Trump sent US officials to meet UK pro-life activists over concerns their freedom of speech

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Nothing to do with someone silently praying.

 

But I understand that you wish to ban protesting about things you personally agree with. 

You understand nothing of the sort.

 

The law, introduced by the last Government, is clear.

 

Yet another of your martyrs broking the law.

 

 

 

[mikeymike100]

47 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Irrelevant.  She was breaking the law.

The law is an ass, obviously!

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

 

Volunteers for the UK government. 

No they were volunteers for the Government.

 

They were not employed by, engaged by or in anyway funded by the Government.

[JonnyF]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

You understand nothing of the sort.

 

I understand perfectly. The left loves to silence dissenting voices. 

 

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

 

The law, introduced by the last Government, is clear.

 

I'm surprised you are not giving The Tories more credit seeing as you are so fond of this law. 

 

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

 

Yet another of your martyrs broking the law.

 

 

The law doesn't cover praying in silence. 

[josephbloggs]

14 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Nothing to do with someone silently praying.

 

But I understand that you wish to ban protesting about things you personally agree with. 

You do realise how laws work, right? There has to be a cut off point, and it was decided that the cut off point for demonstration free, safe access is 200m. You think the law should be "no demonstrations within 200 metres, but if they are pretty quiet it is fine, don't worry". So if 100 people gather there to "silently pray" it's not intimidating for a mother who is already undergoing a traumatic procedure to have to walk through them?

 

It's like saying a stalker who is given a restraining order should be allowed to break it if they keep their thoughts to themselves whilst doing it - it is an idiotic suggestion. 

[BLMFem]

12 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Nothing to do with someone silently praying.

 

But I understand that you wish to ban protesting about things you personally agree with. 

What's next? A ban on pearl clutching?

Run, Jonny, run!

[JonnyF]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

No they were volunteers for the Government.

 

The people who travelled were volunteers.

 

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

They were not employed by, engaged by or in anyway funded by the Government.

 

Labour employees arranged it all. Specifically their head of operations, Sofia Patel. 

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c62m2pde4p6o

 

 

[trevoromgh]

If Trump thinks this example is bad he should also investigate what happened to a retired British policeman after he Tweeted about anti-semitism.   In the Daily Mail the headline was :-

"A retired policeman was arrested and handcuffed in his own home by six police officer armed with batons and pepper spray after issuing a warning about the threat of anti-Semitism in Britain. 

 

Read about the story here here

 

Our country has got steadily less democratic and more authoritarian in recent years and Starmer and Labour just love that. I've renamed the thought police the Starzi as that's who they remind me of i.e. The East German secret police. 

[JonnyF]

1 minute ago, BLMFem said:

What's next? A ban on pearl clutching?

 

Nah, without the pearl clutching forum traffic and general amusement would be greatly reduced. 

 

1 minute ago, BLMFem said:

Run, Jonny, run!

 

Jog on, Bob. 

[Hanaguma]

31 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Abortion  is not killing babies.

 

Abortion, in the UK, is a personal and private health choice and is not the business of anyone other than the woman seeking an abortion and her health providers.

 

The ‘safe access laws’ (Public Order Act) governing protests near clinics providing abortion services are there precisely to protect the right of women to obtain healthcare privately and without interference from anyone else., religious nuts included.

 

 

 

If it isn't killing babies, then why all the euphemisms around it? The side using euphemisms is usually the one with something to hide. Obviously it is more than a simple "health care choice". 

I agree that nobody should be interfered with while doing any activity, getting an abortion included. But when you are in public and walking on the public sidewalk, you are not afforded much in the way of privacy. If someone wants to talk to you, you are under no obligation to respond. If they block your way, they should be arrested. 

[JonnyF]

7 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

You think the law should be "no demonstrations within 200 metres, but if they are pretty quiet it is fine, don't worry".

 

No, I think that the right to peaceful protest and the freedom of speech are cornerstones of our Democracy. 

 

It appears that is now dependent upon what you are protesting/talking about.

[Hanaguma]

8 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

You do realise how laws work, right? There has to be a cut off point, and it was decided that the cut off point for demonstration free, safe access is 200m. You think the law should be "no demonstrations within 200 metres, but if they are pretty quiet it is fine, don't worry". So if 100 people gather there to "silently pray" it's not intimidating for a mother who is already undergoing a traumatic procedure to have to walk through them?

 

It's like saying a stalker who is given a restraining order should be allowed to break it if they keep their thoughts to themselves whilst doing it - it is an idiotic suggestion. 

What is this "traumatic procedure" of which you speak? It's just an abortion, a "health care choice". Nothing different than having a wisdom tooth removed or your bunions scraped.  Why treat it differently? Unless.....

 

...unless it actually IS different. Different becaues it involves the destruction of a human life.  

[impulse]

36 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Abortion  is not killing babies.

 

Yet someone who murders a pregnant woman can also be charged with killing her unborn child.

 

At what point in the gestation period does the unborn fetus become a human being?

 

[josephbloggs]

5 minutes ago, trevoromgh said:

If Trump thinks this example is bad he should also investigate what happened to a retired British policeman after he Tweeted about anti-semitism.   In the Daily Mail the headline was :-

"A retired policeman was arrested and handcuffed in his own home by six police officer armed with batons and pepper spray after issuing a warning about the threat of anti-Semitism in Britain. 

 

Read about the story here here

 

Our country has got steadily less democratic and more authoritarian in recent years and Starmer and Labour just love that. I've renamed the thought police the Starzi as that's who they remind me of i.e. The East German secret police. 

Ah, not this old chestnut again. The Daily Mail is so sensationalist: "armed with batons and pepper spray" - yes, like nearly every single police officer in Britain is.

Yes, Mr Foulkes was genuinely arrested.  If you read the full context the post did seem to be a call to storm Heathrow and intercept Jews, so no surprise the police looked at it. Imagine if there was a genuine plot to storm an international airport to block Jews and it wasn't investigated?? Of course they should look at it, especially in the current climate.

However, eight hours does seem like too long to investigate and conclude that he actually wasn't making that call, and the police have publicly apologised for it. But incitement to violence is definitely a matter for the police to look at, especially at an international airport - just in this case they bungled it somewhat, mistakes can happen.

Even Foulkes realises this: On reflection he recognised it would have been better if he had made it clear he was challenging the original poster about their escalation of antisemitism, rather than it appearing as if he was the one who was planning action at Heathrow.

[billd766]

7 hours ago, JAG said:

The "US State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor " would do well to wind their neck in, and instead concern themselves with the rapidly emerging threats to democracy, human rights and labour in their own country.

 

The law (and the way in which it is enforced) against "silent prayer" is atrocious, but we don't need the US State Department getting involved.

I agree 100% and neither Trump nor the "US State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labour " has ANY business interfering in another sovereign country's business.

 

Deal with the USA problems and get that right first.

 

Revoke their visas and return them to the USA with the label of NOT required in the UK.

[JonnyF]

2 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Ah, not this old chestnut again. The Daily Mail is so sensationalist: "armed with batons and pepper spray" - yes, like nearly every single police officer in Britain is.

Yes, Mr Foulkes was genuinely arrested.  If you read the full context the post did seem to be a call to storm Heathrow and intercept Jews, so no surprise the police looked at it. Imagine if there was a genuine plot to storm an international airport to block Jews and it wasn't investigated?? Of course they should look at it, especially in the current climate.

However, eight hours does seem like too long to investigate and conclude that he actually wasn't making that call, and the police have publicly apologised for it. But incitement to violence is definitely a matter for the police to look at, especially at an international airport - just in this case they bungled it somewhat, mistakes can happen.

Even Foulkes realises this: On reflection he recognised it would have been better if he had made it clear he was challenging the original poster about their escalation of antisemitism, rather than it appearing as if he was the one who was planning action at Heathrow.

 

The police were too stupid to realize he was being ironic/sarcastic.

 

Plus, he had some "Brexity" books. I think one might have even been by Douglas Murray. The horror.

 

[RuamRudy]

All those who were whining like children when Labour activists were in the US supporting Kamala are now cheering on foreign meddling in uk domestic affairs. The hypocrisy is entirely unsurprising. 

[JonnyF]

1 minute ago, billd766 said:

I agree 100% and neither Trump nor the "US State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labour " has ANY business interfering in another sovereign country's business.

 

What about if he just sends "volunteers", like Labour did to campaign for Harris in the election?

[JonnyF]

Just now, RuamRudy said:

All those who were whining like children when Labour activists were in the US supporting Kamala are now cheering on foreign meddling in uk domestic affairs. The hypocrisy is entirely unsurprising. 

 

Just as those who saw no issue with Labour using volunteers to campaign for Harris are now mortified about Trump's comments on the UK's war on Freedom of Speech. 

[animalmagic]

9 hours ago, Social Media said:

the US State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor

Wow!  Didn't DOGE cut this one?

[billd766]

26 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

The law is an ass, obviously!

Said Mr Bumble talking to fictional magistrate  about his wife.

[mikeymike100]

4 minutes ago, billd766 said:

Said Mr Bumble talking to fictional magistrate  about his wife.

Correct........The phrase "the law is an ass" originates from Charles Dickens' novel Oliver Twist, published in 1838. It appears in Chapter 51, where the character Mr. Bumble is told that the law assumes his wife acted under his direction. He responds, "If the law supposes that, the law is a ass—a idiot." Dickens used the phrase to satirize rigid, overly literal legal interpretations that defy common sense. The expression has since entered common usage to criticize laws or legal decisions seen as unjust or absurd.

[jayboy]

46 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

No they were volunteers for the Government.

 

They were not employed by, engaged by or in anyway funded by the Government.

 

Carefully chosen words but an act of colossal political stupidity nonetheless.

 

Sofia Patel, the Labour Party’s head of operations, posted on LinkedIn (since deleted) that nearly 100 current and former Labour Party staff were traveling to battleground states like North Carolina, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Virginia to campaign for Harris. Patel offered to "sort housing" for volunteers, which sparked controversy and a complaint from the Trump campaign alleging foreign interference.

[John Drake]

10 hours ago, Social Media said:

The Trump administration has dispatched a team of diplomats to the UK to investigate what it views as a troubling erosion of free speech rights, particularly regarding pro-life activists. The five-person delegation from the US State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor spent several days in the UK, conducting interviews and meetings to assess what officials described as the shrinking space for dissent

 

And, as a result, there will be a natural inclination in the UK to prop up Starmer and criticize the US for interference in British affairs. Trump will only make it worse for those being harassed and locked up for social media posts.

[Chomper Higgot]

30 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Yet someone who murders a pregnant woman can also be charged with killing her unborn child.

 

At what point in the gestation period does the unborn fetus become a human being?

 

Not in the UK they can’t.

 

A. Under UK law, at the point of birth .

[John Drake]

1 hour ago, hotsun said:

this is only fair. Before the election the UK sent people to campaign for harris

 

And it was a stupid, counterproductive thing to do. Trump got a lot of mileage out of it on social media.

[Chomper Higgot]

57 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

The law doesn't cover praying in silence. 

No but the Bible does, it goes as far as to liken the woman’s praying in the street to the behaviour of hypocrites. 

At the very least she doesn’t seem to have much faith in the power of the god she says she’s praying to; surely he can answer prayers from anywhere, they need not be delivered in the street, the Bible goes as far as to say they should not be.

 

Mathew 6:5-6

 

“5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

 

6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.”

[johnnybangkok]

4 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Good to see Trump cares about the free speech of British citizens, even if Starmer doesn't.

 

Thanks Don. 

 

 

When will your utter devotion to Trump ever end? Your sychophantic adoration is really quite embarrassing. I'd say get a room but you've probably already got one - adorned with Trump NFT's, red caps and golden trainers. 

[johnnybangkok]

1 hour ago, Hanaguma said:

Why is all this necessary? I mean, abortion is just another medical procedure after all.... same as getting a hangnail removed or lancing a boil...

Yeah because religous zealots often picket chiropodists and proctologists, shouting, screeming and antagonising anyone who enters. 

 

Now where's that eye-roll emoji?

[Hanaguma]

18 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Not in the UK they can’t.

 

A. Under UK law, at the point of birth .

Not true. The law considers killing an unborn baby after 28 weeks'  gestation as the crime of "child destruction", which is punishable by up to life in prison.