Peter Tatchell Arrested - Outrageous

But doesn’t that amount to the same thing? You are saying it was obviously going to inflame the marchers to be anti-Hamas.

That’s practically the same as saying it was obviously a march in sympathy with Hamas. Which would have been illegal.

It’s perfectly possible to be pro-Palestine and anti-Hamas, and PT was entitled to express that position without arrest.

I am not aware of this and if accurately portrayed by you here, is horrendous. But I am asking specifically about this arrest, not his comments on other matters from the past.

Is it only Palestinians that bother you? Why are you not campaigning for the Sudanese?

No, I think he knew what buttons to press which is essentially what I posted

I don't know why the protest was allowed any more than the majority of the population.

Why is fact she is a mother relevant?

If that stickering was on someone elses property and they made a complaint of criminal damage then it needs to be investigated, especially if the crime is suspected of being currently in progress - if that means detaining a suspect for 10 hours while investigation takes place I'm okay with that. There is a limit on how long someone can be detained under such circumstances and I am fine with that limit.

However, I wasn't aware that Peter Tatchell was put in prison for 5 hours over this - that is something else entirely. I believed he was detained while questioned and an investigation took place. If he was indeed put in prison for 5 hours without having first been charged and convicted in a court of law then it should go without saying that is abhorrent.

Free speech is tricky.

I support prison for "burn them alive in their hotels" - but equally I think what is typed in the heat of the moment, and then deleted, by a mother, is probably worthy of a month or two, not years.

As far as I am aware it is not a crime to advocate for paedophile rights. I am with you, however, that if supporting hamas is illegal (because hamas are evil) then supporting paedophiles should likewise be a crime. But the police need to police the law as is, not what it should be.

I think most people understand that "free speech" means "broad freedom of speech, subject to some limited restraints". I don't think we need to complicate things - if someone says they support freedom of speech then we can reasonably assume that they don't mean it 100% literally, but do support the right to say all sorts offensive and bad things.

"it's not like they asked him to go to Birmingham. It was move across the street." Well they did ask someone who was supporting palestine (whilst making a point against a group it is illegal to support in the UK) to move to stand with the people on the opposite side of the protest.

No inconsistency at all.

He was free to express his views. After the pro Palestine protestors (the organisers no less) protested about his presence in the protest the police believing him to be a counter protestor directed him, with his placards in tow, to the counter protest.

As simple as that.

Clear as bleedin day.

He then rejoined the protest and the police arrested him "on suspicion of breaching the conditions in place and to prevent a breach of the peace."

The issue, or who the "outrage" should be aimed at, was the organisers of the protest, those who protested about his presence among them for holding an anti Hamas placard.

His views I endorse wholly, both on the crimes committed by Israel, and the crimes committed by Hamas, but having both views was too much for the pro Palestine organisers of the protest to take so they got him removed.

So?

Makes a rare change from the bleating of 'but what about the men?' that permeates this site.

Maybe take another read of @PencilsinSpace 's post at 16:34 (& her earlier ones) and decide whether Tatchell's open support for leading paedophiles and his views on adults having sex with children is really the hill you want to die on??

And yet, according to many MN posters, "burn them alive in their hotels" is free speech and not inciting violence. So it seems the right to free speech is in the eye of the beholder. No wonder the police are confused when telling people to burn down hotels is free speech, but they have to stand in the line in front of the hotel when people try to do it.

Equally, since many people are on this thread (and elsewhere) saying that free speech has to be defended, and that there are few occasions when it shouldn't be allowed, then presumably you would agree that the view that paedophilia should be legal and that he is entirely free to espouse that view. Because a lot of people here think not (and I agree with them actually).

Frankly, there is no such thing as free speech and never has been. There never will be. We can place as few limits on it as possible, but there are things that a civilised society cannot and should not countenance. The goady idiot should be allowed his placard, but it isn't unreasonable for the police to ask him to display it in a slightly different location - it's not like they asked him to go to Birmingham. It was move across the street.

And actually it has long been the case (so not a recent thing) that if you wish to hold a public protest you need to obtain permission and part of that process - especially if there are potential flashpoints as in these cases - is being clear about where you and your colleagues will stand or walk. Variation is not permitted. This is to avoid confrontation that turns violent. I am really not saying that either side was or would be violent, but risk assessments and conditions are not based on what will happen but what might happen. So to an extent, in public spaces they really do come with a cavet that you can only do it in approved spaces.

To positively review one paedophile book, @Thegreyhound, may be regarded as a misfortune; to positively review two of them looks like carelessness

All the otherwise sane people got PIE's number by the mid-80s. Most of the stuff on Tatchell dates from the late 1990s.

I have looked at the facts and have posted them on this thread - are my images not showing up for you? I don't know whether Tatchell is himself a paedophile or whether he just supports paedophilia and likes to hang around with paedophiles and with abused, looked-after children. I've read enough of his views to conclude that either way he is dangerous. 'Nuance' is not an appropriate response here.

Speaking of child marriage, he's in favour of that too.

I see your point and again agree with most of what you say... but human rights to free speech don't come with a caveat of "but only if expressed in a approved spaces, and it does not apply if people want to use threats of violence to silence you." I can see why the police have to make decisions in the real world, but it is appalling if human rights are curtailed by threats of violence, and more so when the reason for the threat of violence is an expression of hatred for an illegal terrorist org.

surely being a paedophile would be having a sexual desire for or sexual relationships with children?
taking your view to its conclusion, someone teaching Romeo and Juliet and saying ‘things were very different regarding marriage and the age of consent in those days’ would be a paedophile. Someone commenting that there are child brides in parts of the world would be a paedophile. Logic fail much?

Do you really think one would have to be thick to believe that the pro-Palestine protesters oppose Hamas?

(His placard opposed the actions of Israel and Hamas).

That’s very depressing if you are right.

But if so, what’s the officer doing allowing an illegal pro-Hamas march to proceed, and going still further to shield them from opposing voices?

It also doesn’t make you a paedophile to note that different cultures and different times have held different views on ages of consent. In the UK girls used to be married at extremely young for example- 12. Does noting these things make someone a paedophile or are they just anthropological or historical facts?

It does if you do not criticise them and try claim they are justified because ‘other cultures’.

No you don't but you learn what buttons to press to get maximum coverage for your part in it.

If he didn't know he could have been mistaken for the counter protest by his placard it would be assuming he's not bright or experienced. I don't make that assumption. Once that was cleared up that he wasn't part of the counter protest he was released so it's a non story really.

I don't think this particular gay man in his 70s is a direct physical threat to anyone at the protest, no.

Again, he was not arrested for his placard or his views. You know this yet still peddle it.

Met: “Mr Tatchell was initially detained after concerns were raised with officers by stewards from the Palestine Coalition protest. Officers spoke with him and, believing him to be a counter protester, directed him to join the counter protest in its designated area. When he attempted to rejoin the Palestine Coalition protest he was arrested on suspicion of breaching the conditions in place and to prevent a breach of the peace."

It’s not very much better. He was removed from a protest by police because of his message (specifically, because he opposed Hamas), which is bad enough, and then locked up for five hours.

Either the police officer thought protesting Hamas at a pro-Palestine protest was a crime, or he knew it wasn’t and abused his power.

Either way it’s worrying.

It’s true he’s a serial protester, but you don’t lose the right to protest by using it.