Christian Preacher arrested in UK

homer911

It will be interesting to see how this story develops:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1270650/Christian-preacher-trial-public-order-offences-saying-homosexuality-sin.html

We have been in this space a thousand times so lets not turn this into another Homosexuality debate - its more of a Freedom of speech issue

MrPudding

Freedom of speech is not an absolute right. It is, quite rightly, restricted.

MrP

johnfás

So long as he was not presenting a danger to public order, or was not inciting hatred, he should have been allowed say what he likes. The merits, or otherwise, of what he was saying is not really at issue.

However, we would really need to wait for more information before we could come to any conclusion on the matter. There is no statement from the police in the piece, which appears to be largely based on an account by Mr McAlpine. We simply do not know whether any of the issues raised in the first paragraph of this post arise, or not.

philologos

MrPudding wrote: »

Freedom of speech is not an absolute right. It is, quite rightly, restricted.

MrP

So you regard this as legitimate, or acceptable in Western society?

johnfás

Jakkass wrote: »

So you regard this as legitimate, or acceptable in Western society?

Almost all 'Western' societies restrict freedom of speech, for reasons such as public order or to prevent incitement of hatred. It is perfectly legitimate. Whether the law has been legitimately applied in this instance is of course another matter entirely. It would seem based on a cursory reading that it was not. However, I would highlight that no statement from the police is provided in this story. Therefore, we cannot legitimately come to a conclusion either way as to whether the law was correctly or incorrectly applied.

Fanny Cradock

I would imagine that in the face of ignorance corners have already been chosen on this one - Christians versus atheists.

Admittedly it is an unflattering account of Sam Adams' actions, but as johnfás points out, we don't yet have all the facts. Watch this space.

philologos

I'm asking, do you feel it is acceptable to arrest someone for this?

Morbert

Arresting him may have been overboard to be honest.

But in fairness, it's pretty obvious that he is motivated by his disdain for homosexuality and not the preservation of the 'sanctity' of marriage. Otherwise he would be out there protesting against divorce, a far bigger threat to Christian marriage.

Fanny Cradock

Morbert wrote: »

But in fairness, it's pretty obvious that he is motivated by his disdain for homosexuality and not the preservation of the 'sanctity' of marriage. Otherwise he would be out there protesting against divorce, a far bigger threat to Christian marriage.

Unless you have other sources, I'm not sure where you are getting this from. Apparently homosexuality wasn't his main topic of conversation.

MrPudding

Jakkass wrote: »

So you regard this as legitimate, or acceptable in Western society?

That the freedom of speech is restricted? Yes.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm asking, do you feel it is acceptable to arrest someone for this?

Realistically, as johnfás has pointed out, we only have one side of the story, so I am not sure we can say whether it was legitimate or not. Why don't we look at the legislation he was charged under?

The Public Order Act 1986 wrote:

Section 5 Harassment, alarm or distress

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

I think it is quite clear that the words he used were insulting, therefore it could be argued that the arrest was appropriate.

There are defences against this charge, again from section 5:

The Public Order Act 1986 wrote:

(3) It is a defence for the accused to prove—

(a) that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress,

(c) that his conduct was reasonable.

Not sure if he will be able to rely on either of these points though... More facts would be useful.


MrP

prinz

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Unless you have other sources, I'm not sure where you are getting this from. Apparently homosexuality wasn't his main topic of conversation.

+1 it seems he was giving a talk on various issues when the topic came up by way of conversation. It's not like he was up on his soapbox condemning all homosexuals to the fires of hell. The bigger question IMO is the extent, if any, the PC's personal life, played in his decision to arrest this fella.

Not that I have any particular interest in 'street preachers' either. IMO they are counter productive.

Zombrex

He was arrested under the Public Order Act, which seems like a bit of a stretch, though I have always felt this concept of "religious/racial harassment" is a mind field.

An anti-theist was arrested under the same law a few weeks ago for placing anti-theistic pamphlets in an airport prayer room.

The whole wishy washy concepts of harassment and offence introduced by new Labour really need to be re-evaluated. In the good old days harassment was actual harassment, not simply saying something publicly that someone else disagrees with. It has really gotten to the stage where it is "He made me feel bad, arrest him!"

MrPudding

prinz wrote: »

+1 it seems he was giving a talk on various issues when the topic came up by way of conversation. It's not like he was up on his soapbox condemning all homosexuals to the fires of hell.

Potentially not really relevent, unfortunately. Of course he can argue this in court, and he may very well be successful. Being arrested is not the same as being found guilty. It will be up to the CPS to prove that he is guilty of the offence he has been charged with.

prinz wrote: »

The bigger question IMO is the extent, if any, the PC's personal life, played in his decision to arrest this fella.

First of all, the gay officer did not arrest him. It was actual policement that arrested him, though he did do it based on the gay officer's word. The police officers personal life has no impact on the legislation, I would expect that if the real officers believed no offence had been committed they would not have arrested him.

prinz wrote: »

Not that I have any particular interest in 'street preachers' either. IMO they are counter productive.

Sweet. Finally we agree on something.

MrP

hivizman

To save repetition, there was some discussion of the UK's Public Order Act on a thread dealing with Christian Bed & Breakfast owners late last year.

The key provision is Section 5, which in summary provides that: "(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he: (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby." This offence has the following statutory defences:
(a) The defendant had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be alarmed or distressed by his action. (b) The defendant was in a dwelling and had no reason to believe that his behaviour would be seen or heard by any person outside any dwelling. (c) The conduct was reasonable.

It will be interesting to discover, if this case ever goes to trial, whether a statement by a Christian that homosexual acts are considered by the Bible to be sinful, falls automatically within the description of "threatening, abusive or insulting words". On the free speech issue, though, I don't think there has ever been an absolute right to say whatever you want, however you want, wherever you want, to whomever you want. Hence there is a line between acceptable and unacceptable speech, and this line will change over time as society changes.

MrPudding

Wicknight wrote: »

He was arrested under the Public Order Act, which seems like a bit of a stretch, though I have always felt this concept of "religious/racial harassment" is a mind field.

I don't think it is a stretch when you look at the provisions. I think the wording of the act itself is rather loose, which allows it to be used for thing that perhaps were not in mind at the time it was drafted though.

Wicknight wrote: »

An anti-theist was arrested under the same law a few weeks ago for placing anti-theistic pamphlets in an airport prayer room.

My initial feeling is the athiest was more deserving of arrest than this guy. That said, we only really have one side of the story here.

Wicknight wrote: »

The whole wishy washy concepts of harassment and offence introduced by new Labour really need to be re-evaluated. In the good old days harassment was actual harassment, not simply saying something publicly that someone else disagrees with. It has really gotten to the stage where it is "He made me feel bad, arrest him!"

I am in two minds about it, leaning towards thinking it has gone too far...

MrP

Fanny Cradock

prinz wrote: »

The bigger question IMO is the extent, if any, the PC's personal life, played in his decision to arrest this fella.

That might well have been a factor.

prinz wrote: »

Not that I have any particular interest in 'street preachers' either. IMO they are counter productive.

I agree. Especially if they are of the hell and brimstone, homosexuals are evil type. I would have been quite tempted to have a quite word with him.

prinz

MrPudding wrote: »

First of all, the gay officer did not arrest him. It was actual policement that arrested him, though he did do it based on the gay officer's word. The police officers personal life has no impact on the legislation, I would expect that if the real officers believed no offence had been committed they would not have arrested him.

That's the debateable issue. Would the word of the officer have carried more weight by virtue of the fact that he was a police officer. Would another PC on the day take a similar stance. Issues like this have arisen before and have arisen in Ireland, AFAIK the recommended course of action is to (a) give the person a lawful instruction to move/cease and desist what they were doing, (b) followed by a warning of the threat of arrest for failing to comply with said lawful instruction, (c) finally arrest individual under the Public Order Act.

MrPudding wrote: »

Sweet. Finally we agree on something.
MrP

:pac: I like pudding too.

MrPudding

hivizman wrote: »

It will be interesting to discover, if this case ever goes to trial, whether a statement by a Christian that homosexual acts are considered by the Bible to be sinful, falls automatically within the description of "threatening, abusive or insulting words".

I think insulting will be the tricky one. As we have seen recently in the UK, the judiciary regards religious opinion as simply that, opinion, and dies not give it any weight in law. I think it is conceivable that a court would consider someone being told they are sinful as being insulting.

hivizman wrote: »

On the free speech issue, though, I don't think there has ever been an absolute right to say whatever you want, however you want, wherever you want, to whomever you want. Hence there is a line between acceptable and unacceptable speech, and this line will change over time as society changes.

I think you are right. Even with the European Convention on Human Rights, freedom of speech is still restricted, as is the right to religious expression.

MrP

Zombrex

MrPudding wrote: »

I don't think it is a stretch when you look at the provisions.

Well the requirement is threatening, abusive or insulting words.

I think it is a stretch to say that "homosexuals are sinners" are insulting words, though I agree that the law is far too lose.

I think it is a stretch to arrest him but I object more to the law itself. Insulting people should not be a public order offense

MrPudding

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I agree. Especially if they are of the hell and brimstone, homosexuals are evil type. I would have been quite tempted to have a quite word with him.

We had them on a Saturday afternoon in the town centre where I grew up in Northern Ireland. Nasty nasty people from Paisley's church.

prinz wrote: »

That's the debateable issue. Would the word of the officer have carried more weight by virtue of the fact that he was a police officer. Would another PC on the day take a similar stance.

I suppose we are unlikely to know. Obviously it would be nice to think that all officers would behave the same way and personal feeling would be left out, however, in the real world, we know that personal feeling will colour a persons behaviour, even a copper's. But that why the have the CPS and the courts system.

He has only been arrested, not found guilty.

MrP

Zombrex

MrPudding wrote: »

He has only been arrested, not found guilty.

That is a good point.

Fanny Cradock

MrPudding wrote: »

I think you are right. Even with the European Convention on Human Rights, freedom of speech is still restricted, as is the right to religious expression.

MrP

It is interesting. While I think that Mr McAlpine's message (if accurately reported) was in part quite crass and counter productive, I've certainly heard more controversial things said by Ricky Gervais.

MrPudding

Wicknight wrote: »

Well the requirement is threatening, abusive or insulting words.

Or is the key.

Wicknight wrote: »

I think it is a stretch to say that "homosexuals are sinners" are insulting words, though I agree that the law is far too lose.

They might not be insulting to you, but to someone who is a homosexual and perhaps in a loving relationship they might be.

Wicknight wrote: »

I think it is a stretch to arrest him but I object more to the law itself. Insulting people should not be a public order offense

If the officer believes he commited an offence then he should have arrested him. It will be up to the courts to decide if an offence was committed. I myself am unsure about the law.

MrP

johnfás

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It is interesting. While I think that Mr McAlpine's message (if accurately reported) was in part quite crass and counter productive, I've certainly heard more controversial things said by Ricky Gervais.

You certainly have done. However, the point is not on a public thoroughfare where people are otherwise going about their daily business.

In any case, we need to await more details before we can come to any considered position on the matter.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

That is a good point.

Yes, it is important to point out that he hasn't been charged. However, it is debatable if "he has only been arrested" is a fair statement. I imagine that I would find arrest to be quite a traumatic experience.

Stercus Accidit

I'd prefer that freedom of speech were upheld.

There was a recent conviction in the UK though of a man who put leaflets mocking religion in an airport chapel, his conviction was under a sort of blasphemy law of some type the UK has long had on the books.

Neither man should see criminal prosecution for their opinions or expressing them, but the UK is very backward in this regard.

I do not agree with this preachers opinion, but he should be entitled to it.

The limitations should be harassment or threatening behaviour, not the content, no matter how offensive, of the opinion expressed.

MrPudding

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yes, it is important to point out that he hasn't been charged. However, it is debatable if "he has only been arrested" is a fair statement. I imagine that I would find arrest to be quite a traumatic experience.

Of course you are correct, but we have to keep perspective here. People get arrested on sucpicion of offences all the time, it is simply how things work.

MrP

Fanny Cradock

johnfás wrote: »

You certainly have done. However, the point is not on a public thoroughfare where people are otherwise going about their daily business.

Of course you pay to see a comedian, and therefore you are exercising your choice. But does that make it right? I would imagine that on any given night that there are people in the audience who are not aware of the nature of the comedy stylings of Roy Chubby Brown or Jim Davidson. Or perhaps some of the venue staff don't care for what is being said. Do they have a choice? Additionally, what if there is an offensive joke being aired by a national broadcaster? I think that could well be analogous to the objectionable soap-boxer standing on the corner.

johnfás wrote: »

In any case, we need to await more details before we can come to any considered position on the matter.

Agreed.

Fanny Cradock

MrPudding wrote: »

Of course you are correct, but we have to keep perspective here. People get arrested on sucpicion of offences all the time, it is simply how things work.

MrP

I realise how things work. But this debate is about the appropriateness of the response from the police. Saying "this is how things work" doesn't address the issue, it undermines it.

johnfás

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Additionally, what if there is an offensive joke being aired by a national broadcaster? I think that could well be analogous to the objectionable soap-boxer standing on the corner.

Although there are some similarities, I think the two also to some extent differ. In the first instance, one has the right to switch channels or to turn off the television. When someone is confronted on a public street they have no such opportunity. This is why our Constitution limits the right of public free speech and of assembly where public order or morality (which in modern parlance in Irish law now in reality concerns incitement) concerns arise.

Beyond that, we do have restrictions on what may be broadcast on television. We have a water shed before which certain material may not be broadcast. Equally, there is a broadcasting standards charter which defines what sort of material should be permissible on certain types of programme. It is available for download on the RTE website. That is not to say of course that RTE cannot broadcast an offensive comedian's show after the watershed, but simply that on the news, for example, even after the watershed, such material should not be widespread. It is about creating legitimate expectations. One should be able to legitimately expect that they can walk on a public street without danger of the public order being breached or being subject to incitement. Just as one should legitimately expect this to be the case on the news, but not perhaps on a programme which is advertised as being of a crude comical nature. Beyond that, I think however distasteful that people should really be allowed to get on with saying what they like on a public street.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yes, it is important to point out that he hasn't been charged. However, it is debatable if "he has only been arrested" is a fair statement. I imagine that I would find arrest to be quite a traumatic experience.

Agreed, I meant it more in relation to the notion of the law rather than this police man's behavior.

MrPudding

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I realise how things work. But this debate is about the appropriateness of the response from the police.

How was the response not appropriate? When an officer believes an offence has been committed the appropriate response is to arrest the suspect. When you read the stories on this it seems that people gloss over the fact that he has not actually been found guilty of anything. I genuinely think this is an important distinction.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Saying "this is how things work" doesn't address the issue, it undermines it.

No it doesn't. I am certainly not trying to undermine the debate here, it is one I find very interesting. The point I am trying to make is that we cannot draw too much inference form the actions or beliefs of one police officer.

The fact that he has been arrested say nothing, absolutely nothing, except that in the opinion of that particular police officer an offence has been committed

Now the process of actually deciding if an offence actually has been committed can begin.

What other way would there be of doing it?

MrP

crotalus667

Here is how i see it after reading the artical , he was not arested for waht he said but for where he said it , he does not have the right to force others to listen to his views no matter what they are

Zombrex

crotalus667 wrote: »

Here is how i see it after reading the artical , he was not arested for waht he said but for where he said it , he does not have the right to force others to listen to his views no matter what they are

Was he not arrested in a public place? In which case he has a right to preach what he likes and others have a right to ignore him.

You don't (or shouldn't, I wouldn't put it past these silly New Labour laws) have a right to not see or hear opinions of others. You do have the right to ignore them or to offer counter positions in the same manner, as people often do with Fred Phelps.

Fanny Cradock

johnfás wrote: »

Although there are some similarities, I think the two also to some extent differ. In the first instance, one has the right to switch channels or to turn off the television. When someone is confronted on a public street they have no such opportunity.

In a sense they do - they can walk away, heckle, get up on their own soap-box, whatever.

crotalus667

Wicknight wrote: »

Was he not arrested in a public place? In which case he has a right to preach what he likes and others have a right to ignore him.

It's hard to ignore a nut case shouting on the corner , bottom line he does not have the right to shout hatred at others in a public place

Zombrex

crotalus667 wrote: »

It's hard to ignore a nut case shouting on the corner , bottom line he does not have the right to shout hatred at others in a public place

Yes actually he does, or at least he should. The state should not regulate what you can publicly express.

What the state should stop is actual harassment. Following a particular person down the road shouting in their ear is harassment and the state should arrest that person.

But the Blair years harassment has become so ill defined that basically any of these posts here could be considered harassment if the other person claimed they were hurt or insulted by them simply because they exist.

Fanny Cradock

MrPudding wrote: »

How was the response not appropriate? When an officer believes an offence has been committed the appropriate response is to arrest the suspect. When you read the stories on this it seems that people gloss over the fact that he has not actually been found guilty of anything. I genuinely think this is an important distinction.

Have you not been paying attention? Perhaps you should read the link again if you want to hear one person's opinion on why he felt the response was not appropriate.

I've personally reserved passing judgement on the rights and wrongs of this incident. I see it as separate to you accusing me of glossing over the fact that he has not been found guilty while at the same time cavalierly insisting that he was "only arrested". According to the article he was arrested, taken to a station and placed in a cell for 7 hours where he was "later charged with using abusive or insulting words or behaviour contrary to the Public Order Act 1986 and released on bail, appearing before magistrates in the town last week". I assume he now has to wait in trepidation until his day in court.

Maybe you've been through Wormwood Scrubs a few times, but I would imagine that the reality of arrest is not something that the ordinary punter glosses over so readily.

(In a previous post I said that he wasn't charged, but perhaps I should have said he wasn't found guilty.)

MrPudding wrote: »

No it doesn't. I am certainly not trying to undermine the debate here, it is one I find very interesting.

I didn't say you were trying to undermine the debate. I actually said that dismissing an arrest as only an arrest undermines the debate. It seems to me that you are arguing there is only a story here if he is found guilty.

MrPudding wrote: »

The fact that he has been arrested say nothing, absolutely nothing, except that in the opinion of that particular police officer an offence has been committed

I agree at this stage we can't say much about the motives that drove the officer's actions.

MrPudding wrote: »

Now the process of actually deciding if an offence actually has been committed can begin.

What other way would there be of doing it?

MrP

I believe that a number of people here have stated that it should not have gone this far, and that arrest was an inappropriate response. That really is the whole point.

Morbert

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Unless you have other sources, I'm not sure where you are getting this from. Apparently homosexuality wasn't his main topic of conversation.

Hmm... I assumed he was preaching about homosexuality on the streets. If it was merely part of his speech then he definitely should not have been arrested (Not that I think he should have been arrested either way).

strobe

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I would imagine that in the face of ignorance corners have already been chosen on this one - Christians versus atheists.

Do you really think that Fanny? I'd be very surprised if that was the case. You only have to take a look at any of several recent threads across boards, including the after hours version of this one, and indeed this one, where freedom of speech issues come up, to see that it's not a case of "atheists support free speach but not if it involves religion". That appears to be what you are implying.


Like someone else said we don't really know the details of the case but if it transpired as reported, it was a ludicrous abuse of the law by the cop.

Fanny Cradock

strobe wrote: »

Do you really think that Fanny? I'd be very surprised if that was the case. You only have to take a look at any of several recent threads across boards, including the after hours version of this one, and indeed this one, where freedom of speech issues come up, to see that it's not a case of "atheists support free speach but not if it involves religion". That appears to be what you are implying.

Now you are putting words in my mouth. However,
perhaps my cynicism based on other threads got the best of me. I've been pleasantly surprised by what I see as a reasoned response so far.

strobe wrote: »

Like someone else said we don't really know the details of the case but if it transpired as reported

I believe that it was johnfás and - wait for it - me.

Ickle Magoo

Unless the guy is chasing people down the street and shouting at them - or calling on other people to do so, then all he's doing is publicly declaring the christian faith's opinion on homosexuality. I'm not sure how that could be deemed an arrestable offence, unless there is more to the story and his interaction with the gay policeman.

Fanny Cradock

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

publicly declaring the christian faith's opinion on homosexuality.

I would say that this is not quite accurate. But in fairness, Mr McAlpine doesn't seem aware of this either.

Ickle Magoo

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I would say that this is not quite accurate. But in fairness, Mr McAlpine doesn't seem aware of this either.

Well, I'd hope it's not indicative of every christian's views but from what I've read on this very forum, it seems to be a fairly well accepted biblical interpretation - odd distinctions between being a homosexual and engaging in homosexual activity aside.

Fanny Cradock

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Well, I'd say it's not indicative of every christian's views but from what I've read on the christianity forum, it seems to be a fairly well accepted biblical interpretation - odd distinctions between being a homosexual and engaging in homosexual activity aside.

Really? I would have thought that people here often made a distinction between being gay and having sex with someone of the same gender. In simple words, the sin is distinct from the sinner.

But perhaps this is a discussion for another thread.

Ickle Magoo

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Really? I would have thought that people here often made a distinction between being gay and having sex with someone of the same gender. In simple words, the sin is distinct from the sinner.

But perhaps this is a discussion for another thread.

Well, that's what I meant by odd distinction. Part of being homosexual is wanting relations with members of the same sex. Christianity has no issue only if homosexuals refrain from any activity which defines them as homosexual?

I think it would be more honest just to say christianity has an issue with homosexuals but of course, that's very non-PC these days. Sorry for dragging OT, Fanny, I wanted to explain what I meant.

Fanny Cradock

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Well, that's what I meant by odd distinction. Part of being homosexual is wanting relations with members of the same sex. Christianity has no issue only if homosexuals refrain from any activity which defines them as homosexual?

I think it would be more honest just to say christianity has an issue with homosexuals but of course, that's very non-PC these days. Sorry for dragging OT, Fanny, I wanted to explain what I meant.

Perhaps the Homosexuality and mildew thread.

Ickle Magoo

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Perhaps the Homosexuality and mildew thread.

Now there's a sentence I bet you never thought you'd be making! :pac:

MrPudding

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Have you not been paying attention? Perhaps you should read the link again if you want to hear one person's opinion on why he felt the response was not appropriate.

We will have to agree to disagree on that part then, I don't necessarily think that the arrest was not appropriate.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I've personally reserved passing judgement on the rights and wrongs of this incident.

And believe it or not so have I.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I see it as separate to you accusing me of glossing over the fact that he has not been found guilty while at the same time cavalierly insisting that he was "only arrested".

The reason I said this is that in cases like this you would often think the poor victim was arrested, beaten, found guilty and sentenced to death all in one afternoon.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

According to the article he was arrested, taken to a station and placed in a cell for 7 hours where he was "later charged with using abusive or insulting words or behaviour contrary to the Public Order Act 1986 and released on bail, appearing before magistrates in the town last week". I assume he now has to wait in trepidation until his day in court.

What are you trying to say, for some crimes the arrest procedure should be more civilised?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Maybe you've been through Wormwood Scrubs a few times, but I would imagine that the reality of arrest is not something that the ordinary punter glosses over so readily.

never been arrested myself, and I am sure I would find it quite traumatising as well. My point was not that being arrested is a barrel of laughs, but simply that be had not been found guilty of anything.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I didn't say you were trying to undermine the debate. I actually said that dismissing an arrest as only an arrest undermines the debate. It seems to me that you are arguing there is only a story here if he is found guilty.

No not quite, I explain my position below

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I agree at this stage we can't say much about the motives that drove the officer's actions.

Agreed.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I believe that a number of people here have stated that it should not have gone this far, and that arrest was an inappropriate response. That really is the whole point.

My opinion of it is that he likely should have been arrested, as per the law as it currently stands, but I am not sure that the law should be such that this kind of behaviour results in arrest.

So yes, I am breaking it down slightly. If the officers interpretation of the law and the preachers activities was correct, or he had reasonable ground to believe it was correct then arresting the preacher was absolutely the appropriate actions. Whether the law is appropriate is, I think, the more important question.

MrP

Fanny Cradock

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Now there's a sentence I bet you never thought you'd be making! :pac:

My two favourite subjects, I'll have you know! Anyway, I made a detailed response about mildew on the other thread.

philologos

MrPudding, you have a very elaborate way of avoiding the question.

Do you think its okay to arrest someone for saying that homosexuality is wrong? (on an ethical level)