Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Christian Preacher arrested in UK

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #33
    crotalus667
    Registered Users Posts: 1,900 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #34
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭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.

    phleps-protest.jpg


  • Options
    #35
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #36
    crotalus667
    Registered Users Posts: 1,900 ✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #38
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #39
    Morbert
    Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭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).


  • Options
    #40
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #41
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #43
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #44
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #45
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #46
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭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? :confused:

    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.


  • Options
    #47
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭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? :confused:

    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.


  • Options
    #48
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭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:


  • Options
    #49
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #50
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #51
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭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)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


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

    I think there is an important distinction between saying homosexuality is wrong and calling a gay policeman a sinner or deviant to his face - until we know which applies in this case, we don't know if the arrest was warranted or no.


  • Options
    #53
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    I think there is an important distinction between saying homosexuality is wrong and calling a gay policeman a sinner or deviant to his face - until we know which applies in this case, we don't know if the arrest was warranted or no.

    The sexual orientation of the police officer should be irrelevant. Part of being an officer of the law is applying and upholding the law in the face of your own personal feelings.


  • Options
    #54
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    prinz wrote: »
    The sexual orientation of the police officer should be irrelevant. Part of being an officer of the law is applying and upholding the law in the face of your own personal feelings.

    True but it is also an offense, as far as I know, to be abusive or even disrespectful to a police officer. You often see on those police video shows people (normally drunk) being arrested for verbally abusing the police officer.

    Now I'm not saying that is what this guys was doing. From what I've read I think the police officer was out of line.

    I'm just pointing out that while it might be not illegal to say something insulting to me I think it is different to do it to a police officer.


  • Options
    #55
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    According to the Telegraph:
    Mr McAlpine was handing out leaflets explaining the Ten Commandments or offering a “ticket to heaven” with a church colleague on April 20, when a woman came up and engaged him in a debate about his faith.

    During the exchange, he says he quietly listed homosexuality among a number of sins referred to in 1 Corinthians, including blasphemy, fornication, adultery and drunkenness.

    This is where homosexuality was mentioned.


  • Options
    #56
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Wicknight wrote: »
    True but it is also an offense, as far as I know, to be abusive or even disrespectful to a police officer. You often see on those police video shows people (normally drunk) being arrested for verbally abusing the police officer..

    Indeed. The problem arises when according to the Daily Mail (bastion of truth and reality :pac:) piece in the OP, the PC pronounced his sexual orientation in the course of the exchange, given that would question whether his professional judgement was clouded.

    The full details will be interesting, especially whether complaints had been received from the public or whether the PC took it upon himself. If the PC gave him a lawful instruction with a reference to the act to either shut up or move after complaints and he continued then IMO the officer was definitely in the right to pop the cuffs on.


  • Options
    #57
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Jakkass wrote: »
    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)
    Sorry, I did not mean to avoid the question, am I am fairly sure I did actually answer it, though in a bit of a round about way. Obviously I think that from a legal perspective, if the police officer believed an offence was committed then he was correct to have the guy arrested. On an ethical level, the simple answer is, I am not quite sure. I believe in freedom of speech, to a degree. I do not believe it should be unrestricted. So whilst I think the arrest was potentially legally justified, I really don’t know if it is correct that it is legally justified. My gut feeling is no, I don’t think it is ok.
    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    I think there is an important distinction between saying homosexuality is wrong and calling a gay policeman a sinner or deviant to his face - until we know which applies in this case, we don't know if the arrest was warranted or no.
    For the offence he was arrested and charged for the difference is irrelevant.
    prinz wrote: »
    The sexual orientation of the police officer should be irrelevant. Part of being an officer of the law is applying and upholding the law in the face of your own personal feelings.
    This is true, in an ideal world, but coppers are human too and subject to the same weaknesses as the rest of us. I think, in general, they are probably better at dealing with things in a detached an impartial manner, but I would imagine that sometime some personal feeling will slip through.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    True but it is also an offense, as far as I know, to be abusive or even disrespectful to a police officer. You often see on those police video shows people (normally drunk) being arrested for verbally abusing the police officer.
    This is true, but that is not what he was charged with.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Now I'm not saying that is what this guys was doing. From what I've read I think the police officer was out of line.
    I don’t think we have enough information to say this. We only have one side of the story, and we know that the policeman that requested the arrest was gay. From this a lot of people seem to be assuming the arrest was over the top and the policeman was perhaps overly sensitive or arrested the guy when another officer would not have.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    I'm just pointing out that while it might be not illegal to say something insulting to me I think it is different to do it to a police officer.
    But again, that is not what the preacher was charged with.

    MrP


  • Options
    #58
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    prinz wrote: »
    The sexual orientation of the police officer should be irrelevant. Part of being an officer of the law is applying and upholding the law in the face of your own personal feelings.

    If someone started calling a black policeman a n****r, you can be sure they'd find themselves in the clink pretty sharpish. Prejudice is prejudice and personal insult and abuse of a police officer is an arrestable offence, we still don't know what the exchange entailed but I thought he was arrested for causing a public disturbance or being a nuisance, not insulting a police officer?


  • Options
    #59
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Jakkass wrote: »
    According to the Telegraph:


    This is where homosexuality was mentioned.
    According to the preacher…
    prinz wrote: »
    Indeed. The problem arises when according to the Daily Mail (bastion of truth and reality :pac:) piece in the OP, the PC pronounced his sexual orientation in the course of the exchange, given that would question whether his professional judgement was clouded.
    By pronouncing his sexual orientation it could be argued that he was giving notice that there was someone in the vicinity who was likely to take offence to what he was saying. This would take care of the possible defence under 5(3)(a) under the 1986 Act, for any further utterances.
    prinz wrote: »
    The full details will be interesting, especially whether complaints had been received from the public or whether the PC took it upon himself. If the PC gave him a lawful instruction with a reference to the act to either shut up or move after complaints and he continued then IMO the officer was definitely in the right to pop the cuffs on.
    Yes, I must say, I am very interested in a nerdy legal way to get the full story.

    MrP


  • Options
    #60
    hivizman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,163 ✭✭✭hivizman


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    If someone started calling a black policeman a n****r, you can be sure they'd find themselves in the clink pretty sharpish.
    This would, I think, be considered nowadays to fall firmly within the scope of "insulting words", and it would also be "racially or religiously aggravated" under section 28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    Prejudice is prejudice and personal insult and abuse of a police officer is an arrestable offence, we still don't know what the exchange entailed but I thought he was arrested for causing a public disturbance or being a nuisance, not insulting a police officer?
    Is it really a separate offence to insult and abuse a police officer? Given the more than 6,000 new crimes invented in the UK since 1997, it's quite possible, but it certainly used to be the case that police officers had no special privilege in terms of insulting behaviour. Indeed, I have a recollection of people (including senior police officers) arguing that giving the police special privileges in this context would run against the idea that police officers were basically ordinary members of society who happened to occupy the "office of constable". You could be prosecuted for obstructing a police officer in the execution of his/her duty, but that wasn't the same as giving police officers special protection from being insulted.

    Indeed, I believe that there was a court case where it was decided that the police, by virtue of their training and experience, should be more tolerant of insults than ordinary members of the public. "The language you are complaining about is no worse than what the typical police officer hears from drunks every Friday night", or something like that. Under the pre-Public Order Act 1986 common law, it was not possible to be convicted of causing (or threatening to cause) a breach of the peace when the only other people present were police officers, because it is the duty of the police to uphold rather than to breach the peace.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    hivizman wrote: »
    This would, I think, be considered nowadays to fall firmly within the scope of "insulting words", and it would also be "racially or religiously aggravated" under section 28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

    That's true.
    hivizman wrote: »
    Is it really a separate offence to insult and abuse a police officer?

    Apparently a crime of sorts...

    http://www.cumberlandnews.co.uk/news/carlisle-man-fined-for-insulting-policeman-1.697159?referrerPath=news/nhs-awards

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/
    scotland/tayside_and_central/7746494.stm

    http://archive.boltoneveningnews.co.uk/1996/4/19/854687.html

    I'm not sure if insulting an officer is technically a crime & that is what they were charged with but the result appears to be the same.


Advertisement