15yr old arrested for calling scientology a dangerous cult....

Former Member

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/20/1


wrong move by the city of london police, especially as people done the same at the tottenham court road branch (which is done by metropolitan polic) and the police allowed the crowd to say that - especially as there is a UK high court ruling, calling them a dangerous cult as well


strangely enoguh the city of london police have accepted gifts from them previously
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/nov/22/freedomofinformation.religion

Former Member

It's one rule for religion and another for every other topic.

Former Member

CptCoatHanger wrote: »

It's one rule for religion and another for every other topic.

It's getting old now, isn't it? I say we go the French route and make mental manipulation a crime, and then take scientology on in the only language they understand; the lawsuit. Incidentally, what would the legal implications be if the defence proved that the sign was accurate, and Scientology is a cult?

Former Member

The City of London police should be ashamed of themselves bending over backwards for those Scientology nuts.

Its the job of the police to protect us from such dangers, not promote them.

Former Member

Former Member

Islam is a dangerous cult. Christianity is a dangerous cult. Judaism is a dangerous cult.

cue rolleyes

Former Member

minimi38 wrote: »

Islam is a dangerous cult. Christianity is a dangerous cult. Judaism is a dangerous cult.

cue rolleyes

You know, despite being a Christian there is a case to be made that when taken to extremes almost all forms of religion are dangerous cults (Jesus Camp, anyone?)

Freedom of speech should allow non-threatening action like this to take place, it's abhorrent action by the CoL police.

Former Member

minimi38 wrote: »

Islam is a dangerous cult. Christianity is a dangerous cult. Judaism is a dangerous cult.

I don't think any of those are by definition cults. I think there are cults that follow all of those religions, but they are merely a set of ideas on propositions that anyone can access (in the same way that marxism or buddhism are). Cults are organisations that attempt to brainwash, seperate people from their family and friends, give out rewards within the cult based on financial contributions. There is evidence that Scientology does all of these things. You could make a convincing argument that some of the more established church groups are cults, but the ideas that they are based on (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc) are freely available to everyone to accept of reject as they wish.

Former Member

What a sad fucking world we live in.

Under which legislation was this brought up? Was it that bullshit religious protection bill Blair introduced a couple of years back?

Former Member

maybe one of the officers or his/her superior is a scientologist, they do get around after all...

Former Member

He was arrested in breach of the Public Order Act. God knows what that is, but his comments that it was "abusive and insulting" tell most of the story. I would challenge that it was in any way abusive (that would involve someone coming to harm), and as usual, it's entirely down to religions being protected from being insulted (but naturally, having no requirement to refrain from spouting pretty insulting stuff themselves). No-one should ever be legally protected from insults. It's one of the most fundamental rights of a free society, because if you're not allowed to say anything that might insult another person, then you have no freedom of speech at all.

Former Member

Might as well have used the word 'cunts' then.

Former Member

this bullshit, the fact of why he was arrested is irrelevant, think - the waste of police time and tax payers cost just for one 15 yr old boy who gave the fingers to some nut jobs.
What was the point in even the arrest though, it not like they can actually bag him for anything serious, he'll just get a can of fanta at the police station then a drive home.

Former Member

Aladdin wrote: »

What a sad fucking world we live in.

Under which legislation was this brought up? Was it that bullshit religious protection bill Blair introduced a couple of years back?

the joy of the public order act 1984

Former Member

Aladdin wrote: »

What a sad fucking world we live in.

Under which legislation was this brought up? Was it that bullshit religious protection bill Blair introduced a couple of years back?

Religiously aggravated section 5.

Former Member

The Public Order Act 1986 was amended in 2006 by the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 which does include in Part 3 section 29B an offence of displaying written material in a public place.

Former Member

The actual wording of the act - for those interested -

Part 3A

HATRED AGAINST PERSONS ON RELIGIOUS GROUNDS

Meaning of 'religious hatred'

29A Meaning of 'religious hatred'

In this Part 'religious hatred' means hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief.

Acts intended to stir up religious hatred

29B Use of words or behaviour or display of written material

(1) A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.

(2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the written material is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and are not heard or seen except by other persons in that or another dwelling.

(3) A constable may arrest without warrant anyone he reasonably suspects is committing an offence under this section.

(4) In proceedings for an offence under this section it is a defence for the accused to prove that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the written material displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling.

(5) This section does not apply to words or behaviour used, or written material displayed, solely for the purpose of being included in a programme service.

From http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060001_en_1

The bit that I'm curious to see what people think about is section (1). It seems like the Church of Scientology has decided that the use of the word 'cult' automatically implies an attempt to stir up hatred.

I can't see it that way and I hope the CPS doesn't

Former Member

I wounder if people would be in support of this guy if he was to stand outside a Mosque with a sign saying that Islam was a cult?

Former Member

Territt wrote: »

I wounder if people would be in support of this guy if he was to stand outside a Mosque with a sign saying that Islam was a cult?

Or outside a church claiming that Christianity was a cult. That would be interesting. If you tried that in America, you'd be lynched.

Former Member

i was reading this and thought what the hell.. its a "child" saying these things so what.. freedom of speech.. why are they taking him so seriously when theres far worse criminals to be caught..

Former Member

Pringle wrote: »

Or outside a church claiming that Christianity was a cult. That would be interesting. If you tried that in America, you'd be lynched.

yeah thats the point Im making,

Former Member

Pringle wrote: »

Or outside a church claiming that Christianity was a cult. That would be interesting. If you tried that in America, you'd be lynched.

In some parts of the US you might get a negative reaction, even violence. But that's far from the norm, dont believe the lie that all American Christians are nutters.

Former Member

Jim V wrote: »

The actual wording of the act - for those interested -



From http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060001_en_1

The bit that I'm curious to see what people think about is section (1). It seems like the Church of Scientology has decided that the use of the word 'cult' automatically implies an attempt to stir up hatred.

I can't see it that way and I hope the CPS doesn't

What interests me is why do we have to have a special section in their for religion?

Former Member

I'm With Stupid wrote: »

I don't think any of those are by definition cults. I think there are cults that follow all of those religions, but they are merely a set of ideas on propositions that anyone can access (in the same way that marxism or buddhism are). Cults are organisations that attempt to brainwash, seperate people from their family and friends, give out rewards within the cult based on financial contributions. There is evidence that Scientology does all of these things. You could make a convincing argument that some of the more established church groups are cults, but the ideas that they are based on (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc) are freely available to everyone to accept of reject as they wish.

"cult

• noun 1 a system of religious worship directed towards a particular figure or object. 2 a small religious group regarded as strange or as imposing excessive control over members.
— ORIGIN Latin cultus ‘worship’."

i'm assuming 2. is a modern definition of the word considering its origin.

people who go to church are cultists tee hee.

Former Member

considering the boy quoted a high court ruling, it escapes all the offence anyway

Former Member

They've dropped the charges -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7416425.stm

CPS view - Our advice is that it is not abusive or insulting and there is no offensiveness (as opposed to criticism), neither in the idea expressed nor in the mode of expression.

Former Member

A spokeswoman for the City of London Police said: "The CPS review of the case includes advice on what action or behaviour at a demonstration might be considered to be 'threatening, abusive or insulting.

"The force's policing of future demonstrations will reflect this advice.

That is really good news if true.

*runs off to nearest Scientology offices with placard*

Indrid Cold

I thought Scientology wasn't recognized as a religion over there, isn't that so?

Former Member

The police officer who arrested the boy should now have to repay the full cost of the investigation. She should then be arrested for malicious arrest and given the maximum sentence. She should then be dismissed from her role and lose all rights she has. She should then be made bankrupt, along with her family, just for good measure.

Former Member

Kermit wrote: »

The police officer who arrested the boy should now have to repay the full cost of the investigation. She should then be arrested for malicious arrest and given the maximum sentence. She should then be dismissed from her role and lose all rights she has. She should then be made bankrupt, along with her family, just for good measure.

Better still, send her for a stress test.

Former Member

Kermit wrote: »

The police officer who arrested the boy should now have to repay the full cost of the investigation. She should then be arrested for malicious arrest and given the maximum sentence. She should then be dismissed from her role and lose all rights she has. She should then be made bankrupt, along with her family, just for good measure.

Don't want much do you?

In all seriousness though, what about freedom of speech? or does that not exist any more?