nomadking · 28-09-2009, 13:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers

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?

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.

---------- Post added at 14:38 ---------- Previous post was at 14:34 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Any chance of a link?

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

So the media complained?

Anyone else confused?

How should I know who complained? You don't yourself say who it was. The Media probably had several people complaining to camera etc. So whose complaint did the CPS act upon?

CPS website

Quote:

The chants and placards were considered by a large section of the public to be extremely threatening.

Russ · 28-09-2009, 13:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking

How should I know who complained?

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?

Xaccers · 28-09-2009, 13:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking

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.

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?

nomadking · 28-09-2009, 13:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ B

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?

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.

Flyboy · 28-09-2009, 13:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Any chance of a link?

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

So the media complained?

Anyone else confused?

I don't think the police take newspaper headlines as official complaints, perhaps someone could confirm otherwise.

---------- Post added at 14:52 ---------- Previous post was at 14:51 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking

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?

Well it's your logic, not mine, I would have thought at least you would have understood it.

Russ · 28-09-2009, 13:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking

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.

You said complaints were made. I'm asking if you have any proof of that. It's ok if you don't have any that's fine but I would prefer clarification.

Xaccers · 28-09-2009, 13:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking

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.

You were the one who said that a complaint had been made on the day

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking

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

nomadking · 28-09-2009, 13:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers

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?

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.

Xaccers · 28-09-2009, 13:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking

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.

Ok, so now you're saying it wasn't a peaceful protest, in which case, as it wasn't peaceful, going by what you said before, a riot would have been likely.
So I ask you again, why would you prefer the police to ignite a riot rather than make arrests of the same people at a later more peaceful occasion?

nomadking · 28-09-2009, 14:12

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

Quote:

PLODDING police have finally nabbed ringleaders behind the despicable Muslim cartoon demo.

....

But what took the Met so long?
It is five weeks since the fanatics won a police escort as they made a mockery of the 52 bomb victims.
The Met had to be shamed into action by public outrage

Flyboy · 28-09-2009, 14:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking

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

LOL, I am sorry, but "public outrage," according The Sun? "Public Outrage," does not constitute an official complaint.

nomadking · 28-09-2009, 14:29

Official CPS policy on the issue

Quote:

So abusive or insulting behaviour intended to stir up religious hatred is not an offence under the legislation, nor are threatening words likely to stir up religious hatred.
There is a freedom of expression defence enshrined in the new law that means it cannot be used to prohibit or restrict discussion, criticism, antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of a religion or its beliefs or practices

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

Quote:

Prosecutions for this offence require the consent of the Attorney General

Xaccers · 28-09-2009, 14:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking

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?

Why would you rather the police risk igniting a riot than wait and make arrests later?
Why do you think it's a quick job to review hours of video evidence and decide if every action within that evidence is illegal or not, and if so whether a prosecution is likely to be successful, then track down and arrest the perpetrators?