UK: a man in a wheelchair arrested and prosecuted for praying in a public area outside an abortion clinic suddenly has charges dropped--not enough evi

[SaintJude]

This very case.

 

[paperwight]

But the charges were dropped!

 

[Polak]

Well you can risk losing your job in many (probably most) companies in the UK for saying you are against gay marriage. Same with government run institutions.

It isn’t even ranting or raving about it, but if asked about it, or it gets brought up in a discussion, and you want to be honest and decide to say what you really think, it can cost you. That’s isn’t freedom of religion, when you can only hold your beliefs privately and aren’t allowed to mention them in public.

 

[SaintJude]

Only because they bungled the arrest. They cautioned him too late (after arresting and in the van)

 

[SaintJude]

This is so true! I have to say something opaque when asked like “I follow the teachings of the Catholic Church. I encourage you to have a look at the Catechism.”

 

[DaveBj]

Carrying an ordinary pocketknife is carrying an offensive weapon. What would anyone be carrying one for in a public place if not for violence?

Oh, for cryin’ out loud! A 2" pocket knife is an offensive weapon?

I lived in the UK for four years starting in 1987. Things being as they are now, I wouldn’t set foot in the country. I prefer my freedoms. UK citizens have lost many of theirs.

Edit: This conversation reminds me of the mythical frog in the pan of water that is being slowly heated on the stove. The temperature of the water [supposedly] rises without the frog’s realizing it until it boils to death. (I did say that the frog was mythical; that doesn’t really happen.) UK citizens have been slowly losing their former freedoms, bit by bit, without even realizing it, and all in the name of “let’s get get along without offending anyone”.

D

 

[DaveBj]

But the charges were dropped!

He was still arrested and put thru the process.

D

 

[JanR]

And there is still religious discrimination in employment, even though it’s supposed to be illegal.

Case in point: While interviewing for a job in the assisted living section of our local nursing facility, I politely asked (did NOT demand) if they allow their Catholic employees time off to attend Mass on holy days of obligation. It as a simple question, asked in a respectful way.

Immediately, the tone of the interviewer changed to one of hostility, as though I had dared to ask something strictly forbidden. Nowhere was I told, by anyone, that I couldn’t ask that question. It was a legitimate question, the answer to which I had a perfect right to know. I wasn’t demanding anything; I simply wanted to know. I was prepared to comply with company policy if I had to. I knew God would understand.

This was purportedly a “Christian” facility, yet the intolerance I experienced showed the exact opposite.

Of course, I didn’t get the job. I was blatantly discriminated against, though couldn’t prove it legally. And of course, the interviewer wasn’t about to admit it.

 

[boldlygo]

Carrying an ordinary pocketknife is carrying an offensive weapon. What would anyone be carrying one for in a public place if not for violence?

I thought you had golf courses in the UK! I’ve worked as a greenskeeper at upper level golf courses for 30+ years. I can’t imagine going to work [in a public place] without my pocketknife, used for such ‘offensive’ things as cutting rope, cutting plastic drain tile, and slicing my apple at lunch. My knife has a 3.75" blade, but I have yet to frighten a golfer.

 

[englands123]

In the interviewers defence , they are probably looking at a bigger picture… Then Muslims would be asking why isn’t there prayer mat time not included, then other religions would be asking for time off.

Just a thought.

 

[adamhovey1988]

I don’t know what the laws in the UK are, but here people have successfully argued their right to do it, even after being imprisoned.

 

[englands123]

Would that be in USA ?

Would be lovely if the UK would acknowledge and allow obligation days leave.

 

[Londoner]

Oh, for cryin’ out loud! A 2" pocket knife is an offensive weapon?

While an ordinary small to medium pocket knife can be used to injure someone, it is definitely not primarily an offensive weapon.

I can’t imagine going to work [in a public place] without my pocketknife

Pocket knives can be used for all kinds of useful and practical purposes.

I think that people have been very badly misinformed about the law concerning the carrying of pocket knives and other items. First, the Criminal Justice Act 1988, s. 139(3) specifically states that it is not an offence to carry a pocketknife “if the cutting edge of its blade exceeds 3 inches”. So a 2" pocketknife is lawful to carry under any circumstances. As for a pocketknife exceeding 3" and, indeed, knives of other kinds, it is lawful to carry them if you have “good reason” or if the item is required for work, for religious reasons, or as part of national costume. The Prevention of Crime Act 1953, s. 1(1) allowed “reasonable excuse” for carrying an offensive weapon. Basically, it is lawful to carry a knife if you have an innocuous reason for doing so, e.g. you are a chef or butcher, you are camping or hiking, you are going on a picnic, you will be using your knife for gardening or forestry, etc.

Speaking out publicly against homosexuality. Speaking out publicly against Islam.

It rather depends how and where and when you do it and what your intentions are. If you wish to make a philosophical argument that homosexual acts are contrary to natural law or if you wish to argue that the wearing of head coverings by some Muslim women is merely cultural and not mandated in the Quran, you are free to do so. It is illegal to express hatred or incite violence.

Is there a law against broken bricks? Tree limbs? Cricket bats? Belts to hold up trousers? All of these can be used to injure or kill someone, many more easily than any standard pocket knife.

Yes: ‘“offensive weapon” means any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use by him’ (Prevention of Crime Act 1953, s. 1(4)).

the freedom to defend ourselves if attacked. This is considered an inalienable right.

I am not sure what makes you think that this right does not exist in the UK. The right to defend oneself, another person, or property has existed in English common law since time immemorial. Indeed, this is presumably how the right came to be a part of American law, since the law of the United States (with a small number of notable exceptions) is largely based on English common law.

 

[whatistrue]

Yes: ‘“offensive weapon” means any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use by him’ (Prevention of Crime Act 1953, s. 1(4)).

Wow. So how about the guy who is carrying a standard unmodified cricket bat to a match who has no intent at first other than playing cricket who suddenly spots someone who offended him in some way, or possibly assaulted his sister or something similar and smacks him in the head with the bat. When did it officially become an offensive weapon? And how is intent determined if it turns out that there is no actual incident, but rather some overzealous police officer sees someone walking carrying a bat and arrests him for carrying an offensive weapon?

 

[Londoner]

It appears that the item takes on the character of an offensive weapon at the point at which the person having it with him forms the intention to use it as an offensive weapon. The Crown Prosecution Service has useful guidance on this: Offensive Weapons, Knives, Bladed and Pointed Articles | The Crown Prosecution Service. The most relevant points:

• Having an article innocently will be converted into having the article guiltily if an intent to use the article offensively is formed before the actual occasion to use violence has arisen.
• The third type of weapons is one neither made nor adapted but is one which is intended by the person having it with him for the purpose of causing personal injury to someone. Whether an article is an offensive weapon is a question of fact for the jury.
• Intent to cause injury can be inferred from the context of the surrounding circumstances …

For an actual case in the US, see COMMONWEALTH vs. JOSE L. MARRERO. 19 Mass. App. Ct. 921 (December 11, 1984): “The essential question, when an object which is not dangerous per se is alleged to be a dangerous weapon, is whether the object, as used by the defendant, is capable of producing serious bodily harm.” In conclusion: “… the nature and extent of the victim’s injuries warranted a conclusion that the defendant’s footwear, whether boots or sneakers, had been used as a dangerous weapon.” In Massachusetts, therefore, sneakers can be a dangerous weapon.

According to a statute in Pennsylvania, a deadly weapon includes: “… any other device or instrumentality which, in the manner in which it is used or intended to be used, is calculated or likely to produce death or serious bodily injury.”

 

[ATraveller]

In this video, you see some of the footage of the arrest.

 

[whatistrue]

According to a statute in Pennsylvania, a deadly

Just goes to show you that runaway laws exist everywhere. It makes more sense to me to criminalize actions, not items or thoughts. But I guess that’s just me.

 

[Maximus1]

So is opening fire. We live in a world of overreaction and underreaction. And scared people.