Campaigner cleared of public order offences at Brighton abortion clinic protest

First published in News

An anti-abortion campaigner has been cleared of causing a breach of the peace for unveiling graphic posters outside an abortion clinic.

Andrew Stephenson of campaign group Abort 67 described the decision by a judge to clear him of of any wrongdoing as a “huge victory for freedom of speech”.

Stephenson, 37 from Dunstans Road in Worthing, was charged with public order offences after displaying graphic images of aborted foetuses outside Wiston Clinic in Dyke Road, Brighton last year.

He was cleared today at Brighton Magistrates’ Court.

Fellow campaigner Katherine Sloane, 21 of Sea Lane in Ferring, was cleared last week of obstructing police officers.

See tomorrow's Argus for more.

Comments (46)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:02pm Mon 17 Sep 12

Fercri Sakes says...

These people are just as stupid as the muppets currently protesting about the anti-Islam film.

And getting rid of these extremist nutjobs would be beneficial to all our wellbeing.
These people are just as stupid as the muppets currently protesting about the anti-Islam film. And getting rid of these extremist nutjobs would be beneficial to all our wellbeing. Fercri Sakes
  • Score: 0

4:05pm Mon 17 Sep 12

chrisinbrighton says...

Fercri Sakes wrote:
These people are just as stupid as the muppets currently protesting about the anti-Islam film.

And getting rid of these extremist nutjobs would be beneficial to all our wellbeing.
Couldn't agree more
[quote][p][bold]Fercri Sakes[/bold] wrote: These people are just as stupid as the muppets currently protesting about the anti-Islam film. And getting rid of these extremist nutjobs would be beneficial to all our wellbeing.[/p][/quote]Couldn't agree more chrisinbrighton
  • Score: 0

4:12pm Mon 17 Sep 12

Goldenwight says...

Brilliant bit of reportage there printing the guy's home address. I'll be round there in the morning making his life a misery... I suspect I'll have to join the queue though.
Brilliant bit of reportage there printing the guy's home address. I'll be round there in the morning making his life a misery... I suspect I'll have to join the queue though. Goldenwight
  • Score: 0

4:13pm Mon 17 Sep 12

AmboGuy says...

It's interesting that we now know where they live, it would be a huge shame if people started to protest against them and their ridiculous views in their own street wouldn't it??

The best way to show these 2 people why abortions must be kept legal is to hold a mirror up to them!
It's interesting that we now know where they live, it would be a huge shame if people started to protest against them and their ridiculous views in their own street wouldn't it?? The best way to show these 2 people why abortions must be kept legal is to hold a mirror up to them! AmboGuy
  • Score: 0

4:22pm Mon 17 Sep 12

DC78 says...

Great,

Can I now stand outside a Jewish Temple, with graphic posters depicting male genital mutilation? without fear of arrest?

or a Mosque with graphic posters of female genital mutilation?
Great, Can I now stand outside a Jewish Temple, with graphic posters depicting male genital mutilation? without fear of arrest? or a Mosque with graphic posters of female genital mutilation? DC78
  • Score: 0

4:24pm Mon 17 Sep 12

PorkBoat says...

DC78 wrote:
Great,

Can I now stand outside a Jewish Temple, with graphic posters depicting male genital mutilation? without fear of arrest?

or a Mosque with graphic posters of female genital mutilation?
In theory yes. In practice, you will probably be arrested in minutes 2.
[quote][p][bold]DC78[/bold] wrote: Great, Can I now stand outside a Jewish Temple, with graphic posters depicting male genital mutilation? without fear of arrest? or a Mosque with graphic posters of female genital mutilation?[/p][/quote]In theory yes. In practice, you will probably be arrested in minutes 2. PorkBoat
  • Score: 0

5:03pm Mon 17 Sep 12

longman says...

Point one: Jews' places of worship are called synagogues not temples!
Point two: are you going to stand outside American embassies and protest there as Amercians, both Jews and non-Jews circumcise their males!
Point three: Circumcised men are far cleaner than non-circumcised. Statistics show (cannot quote right now as havent got them in front of me) that far fewer wives/girlfriends of circumcised men have sexually transmitted diseases than those of non circumcised men. The only women who have fewer outbreaks are nuns!
Point four: are you going to protest outside Buckingham Palace as royalty also circumcise their male off-spring!
Point five: it is up to the pregnant woman as to whether she wants the abortion. No one has the right to tell her what to do at that particular moment.
Point one: Jews' places of worship are called synagogues not temples! Point two: are you going to stand outside American embassies and protest there as Amercians, both Jews and non-Jews circumcise their males! Point three: Circumcised men are far cleaner than non-circumcised. Statistics show (cannot quote right now as havent got them in front of me) that far fewer wives/girlfriends of circumcised men have sexually transmitted diseases than those of non circumcised men. The only women who have fewer outbreaks are nuns! Point four: are you going to protest outside Buckingham Palace as royalty also circumcise their male off-spring! Point five: it is up to the pregnant woman as to whether she wants the abortion. No one has the right to tell her what to do at that particular moment. longman
  • Score: 0

5:26pm Mon 17 Sep 12

JoeBlow says...

Fercri Sakes wrote:
These people are just as stupid as the muppets currently protesting about the anti-Islam film.

And getting rid of these extremist nutjobs would be beneficial to all our wellbeing.
Personally I think we would be much better off without people who label others as "extremist nutjobs" just because they have a different opinion.
[quote][p][bold]Fercri Sakes[/bold] wrote: These people are just as stupid as the muppets currently protesting about the anti-Islam film. And getting rid of these extremist nutjobs would be beneficial to all our wellbeing.[/p][/quote]Personally I think we would be much better off without people who label others as "extremist nutjobs" just because they have a different opinion. JoeBlow
  • Score: 0

5:41pm Mon 17 Sep 12

sbiscorrupt says...

I support the right of a person to choose whether to abort or not. And the behaviour of those 'cleared' who wish to deny others that choice indicates that selective abortion is indeed vindicated!
I support the right of a person to choose whether to abort or not. And the behaviour of those 'cleared' who wish to deny others that choice indicates that selective abortion is indeed vindicated! sbiscorrupt
  • Score: 0

7:11pm Mon 17 Sep 12

John Allman says...

I hope that the two Abort 67 members being cleared of all charges, will halt the campaign of false allegations against Abort 67, for example the false allegation of harassing vulnerable women. It took the police five years to come up with these trumped up charges, and even then, they couldn't make any of the charges stick.
I hope that the two Abort 67 members being cleared of all charges, will halt the campaign of false allegations against Abort 67, for example the false allegation of harassing vulnerable women. It took the police five years to come up with these trumped up charges, and even then, they couldn't make any of the charges stick. John Allman
  • Score: 0

7:19pm Mon 17 Sep 12

hursthill says...

Freedom of speach does not include the right to shout "fire" in a crowded cinema.
This was a clear attempt by Andrew Stephenson to intimidate & terrorise defenceless young girls into accepting his political beliefs.
smashedo use the same tactics. Unfortunately our courts don't defend decent people, they defend terrorists.
Freedom of speach does not include the right to shout "fire" in a crowded cinema. This was a clear attempt by Andrew Stephenson to intimidate & terrorise defenceless young girls into accepting his political beliefs. smashedo use the same tactics. Unfortunately our courts don't defend decent people, they defend terrorists. hursthill
  • Score: 0

7:39pm Mon 17 Sep 12

Maxwell's Ghost says...

These two have given this clinic some free advertising and if you thought your offspring might end up like these crazies you would book yourself an abortion immediately.
These two have given this clinic some free advertising and if you thought your offspring might end up like these crazies you would book yourself an abortion immediately. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 0

7:40pm Mon 17 Sep 12

AmboGuy says...

John Allman wrote:
I hope that the two Abort 67 members being cleared of all charges, will halt the campaign of false allegations against Abort 67, for example the false allegation of harassing vulnerable women. It took the police five years to come up with these trumped up charges, and even then, they couldn't make any of the charges stick.
Oh god not you again.

Still hearing those voices in your head John?

How the hell can you say he hasn't been harassing vulnerable women? Just standing outside the front gates to Wiston clinic is enough to make anyone walking inside feel threatened. This vile individual being cleared makes a mockery of the justice system. I wonder how long it'll take before Abort 67s campaign of intimidation increases as they must feel that they have a green light to do whatever they like.
[quote][p][bold]John Allman[/bold] wrote: I hope that the two Abort 67 members being cleared of all charges, will halt the campaign of false allegations against Abort 67, for example the false allegation of harassing vulnerable women. It took the police five years to come up with these trumped up charges, and even then, they couldn't make any of the charges stick.[/p][/quote]Oh god not you again. Still hearing those voices in your head John? How the hell can you say he hasn't been harassing vulnerable women? Just standing outside the front gates to Wiston clinic is enough to make anyone walking inside feel threatened. This vile individual being cleared makes a mockery of the justice system. I wonder how long it'll take before Abort 67s campaign of intimidation increases as they must feel that they have a green light to do whatever they like. AmboGuy
  • Score: 0

8:02pm Mon 17 Sep 12

Morpheus says...

AmboGuy wrote:
It's interesting that we now know where they live, it would be a huge shame if people started to protest against them and their ridiculous views in their own street wouldn't it??

The best way to show these 2 people why abortions must be kept legal is to hold a mirror up to them!
Unfortunately, they have already held a mirror up to abortion and it is quite clear people don't want to face up to the killing that is going on. Supporters prefer to push it under the carpet because it suits them to get rid of unwanted children.
[quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: It's interesting that we now know where they live, it would be a huge shame if people started to protest against them and their ridiculous views in their own street wouldn't it?? The best way to show these 2 people why abortions must be kept legal is to hold a mirror up to them![/p][/quote]Unfortunately, they have already held a mirror up to abortion and it is quite clear people don't want to face up to the killing that is going on. Supporters prefer to push it under the carpet because it suits them to get rid of unwanted children. Morpheus
  • Score: 0

8:11pm Mon 17 Sep 12

Morpheus says...

longman wrote:
Point one: Jews' places of worship are called synagogues not temples!
Point two: are you going to stand outside American embassies and protest there as Amercians, both Jews and non-Jews circumcise their males!
Point three: Circumcised men are far cleaner than non-circumcised. Statistics show (cannot quote right now as havent got them in front of me) that far fewer wives/girlfriends of circumcised men have sexually transmitted diseases than those of non circumcised men. The only women who have fewer outbreaks are nuns!
Point four: are you going to protest outside Buckingham Palace as royalty also circumcise their male off-spring!
Point five: it is up to the pregnant woman as to whether she wants the abortion. No one has the right to tell her what to do at that particular moment.
1. Some Jews use temple.
2. Americans have a choice.
3. Rubbish. Water and soap do the trick. Sexual transmitted diseases are due to promiscuity.
4. Diana apparenty refused to have Will and Harry cut.
5. The father also has a say. And it is murder whatever you might think. We just use another name to avoid the unacceptable side of this.
[quote][p][bold]longman[/bold] wrote: Point one: Jews' places of worship are called synagogues not temples! Point two: are you going to stand outside American embassies and protest there as Amercians, both Jews and non-Jews circumcise their males! Point three: Circumcised men are far cleaner than non-circumcised. Statistics show (cannot quote right now as havent got them in front of me) that far fewer wives/girlfriends of circumcised men have sexually transmitted diseases than those of non circumcised men. The only women who have fewer outbreaks are nuns! Point four: are you going to protest outside Buckingham Palace as royalty also circumcise their male off-spring! Point five: it is up to the pregnant woman as to whether she wants the abortion. No one has the right to tell her what to do at that particular moment.[/p][/quote]1. Some Jews use temple. 2. Americans have a choice. 3. Rubbish. Water and soap do the trick. Sexual transmitted diseases are due to promiscuity. 4. Diana apparenty refused to have Will and Harry cut. 5. The father also has a say. And it is murder whatever you might think. We just use another name to avoid the unacceptable side of this. Morpheus
  • Score: 0

9:16pm Mon 17 Sep 12

JoeBlow says...

hursthill wrote:
Freedom of speach does not include the right to shout "fire" in a crowded cinema.
This was a clear attempt by Andrew Stephenson to intimidate & terrorise defenceless young girls into accepting his political beliefs.
smashedo use the same tactics. Unfortunately our courts don't defend decent people, they defend terrorists.
Intimidate and terrorise them how exactly?
[quote][p][bold]hursthill[/bold] wrote: Freedom of speach does not include the right to shout "fire" in a crowded cinema. This was a clear attempt by Andrew Stephenson to intimidate & terrorise defenceless young girls into accepting his political beliefs. smashedo use the same tactics. Unfortunately our courts don't defend decent people, they defend terrorists.[/p][/quote]Intimidate and terrorise them how exactly? JoeBlow
  • Score: 0

9:19pm Mon 17 Sep 12

JoeBlow says...

sbiscorrupt wrote:
I support the right of a person to choose whether to abort or not. And the behaviour of those 'cleared' who wish to deny others that choice indicates that selective abortion is indeed vindicated!
A truly simplistic comment. You could just as easily argue that if you are stupid enough to get pregnant these days, you are too stupid to be given the chance to choose life or death for the unborn child.
[quote][p][bold]sbiscorrupt[/bold] wrote: I support the right of a person to choose whether to abort or not. And the behaviour of those 'cleared' who wish to deny others that choice indicates that selective abortion is indeed vindicated![/p][/quote]A truly simplistic comment. You could just as easily argue that if you are stupid enough to get pregnant these days, you are too stupid to be given the chance to choose life or death for the unborn child. JoeBlow
  • Score: 0

10:03pm Mon 17 Sep 12

Somethingsarejustwrong says...

JoeBlow wrote:
sbiscorrupt wrote:
I support the right of a person to choose whether to abort or not. And the behaviour of those 'cleared' who wish to deny others that choice indicates that selective abortion is indeed vindicated!
A truly simplistic comment. You could just as easily argue that if you are stupid enough to get pregnant these days, you are too stupid to be given the chance to choose life or death for the unborn child.
Regrettably sbiscorrupt can only be relied upon to post comments of this level of genius!
[quote][p][bold]JoeBlow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sbiscorrupt[/bold] wrote: I support the right of a person to choose whether to abort or not. And the behaviour of those 'cleared' who wish to deny others that choice indicates that selective abortion is indeed vindicated![/p][/quote]A truly simplistic comment. You could just as easily argue that if you are stupid enough to get pregnant these days, you are too stupid to be given the chance to choose life or death for the unborn child.[/p][/quote]Regrettably sbiscorrupt can only be relied upon to post comments of this level of genius! Somethingsarejustwrong
  • Score: 0

10:51pm Mon 17 Sep 12

Maxwell's Ghost says...

Sadly we live in a world where some men rape women and some men rape their own children.
Until you stop men doing that Morpheus, then perhaps you would
Have a right to tell women what to do.
Apparently women have been aborting children with the consent of husbands
For centuries and herb mixes used internally worked and it was used as contraception.
Next you will be telling me you never waste seed.
Sadly we live in a world where some men rape women and some men rape their own children. Until you stop men doing that Morpheus, then perhaps you would Have a right to tell women what to do. Apparently women have been aborting children with the consent of husbands For centuries and herb mixes used internally worked and it was used as contraception. Next you will be telling me you never waste seed. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 0

4:46am Tue 18 Sep 12

sbiscorrupt says...

JoeBlow wrote:
sbiscorrupt wrote:
I support the right of a person to choose whether to abort or not. And the behaviour of those 'cleared' who wish to deny others that choice indicates that selective abortion is indeed vindicated!
A truly simplistic comment. You could just as easily argue that if you are stupid enough to get pregnant these days, you are too stupid to be given the chance to choose life or death for the unborn child.
You could argue that if you like...It would make you look pretty stupid of course, but that's your choice...

Choice is an odd concept to some...

I wonder how many of those campaigning against a woman's right to choose would also choose to deny themselves life saving treatment that was 'conceived' via embryonic stem cell research?
[quote][p][bold]JoeBlow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sbiscorrupt[/bold] wrote: I support the right of a person to choose whether to abort or not. And the behaviour of those 'cleared' who wish to deny others that choice indicates that selective abortion is indeed vindicated![/p][/quote]A truly simplistic comment. You could just as easily argue that if you are stupid enough to get pregnant these days, you are too stupid to be given the chance to choose life or death for the unborn child.[/p][/quote]You could argue that if you like...It would make you look pretty stupid of course, but that's your choice... Choice is an odd concept to some... I wonder how many of those campaigning against a woman's right to choose would also choose to deny themselves life saving treatment that was 'conceived' via embryonic stem cell research? sbiscorrupt
  • Score: 0

7:47am Tue 18 Sep 12

John Allman says...

Fercri Sakes wrote:
These people are just as stupid as the muppets currently protesting about the anti-Islam film.

And getting rid of these extremist nutjobs would be beneficial to all our wellbeing.
Ah the sweet voice of moderation, reason, politeness, civilised debate ...!

If only those who had different opinion from Fercri would be as retrained in their language, or, better still, would just stand in silence, unless spoken to first, letting their pictures speak for themselves so-to-speak, intimidating nobody.
[quote][p][bold]Fercri Sakes[/bold] wrote: These people are just as stupid as the muppets currently protesting about the anti-Islam film. And getting rid of these extremist nutjobs would be beneficial to all our wellbeing.[/p][/quote]Ah the sweet voice of moderation, reason, politeness, civilised debate ...! If only those who had different opinion from Fercri would be as retrained in their language, or, better still, would just stand in silence, unless spoken to first, letting their pictures speak for themselves so-to-speak, intimidating nobody. John Allman
  • Score: 0

7:48am Tue 18 Sep 12

Ballroom Blitz says...

Disgraceful decision. We are on our way back to the stone age, what with this and the grotesque Muslim overreaction to that stupid film. I despair.
Disgraceful decision. We are on our way back to the stone age, what with this and the grotesque Muslim overreaction to that stupid film. I despair. Ballroom Blitz
  • Score: 0

8:38am Tue 18 Sep 12

Archie Bun says...

He hasn't been cleared of wrongdoing. He has been cleared of breach of the peace. He has still done wrong but it wasn't judged to be illegal on this occasion.
He hasn't been cleared of wrongdoing. He has been cleared of breach of the peace. He has still done wrong but it wasn't judged to be illegal on this occasion. Archie Bun
  • Score: 0

8:58am Tue 18 Sep 12

DC78 says...

longman wrote:
Point one: Jews' places of worship are called synagogues not temples!
Point two: are you going to stand outside American embassies and protest there as Amercians, both Jews and non-Jews circumcise their males!
Point three: Circumcised men are far cleaner than non-circumcised. Statistics show (cannot quote right now as havent got them in front of me) that far fewer wives/girlfriends of circumcised men have sexually transmitted diseases than those of non circumcised men. The only women who have fewer outbreaks are nuns!
Point four: are you going to protest outside Buckingham Palace as royalty also circumcise their male off-spring!
Point five: it is up to the pregnant woman as to whether she wants the abortion. No one has the right to tell her what to do at that particular moment.
You completely missed my point. I said nothing about being pro or anti circumcision. I do have a view, but it is irrelevant here.

I do not think any grotesque images have any place in public view, where they are likely to cause distress.

I was merely wondering if the law would be evenly applied.
[quote][p][bold]longman[/bold] wrote: Point one: Jews' places of worship are called synagogues not temples! Point two: are you going to stand outside American embassies and protest there as Amercians, both Jews and non-Jews circumcise their males! Point three: Circumcised men are far cleaner than non-circumcised. Statistics show (cannot quote right now as havent got them in front of me) that far fewer wives/girlfriends of circumcised men have sexually transmitted diseases than those of non circumcised men. The only women who have fewer outbreaks are nuns! Point four: are you going to protest outside Buckingham Palace as royalty also circumcise their male off-spring! Point five: it is up to the pregnant woman as to whether she wants the abortion. No one has the right to tell her what to do at that particular moment.[/p][/quote]You completely missed my point. I said nothing about being pro or anti circumcision. I do have a view, but it is irrelevant here. I do not think any grotesque images have any place in public view, where they are likely to cause distress. I was merely wondering if the law would be evenly applied. DC78
  • Score: 0

9:40am Tue 18 Sep 12

Chaffinch1 says...

Ironic that Andrew Stephenson should speak about 'freedom' when he seeks to deny women the freedom to decide what happens to their own bodies.
Ironic that Andrew Stephenson should speak about 'freedom' when he seeks to deny women the freedom to decide what happens to their own bodies. Chaffinch1
  • Score: 0

12:17pm Tue 18 Sep 12

marymog says...

I trust The Argus will cooperate with the Police by providing the website registration details of those threatening physical violence and intimidation to Andy Stephenson and his young family?

Quite how people think photographs of dead babies are offensive when they so vocally support their termination, I don't know?!

Its rather "ironic" that people should seek to silence Andy Stephenson for his defence of the right to freedom of speech!

Accept it, the reason why people object to the displays is because they actually ABHOR abortion! People actually DO recognise it as taking innocent life and dehumanising the victims by calling them "cells" is just an attempt to cover up what folk know instinctively to be wrong!

Why be so upset otherwise at scientific photos of the results of a simple, legal medical operation? For taste perhaps, but they can't call them "harassing" or "insulting". The pictures just show the results of an operation and deliberately without slogans. Abort67's main point is that unlike other medical procedures, clinical staff DON'T show what happens or what the results are. Why not? Because even they know its instinctively wrong!

Why seek to cover up the realities of science and medicine when folk are quite happy to threaten violence and intimidation against others online and view violence on TV and in games without giving it a second thought?
I trust The Argus will cooperate with the Police by providing the website registration details of those threatening physical violence and intimidation to Andy Stephenson and his young family? Quite how people think photographs of dead babies are offensive when they so vocally support their termination, I don't know?! Its rather "ironic" that people should seek to silence Andy Stephenson for his defence of the right to freedom of speech! Accept it, the reason why people object to the displays is because they actually ABHOR abortion! People actually DO recognise it as taking innocent life and dehumanising the victims by calling them "cells" is just an attempt to cover up what folk know instinctively to be wrong! Why be so upset otherwise at scientific photos of the results of a simple, legal medical operation? For taste perhaps, but they can't call them "harassing" or "insulting". The pictures just show the results of an operation and deliberately without slogans. Abort67's main point is that unlike other medical procedures, clinical staff DON'T show what happens or what the results are. Why not? Because even they know its instinctively wrong! Why seek to cover up the realities of science and medicine when folk are quite happy to threaten violence and intimidation against others online and view violence on TV and in games without giving it a second thought? marymog
  • Score: 0

2:55pm Tue 18 Sep 12

sbiscorrupt says...

marymog wrote:
I trust The Argus will cooperate with the Police by providing the website registration details of those threatening physical violence and intimidation to Andy Stephenson and his young family?

Quite how people think photographs of dead babies are offensive when they so vocally support their termination, I don't know?!

Its rather "ironic" that people should seek to silence Andy Stephenson for his defence of the right to freedom of speech!

Accept it, the reason why people object to the displays is because they actually ABHOR abortion! People actually DO recognise it as taking innocent life and dehumanising the victims by calling them "cells" is just an attempt to cover up what folk know instinctively to be wrong!

Why be so upset otherwise at scientific photos of the results of a simple, legal medical operation? For taste perhaps, but they can't call them "harassing" or "insulting". The pictures just show the results of an operation and deliberately without slogans. Abort67's main point is that unlike other medical procedures, clinical staff DON'T show what happens or what the results are. Why not? Because even they know its instinctively wrong!

Why seek to cover up the realities of science and medicine when folk are quite happy to threaten violence and intimidation against others online and view violence on TV and in games without giving it a second thought?
Isn't it funny how the pro life lot want it both ways...

You are happy to intimidate women at a vulnerable time, and yet moan when there is perceived intimidation coming your way...

I find that an easy one - I don't condone either!

And as ever you mix up different issues

You go on about freedom of speech, and yet wish to deny it to those with an opposing view.

What most would agree with is that you have a right to say what you think, but that doesn't include the right to harass others when doing what they choose - and despite what you claim about the photos, some find them offensive...

They don't bother me, but I can understand why some do!

If you were that sure of your viewpoint, then why don't you set up your own drop in advice clinics, advertise your 'services', and then leave it to women to decide instead of 'getting in their faces'?

But I'm glad you mention the realities of science, and the description of 'cells'...

Because that means you won't be taking advantage of those medical advances that occur because of the use of said 'cells'...

Or will you?
[quote][p][bold]marymog[/bold] wrote: I trust The Argus will cooperate with the Police by providing the website registration details of those threatening physical violence and intimidation to Andy Stephenson and his young family? Quite how people think photographs of dead babies are offensive when they so vocally support their termination, I don't know?! Its rather "ironic" that people should seek to silence Andy Stephenson for his defence of the right to freedom of speech! Accept it, the reason why people object to the displays is because they actually ABHOR abortion! People actually DO recognise it as taking innocent life and dehumanising the victims by calling them "cells" is just an attempt to cover up what folk know instinctively to be wrong! Why be so upset otherwise at scientific photos of the results of a simple, legal medical operation? For taste perhaps, but they can't call them "harassing" or "insulting". The pictures just show the results of an operation and deliberately without slogans. Abort67's main point is that unlike other medical procedures, clinical staff DON'T show what happens or what the results are. Why not? Because even they know its instinctively wrong! Why seek to cover up the realities of science and medicine when folk are quite happy to threaten violence and intimidation against others online and view violence on TV and in games without giving it a second thought?[/p][/quote]Isn't it funny how the pro life lot want it both ways... You are happy to intimidate women at a vulnerable time, and yet moan when there is perceived intimidation coming your way... I find that an easy one - I don't condone either! And as ever you mix up different issues You go on about freedom of speech, and yet wish to deny it to those with an opposing view. What most would agree with is that you have a right to say what you think, but that doesn't include the right to harass others when doing what they choose - and despite what you claim about the photos, some find them offensive... They don't bother me, but I can understand why some do! If you were that sure of your viewpoint, then why don't you set up your own drop in advice clinics, advertise your 'services', and then leave it to women to decide instead of 'getting in their faces'? But I'm glad you mention the realities of science, and the description of 'cells'... Because that means you won't be taking advantage of those medical advances that occur because of the use of said 'cells'... Or will you? sbiscorrupt
  • Score: 0

3:35pm Tue 18 Sep 12

marymog says...

sbiscorrupt wrote:
marymog wrote: I trust The Argus will cooperate with the Police by providing the website registration details of those threatening physical violence and intimidation to Andy Stephenson and his young family? Quite how people think photographs of dead babies are offensive when they so vocally support their termination, I don't know?! Its rather "ironic" that people should seek to silence Andy Stephenson for his defence of the right to freedom of speech! Accept it, the reason why people object to the displays is because they actually ABHOR abortion! People actually DO recognise it as taking innocent life and dehumanising the victims by calling them "cells" is just an attempt to cover up what folk know instinctively to be wrong! Why be so upset otherwise at scientific photos of the results of a simple, legal medical operation? For taste perhaps, but they can't call them "harassing" or "insulting". The pictures just show the results of an operation and deliberately without slogans. Abort67's main point is that unlike other medical procedures, clinical staff DON'T show what happens or what the results are. Why not? Because even they know its instinctively wrong! Why seek to cover up the realities of science and medicine when folk are quite happy to threaten violence and intimidation against others online and view violence on TV and in games without giving it a second thought?
Isn't it funny how the pro life lot want it both ways... You are happy to intimidate women at a vulnerable time, and yet moan when there is perceived intimidation coming your way... I find that an easy one - I don't condone either! And as ever you mix up different issues You go on about freedom of speech, and yet wish to deny it to those with an opposing view. What most would agree with is that you have a right to say what you think, but that doesn't include the right to harass others when doing what they choose - and despite what you claim about the photos, some find them offensive... They don't bother me, but I can understand why some do! If you were that sure of your viewpoint, then why don't you set up your own drop in advice clinics, advertise your 'services', and then leave it to women to decide instead of 'getting in their faces'? But I'm glad you mention the realities of science, and the description of 'cells'... Because that means you won't be taking advantage of those medical advances that occur because of the use of said 'cells'... Or will you?
I'm sorry you must think I was debating 'you' personally. I wasn't I was just commenting.

Ref free speech, I'm not aware of any ProLife attempt to prevent others presenting the opposing view, can you provide some?

But clearly from your comments you've never actually been to an Abort67 display. I suggest you do so you'll know what you're referring to instead of making scenario's up. You'll soon discover that they are not screaming fanatics shouting intimidating slogans! Unlike the so-called "ProChoice" lobby.

You'd also discover that information is readily available on services to assist pregnant mothers with unwanted babies, including materially as well as morally to keep their baby and counselling... including for those post-abortion. Alternative Services BPAS does not provide because the NHS doesn't fund those.

If you wanted information about an abortion, tell me, where would you go? An abortion clinic? Quite. Where better than to present the alternative choices and services than the place most would go to get advice! Sadly, BPAS only discusses having an abortion, not what the alternatives are. In fact they fought tooth and nail to make sure pre-abortion advice wasn't presented by independent counsellors when a proposal was put to Parliament last year. So who really is "prochoice"? Those who present the alternatives or those who refuse to present them?!
[quote][p][bold]sbiscorrupt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]marymog[/bold] wrote: I trust The Argus will cooperate with the Police by providing the website registration details of those threatening physical violence and intimidation to Andy Stephenson and his young family? Quite how people think photographs of dead babies are offensive when they so vocally support their termination, I don't know?! Its rather "ironic" that people should seek to silence Andy Stephenson for his defence of the right to freedom of speech! Accept it, the reason why people object to the displays is because they actually ABHOR abortion! People actually DO recognise it as taking innocent life and dehumanising the victims by calling them "cells" is just an attempt to cover up what folk know instinctively to be wrong! Why be so upset otherwise at scientific photos of the results of a simple, legal medical operation? For taste perhaps, but they can't call them "harassing" or "insulting". The pictures just show the results of an operation and deliberately without slogans. Abort67's main point is that unlike other medical procedures, clinical staff DON'T show what happens or what the results are. Why not? Because even they know its instinctively wrong! Why seek to cover up the realities of science and medicine when folk are quite happy to threaten violence and intimidation against others online and view violence on TV and in games without giving it a second thought?[/p][/quote]Isn't it funny how the pro life lot want it both ways... You are happy to intimidate women at a vulnerable time, and yet moan when there is perceived intimidation coming your way... I find that an easy one - I don't condone either! And as ever you mix up different issues You go on about freedom of speech, and yet wish to deny it to those with an opposing view. What most would agree with is that you have a right to say what you think, but that doesn't include the right to harass others when doing what they choose - and despite what you claim about the photos, some find them offensive... They don't bother me, but I can understand why some do! If you were that sure of your viewpoint, then why don't you set up your own drop in advice clinics, advertise your 'services', and then leave it to women to decide instead of 'getting in their faces'? But I'm glad you mention the realities of science, and the description of 'cells'... Because that means you won't be taking advantage of those medical advances that occur because of the use of said 'cells'... Or will you?[/p][/quote]I'm sorry you must think I was debating 'you' personally. I wasn't I was just commenting. Ref free speech, I'm not aware of any ProLife attempt to prevent others presenting the opposing view, can you provide some? But clearly from your comments you've never actually been to an Abort67 display. I suggest you do so you'll know what you're referring to instead of making scenario's up. You'll soon discover that they are not screaming fanatics shouting intimidating slogans! Unlike the so-called "ProChoice" lobby. You'd also discover that information is readily available on services to assist pregnant mothers with unwanted babies, including materially as well as morally to keep their baby and counselling... including for those post-abortion. Alternative Services BPAS does not provide because the NHS doesn't fund those. If you wanted information about an abortion, tell me, where would you go? An abortion clinic? Quite. Where better than to present the alternative choices and services than the place most would go to get advice! Sadly, BPAS only discusses having an abortion, not what the alternatives are. In fact they fought tooth and nail to make sure pre-abortion advice wasn't presented by independent counsellors when a proposal was put to Parliament last year. So who really is "prochoice"? Those who present the alternatives or those who refuse to present them?! marymog
  • Score: 0

3:58pm Tue 18 Sep 12

sbiscorrupt says...

@marymog

If you comment, then expect a debate!

You seem to quick to decide for yourself what other people think and what they have seen...

Whether it be your accusations as to what health professionals 'actually think' or your erroneous comment as to whether I have seen an Abort67 'display'...

Could you provide proof of 'screaming fanatics' from those who believe in a choice?

And your advice seems (aside from photos and harrassment) just to consist of a website and an email contact...

Hence why I say, if you really believe in what you say provide that alternative...

There are many forms of funding if you make your case, and I'm sure that there is the odd church organisation that might make a contribution - the 'jubilee church' comes to mind..!
@marymog If you comment, then expect a debate! You seem to quick to decide for yourself what other people think and what they have seen... Whether it be your accusations as to what health professionals 'actually think' or your erroneous comment as to whether I have seen an Abort67 'display'... Could you provide proof of 'screaming fanatics' from those who believe in a choice? And your advice seems (aside from photos and harrassment) just to consist of a website and an email contact... Hence why I say, if you really believe in what you say provide that alternative... There are many forms of funding if you make your case, and I'm sure that there is the odd church organisation that might make a contribution - the 'jubilee church' comes to mind..! sbiscorrupt
  • Score: 0

4:10pm Tue 18 Sep 12

marymog says...

Oh dear, you really don't know how to have an adult debate without resorting to polemic do you? When I did I claim to represent Abort67? I didn't. In fact when did I say I'm ProLife? Assumptions aside. I have actually been to and witnessed their display, it's obvious to anyone who has that you can't have done from your comments.

As for my generalist assessment of public opinion, I'm arguably no better than yourself...except that I have spoken to actually affected and involved people in the wider debate.

As for evidence of ProChoice screamers, a google search on media reports at Bedford Square London last March beautifully demonstrates the point.
Oh dear, you really don't know how to have an adult debate without resorting to polemic do you? When I did I claim to represent Abort67? I didn't. In fact when did I say I'm ProLife? Assumptions aside. I have actually been to and witnessed their display, it's obvious to anyone who has that you can't have done from your comments. As for my generalist assessment of public opinion, I'm arguably no better than yourself...except that I have spoken to actually affected and involved people in the wider debate. As for evidence of ProChoice screamers, a google search on media reports at Bedford Square London last March beautifully demonstrates the point. marymog
  • Score: 0

5:15pm Tue 18 Sep 12

sbiscorrupt says...

'Assumptions aside'?...You are the one making all the assumptions!

Please show where I have said you represent Abort67..Do read my posts carefully !

As to whether you are 'pro-life' , then I think your posts spell out your views quite clearly!

So stop digging your hole, as it is plain to see that you have lost the plot...

The first clue is right at the point where you accuse someone of not being able to have an adult debate just because they ask awkward questions!

The second is where you dismiss anything that challenges your beliefs out of hand...

The third is where you refuse to answer any said awkward questions...
'Assumptions aside'?...You are the one making all the assumptions! Please show where I have said you represent Abort67..Do read my posts carefully ! As to whether you are 'pro-life' , then I think your posts spell out your views quite clearly! So stop digging your hole, as it is plain to see that you have lost the plot... The first clue is right at the point where you accuse someone of not being able to have an adult debate just because they ask awkward questions! The second is where you dismiss anything that challenges your beliefs out of hand... The third is where you refuse to answer any said awkward questions... sbiscorrupt
  • Score: 0

5:23pm Tue 18 Sep 12

marymog says...

You referred to a "website and email address" re my point about alternative services informed from the Abort67 display... who's "website and email address" were you refering to in your reply then?

What "awkward questions" have you asked that I haven't answered?

What "stated beliefs" have I made?

Who actually isn't reading things properly?!
You referred to a "website and email address" re my point about alternative services informed from the Abort67 display... who's "website and email address" were you refering to in your reply then? What "awkward questions" have you asked that I haven't answered? What "stated beliefs" have I made? Who actually isn't reading things properly?! marymog
  • Score: 0

8:33pm Tue 18 Sep 12

AmboGuy says...

As I've already said, the simple act of standing outside an abortion clinic while women are forced to walk past them to go inside is an act of intimidation. If a woman is walking into the clinic on her own there is nobody to back her up against the bullies at the gates

If a protest group chose to stand outside a mosque handing out leaflets stating why they think the muslim religion is wrong do you think the people walking in past them might feel intimidated or angry perhaps? Would that be acceptable?

Why don't these vile protesters protest somewhere else AWAY from the clinic? What would be wrong with a protest in Churchill Square? They could have a public place to protest, we could just ignore them while we go shopping and they wouldn't be intimidating woman by the clinic - there you go everyone's happy!!
As I've already said, the simple act of standing outside an abortion clinic while women are forced to walk past them to go inside is an act of intimidation. If a woman is walking into the clinic on her own there is nobody to back her up against the bullies at the gates If a protest group chose to stand outside a mosque handing out leaflets stating why they think the muslim religion is wrong do you think the people walking in past them might feel intimidated or angry perhaps? Would that be acceptable? Why don't these vile protesters protest somewhere else AWAY from the clinic? What would be wrong with a protest in Churchill Square? They could have a public place to protest, we could just ignore them while we go shopping and they wouldn't be intimidating woman by the clinic - there you go everyone's happy!! AmboGuy
  • Score: 0

10:07pm Tue 18 Sep 12

marymog says...

AmboGuy wrote:
As I've already said, the simple act of standing outside an abortion clinic while women are forced to walk past them to go inside is an act of intimidation. If a woman is walking into the clinic on her own there is nobody to back her up against the bullies at the gates

If a protest group chose to stand outside a mosque handing out leaflets stating why they think the muslim religion is wrong do you think the people walking in past them might feel intimidated or angry perhaps? Would that be acceptable?

Why don't these vile protesters protest somewhere else AWAY from the clinic? What would be wrong with a protest in Churchill Square? They could have a public place to protest, we could just ignore them while we go shopping and they wouldn't be intimidating woman by the clinic - there you go everyone's happy!!
1) There are no "bullies" at the gates. There are women, some of whom have had abortions, standing quietly ready to present the information about abortion the Clinic won't. If you've ever been to see the display at Wistons you'd know the display is not at the gate but around the corner from it and there are two access routes to get to the main entrance without passing the heavily signposted display.

2) Exactly because the Clinic won't discuss or provide information to women about a) alternatives or b) what actually happens, it is felt necessary to be at "point of enquiry"... people don't shop around Churchill Square for medical advice let alone abortions.

All this was recognised today in the Magistrate's written judgement, both about the pictures and Abort67's behaviour, "I am not satisfied... that these images are "threatening, abusive or insulting". If Abort67 had been behaving at all in the way some of you here would like to suggest, no doubt the Magistrate would've come to a different judgement. Truth is, Abort67 don't intimidate, threaten, shout slogans or yell "murderer" like some ProChoicers would like to suggest. Exactly because they are peaceful and civil and because their intention is not to give deliberate offence but to raise awareness they were found not guilty.
[quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: As I've already said, the simple act of standing outside an abortion clinic while women are forced to walk past them to go inside is an act of intimidation. If a woman is walking into the clinic on her own there is nobody to back her up against the bullies at the gates If a protest group chose to stand outside a mosque handing out leaflets stating why they think the muslim religion is wrong do you think the people walking in past them might feel intimidated or angry perhaps? Would that be acceptable? Why don't these vile protesters protest somewhere else AWAY from the clinic? What would be wrong with a protest in Churchill Square? They could have a public place to protest, we could just ignore them while we go shopping and they wouldn't be intimidating woman by the clinic - there you go everyone's happy!![/p][/quote]1) There are no "bullies" at the gates. There are women, some of whom have had abortions, standing quietly ready to present the information about abortion the Clinic won't. If you've ever been to see the display at Wistons you'd know the display is not at the gate but around the corner from it and there are two access routes to get to the main entrance without passing the heavily signposted display. 2) Exactly because the Clinic won't discuss or provide information to women about a) alternatives or b) what actually happens, it is felt necessary to be at "point of enquiry"... people don't shop around Churchill Square for medical advice let alone abortions. [Though there's otherwise nothing wrong with the idea of displaying there too.] All this was recognised today in the Magistrate's written judgement, both about the pictures and Abort67's behaviour, "I am not satisfied... that these images are "threatening, abusive or insulting". If Abort67 had been behaving at all in the way some of you here would like to suggest, no doubt the Magistrate would've come to a different judgement. Truth is, Abort67 don't intimidate, threaten, shout slogans or yell "murderer" like some ProChoicers would like to suggest. Exactly because they are peaceful and civil and because their intention is not to give deliberate offence but to raise awareness they were found not guilty. marymog
  • Score: 0

10:13pm Tue 18 Sep 12

John Allman says...

sbiscorrupt wrote:
'Assumptions aside'?...You are the one making all the assumptions!

Please show where I have said you represent Abort67..Do read my posts carefully !

As to whether you are 'pro-life' , then I think your posts spell out your views quite clearly!

So stop digging your hole, as it is plain to see that you have lost the plot...

The first clue is right at the point where you accuse someone of not being able to have an adult debate just because they ask awkward questions!

The second is where you dismiss anything that challenges your beliefs out of hand...

The third is where you refuse to answer any said awkward questions...
There are never any "awkward questions". Just the same assertions, over and over again, not least the thoroughly discredited claim that Abort 67 "intimidate" vulnerable women.

How does anybody who pretends that a human foetus is anything other than an unborn child sustain the argument that pictures of foetuses who have been killed are any more offensive than pork chops in a butcher's shop window?
[quote][p][bold]sbiscorrupt[/bold] wrote: 'Assumptions aside'?...You are the one making all the assumptions! Please show where I have said you represent Abort67..Do read my posts carefully ! As to whether you are 'pro-life' , then I think your posts spell out your views quite clearly! So stop digging your hole, as it is plain to see that you have lost the plot... The first clue is right at the point where you accuse someone of not being able to have an adult debate just because they ask awkward questions! The second is where you dismiss anything that challenges your beliefs out of hand... The third is where you refuse to answer any said awkward questions...[/p][/quote]There are never any "awkward questions". Just the same assertions, over and over again, not least the thoroughly discredited claim that Abort 67 "intimidate" vulnerable women. How does anybody who pretends that a human foetus is anything other than an unborn child sustain the argument that pictures of foetuses who have been killed are any more offensive than pork chops in a butcher's shop window? John Allman
  • Score: 0

10:19pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Maxwell's Ghost says...

I'm with Amboguy on this one. These two, particularly an adult male, would have intimidated and scared many women because the behaviour is outside realms of normal or reasonable behaviour, particulalry by men who just don't act in this way.
What 'average' or 'normal' man of this age, would stand outside a women's clinic behaving in this way. Most men would not do this and would be in work doing everyday things. Many people must have thought he was mentally ill, unstable and unpredictable because this is just not normal behaviour. That unusual behaviour in itself is intimidating. I wonder what would happen if this man did the same thing outside a children's nursery?
Also, these two are selfish. They have no idea of these women's stories. They could be attending the clinic because they have been raped, or maybe they are victims of sexual abuse.
Can you imagine how vulnerable women must have felt faced by two 'unusual' charcters behaving in an unusual way at what may be a vulnerable time in their life.
These two don't care about that, only their own concerns, and that in itself would be intimidating as if they don't care about why the women are at the clinic, one would be wary of what they may do next, even if they did attend in peace.
This bullying, particulalry by a man, is exactly why women will unite and fight his type of oppression and bullying which may have put some women in the clinic in the first place.
While I support freedom of speech, I suspect that this man's actions was an intended form of intimidation.
I'm with Amboguy on this one. These two, particularly an adult male, would have intimidated and scared many women because the behaviour is outside realms of normal or reasonable behaviour, particulalry by men who just don't act in this way. What 'average' or 'normal' man of this age, would stand outside a women's clinic behaving in this way. Most men would not do this and would be in work doing everyday things. Many people must have thought he was mentally ill, unstable and unpredictable because this is just not normal behaviour. That unusual behaviour in itself is intimidating. I wonder what would happen if this man did the same thing outside a children's nursery? Also, these two are selfish. They have no idea of these women's stories. They could be attending the clinic because they have been raped, or maybe they are victims of sexual abuse. Can you imagine how vulnerable women must have felt faced by two 'unusual' charcters behaving in an unusual way at what may be a vulnerable time in their life. These two don't care about that, only their own concerns, and that in itself would be intimidating as if they don't care about why the women are at the clinic, one would be wary of what they may do next, even if they did attend in peace. This bullying, particulalry by a man, is exactly why women will unite and fight his type of oppression and bullying which may have put some women in the clinic in the first place. While I support freedom of speech, I suspect that this man's actions was an intended form of intimidation. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 0

10:30pm Tue 18 Sep 12

AmboGuy says...

marymog wrote:
AmboGuy wrote:
As I've already said, the simple act of standing outside an abortion clinic while women are forced to walk past them to go inside is an act of intimidation. If a woman is walking into the clinic on her own there is nobody to back her up against the bullies at the gates

If a protest group chose to stand outside a mosque handing out leaflets stating why they think the muslim religion is wrong do you think the people walking in past them might feel intimidated or angry perhaps? Would that be acceptable?

Why don't these vile protesters protest somewhere else AWAY from the clinic? What would be wrong with a protest in Churchill Square? They could have a public place to protest, we could just ignore them while we go shopping and they wouldn't be intimidating woman by the clinic - there you go everyone's happy!!
1) There are no "bullies" at the gates. There are women, some of whom have had abortions, standing quietly ready to present the information about abortion the Clinic won't. If you've ever been to see the display at Wistons you'd know the display is not at the gate but around the corner from it and there are two access routes to get to the main entrance without passing the heavily signposted display.

2) Exactly because the Clinic won't discuss or provide information to women about a) alternatives or b) what actually happens, it is felt necessary to be at "point of enquiry"... people don't shop around Churchill Square for medical advice let alone abortions.

All this was recognised today in the Magistrate's written judgement, both about the pictures and Abort67's behaviour, "I am not satisfied... that these images are "threatening, abusive or insulting". If Abort67 had been behaving at all in the way some of you here would like to suggest, no doubt the Magistrate would've come to a different judgement. Truth is, Abort67 don't intimidate, threaten, shout slogans or yell "murderer" like some ProChoicers would like to suggest. Exactly because they are peaceful and civil and because their intention is not to give deliberate offence but to raise awareness they were found not guilty.
Yes but the fact is that there are protesters standing AT THE GATES, I know this because I have seen them with my own eyes! They don't need to shout 'murderer' to be intimidating, just being there is enough. I don't care where the display is as the fact is that there should be NO protesters at the front gate. How arrogant are these people to feel that they have the right to tell someone else what they can or can't do with their own body ? - unfortunately religion is often involved and this seems to cloud these peoples judgement.
Who the hell are you or anyone to say that 'it is felt necessary to be at point of inquiry', have you any idea how self righteous that sounds?
Many protests are held in the city centre so don't use the excuse that people don't come looking for medical advice there. There are people handing out leaflets about all sorts of different causes and if women want to hear what you have to say then they will come up to you without being forced to walk right passed you. This is the very essence of what you are doing wrong - you are forcing women to have to confront when they walk right past you and this is intimidation - you can try to put whatever spin on it you like but what you are doing is morally wrong and is bullying.
[quote][p][bold]marymog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: As I've already said, the simple act of standing outside an abortion clinic while women are forced to walk past them to go inside is an act of intimidation. If a woman is walking into the clinic on her own there is nobody to back her up against the bullies at the gates If a protest group chose to stand outside a mosque handing out leaflets stating why they think the muslim religion is wrong do you think the people walking in past them might feel intimidated or angry perhaps? Would that be acceptable? Why don't these vile protesters protest somewhere else AWAY from the clinic? What would be wrong with a protest in Churchill Square? They could have a public place to protest, we could just ignore them while we go shopping and they wouldn't be intimidating woman by the clinic - there you go everyone's happy!![/p][/quote]1) There are no "bullies" at the gates. There are women, some of whom have had abortions, standing quietly ready to present the information about abortion the Clinic won't. If you've ever been to see the display at Wistons you'd know the display is not at the gate but around the corner from it and there are two access routes to get to the main entrance without passing the heavily signposted display. 2) Exactly because the Clinic won't discuss or provide information to women about a) alternatives or b) what actually happens, it is felt necessary to be at "point of enquiry"... people don't shop around Churchill Square for medical advice let alone abortions. [Though there's otherwise nothing wrong with the idea of displaying there too.] All this was recognised today in the Magistrate's written judgement, both about the pictures and Abort67's behaviour, "I am not satisfied... that these images are "threatening, abusive or insulting". If Abort67 had been behaving at all in the way some of you here would like to suggest, no doubt the Magistrate would've come to a different judgement. Truth is, Abort67 don't intimidate, threaten, shout slogans or yell "murderer" like some ProChoicers would like to suggest. Exactly because they are peaceful and civil and because their intention is not to give deliberate offence but to raise awareness they were found not guilty.[/p][/quote]Yes but the fact is that there are protesters standing AT THE GATES, I know this because I have seen them with my own eyes! They don't need to shout 'murderer' to be intimidating, just being there is enough. I don't care where the display is as the fact is that there should be NO protesters at the front gate. How arrogant are these people to feel that they have the right to tell someone else what they can or can't do with their own body ? - unfortunately religion is often involved and this seems to cloud these peoples judgement. Who the hell are you or anyone to say that 'it is felt necessary to be at point of inquiry', have you any idea how self righteous that sounds? Many protests are held in the city centre so don't use the excuse that people don't come looking for medical advice there. There are people handing out leaflets about all sorts of different causes and if women want to hear what you have to say then they will come up to you without being forced to walk right passed you. This is the very essence of what you are doing wrong - you are forcing women to have to confront when they walk right past you and this is intimidation - you can try to put whatever spin on it you like but what you are doing is morally wrong and is bullying. AmboGuy
  • Score: 0

10:47pm Tue 18 Sep 12

marymog says...

How many "protests" about medical scenarios are held in the shopping centre? I think "Embarrassing Bodies" filmed there once, but otherwise its not usual to find people "protesting" or even distributing information about medical conditions... Nightclubs, Fastfood Chains, Animal Rights, Palestinian Liberation and various others, but in all the years I've lived in central Brighton I've never seen anyone giving out information even about breast cancer. Collecting maybe, distributing information, never.

Who's "telling people what they can or can't do with their own body"?

Why do you use subjective and emotional language in an anonymous debate online?

Do you know how bigoted you appear? (Please look it up first before you suggest that I'm a bigot. Then re-read your comments and compare them, the style, language and expressed opinions, with mine. I have offered you rational, impersonal responses, you ignore them and reply with emotional polemic.)
How many "protests" about medical scenarios are held in the shopping centre? I think "Embarrassing Bodies" filmed there once, but otherwise its not usual to find people "protesting" or even distributing information about medical conditions... Nightclubs, Fastfood Chains, Animal Rights, Palestinian Liberation and various others, but in all the years I've lived in central Brighton I've never seen anyone giving out information even about breast cancer. Collecting maybe, distributing information, never. Who's "telling people what they can or can't do with their own body"? Why do you use subjective and emotional language in an anonymous debate online? Do you know how bigoted you appear? (Please look it up first before you suggest that I'm a bigot. Then re-read your comments and compare them, the style, language and expressed opinions, with mine. I have offered you rational, impersonal responses, you ignore them and reply with emotional polemic.) marymog
  • Score: 0

6:40am Wed 19 Sep 12

AmboGuy says...

So because you've never seen anyone protesting in the city centre then it can't happen? Is this more to do with the fact that you know how against you the majority of decent people are? I suppose as well it's easier to bully women when there's nobody else around to defend them eh?
You talk about me using emotive language, yes absolutely. What your group does turns my stomach and you should be thougholy ashamed of yourself. You also seem to think that because I voice my opposition to you that I'm the arrogant one - well I'm not the one accosting young women outside an abortion clinic. Like all bullies you don't seem to like people standing up to you.
Maybe you would consider protesting in Churchill Square for one day to see what level of support you have from the general public? I think you know what the answer is to that which is why you keep away.
So because you've never seen anyone protesting in the city centre then it can't happen? Is this more to do with the fact that you know how against you the majority of decent people are? I suppose as well it's easier to bully women when there's nobody else around to defend them eh? You talk about me using emotive language, yes absolutely. What your group does turns my stomach and you should be thougholy ashamed of yourself. You also seem to think that because I voice my opposition to you that I'm the arrogant one - well I'm not the one accosting young women outside an abortion clinic. Like all bullies you don't seem to like people standing up to you. Maybe you would consider protesting in Churchill Square for one day to see what level of support you have from the general public? I think you know what the answer is to that which is why you keep away. AmboGuy
  • Score: 0

7:20am Wed 19 Sep 12

Maxwell's Ghost says...

Today new laws are coming into place in which 'psychological' abuse will be included to protect people from domestic abuse.
Perhaps these laws will be widened to the wider community and not just within a domestic situation, because I would suggest that this protest outside this clinic would fall within the 'psychological abuse' category.
As I said, I wonder how the police would act if this pair were standing right outside the gates of a nursery.
I suspect the reaction by police to 'unusual and worrying' behaviour by a grown man would be dealt with more strongly.....that's if the protective mothers had not dealt with this pair themselves.
It is nothing but bullying and intimidation and women have fought since they got the right to vote not to be oppressed by men in this way. If this man has a genuine desire to protest, he should lobby Parliament and take his banner to the HoC not prey on vulnerable women but I suppose he doesn't care if they have been raped or sexually abused by men, because he certainly doesn't care about where he protests.
Instead of bullying women why doesn't he do something useful with his time and talk to young men about contraception.
As for you marymog, I wonder if you would like it if your elderly mother were undergoing cancer treatment and this man was stood at the gates of the chemotherapy unit with animal testing banners upsetting her.
It's the wrong place and the wrong audience.
Sadly, you have to accept that these women have the lefal right to abortions and may have very real reasons to have one.
This man is a bully of women not a protector of unborn children.
Today new laws are coming into place in which 'psychological' abuse will be included to protect people from domestic abuse. Perhaps these laws will be widened to the wider community and not just within a domestic situation, because I would suggest that this protest outside this clinic would fall within the 'psychological abuse' category. As I said, I wonder how the police would act if this pair were standing right outside the gates of a nursery. I suspect the reaction by police to 'unusual and worrying' behaviour by a grown man would be dealt with more strongly.....that's if the protective mothers had not dealt with this pair themselves. It is nothing but bullying and intimidation and women have fought since they got the right to vote not to be oppressed by men in this way. If this man has a genuine desire to protest, he should lobby Parliament and take his banner to the HoC not prey on vulnerable women but I suppose he doesn't care if they have been raped or sexually abused by men, because he certainly doesn't care about where he protests. Instead of bullying women why doesn't he do something useful with his time and talk to young men about contraception. As for you marymog, I wonder if you would like it if your elderly mother were undergoing cancer treatment and this man was stood at the gates of the chemotherapy unit with animal testing banners upsetting her. It's the wrong place and the wrong audience. Sadly, you have to accept that these women have the lefal right to abortions and may have very real reasons to have one. This man is a bully of women not a protector of unborn children. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 0

9:22am Wed 19 Sep 12

AmboGuy says...

I suppose I'd add that I'd be very interested in hearing what this 'medical advice' you give is exactly. I presume that the people giving this advice must have full medical training in order to give advice, is this the case? Is it even legal to give 'medical advice' to strangers if you have no official medical qualifications?

You also mention that you advise women on the 'alternatives' to abortion! Clearly the only alternative is to give birth to the baby - if you think they haven't worked that out then you clearly don't think much if the intelligence of the women going in there.
I suppose I'd add that I'd be very interested in hearing what this 'medical advice' you give is exactly. I presume that the people giving this advice must have full medical training in order to give advice, is this the case? Is it even legal to give 'medical advice' to strangers if you have no official medical qualifications? You also mention that you advise women on the 'alternatives' to abortion! Clearly the only alternative is to give birth to the baby - if you think they haven't worked that out then you clearly don't think much if the intelligence of the women going in there. AmboGuy
  • Score: 0

12:53pm Wed 19 Sep 12

Lewesroadresident says...

marymog wrote:
AmboGuy wrote: As I've already said, the simple act of standing outside an abortion clinic while women are forced to walk past them to go inside is an act of intimidation. If a woman is walking into the clinic on her own there is nobody to back her up against the bullies at the gates If a protest group chose to stand outside a mosque handing out leaflets stating why they think the muslim religion is wrong do you think the people walking in past them might feel intimidated or angry perhaps? Would that be acceptable? Why don't these vile protesters protest somewhere else AWAY from the clinic? What would be wrong with a protest in Churchill Square? They could have a public place to protest, we could just ignore them while we go shopping and they wouldn't be intimidating woman by the clinic - there you go everyone's happy!!
1) There are no "bullies" at the gates. There are women, some of whom have had abortions, standing quietly ready to present the information about abortion the Clinic won't. If you've ever been to see the display at Wistons you'd know the display is not at the gate but around the corner from it and there are two access routes to get to the main entrance without passing the heavily signposted display. 2) Exactly because the Clinic won't discuss or provide information to women about a) alternatives or b) what actually happens, it is felt necessary to be at "point of enquiry"... people don't shop around Churchill Square for medical advice let alone abortions. All this was recognised today in the Magistrate's written judgement, both about the pictures and Abort67's behaviour, "I am not satisfied... that these images are "threatening, abusive or insulting". If Abort67 had been behaving at all in the way some of you here would like to suggest, no doubt the Magistrate would've come to a different judgement. Truth is, Abort67 don't intimidate, threaten, shout slogans or yell "murderer" like some ProChoicers would like to suggest. Exactly because they are peaceful and civil and because their intention is not to give deliberate offence but to raise awareness they were found not guilty.
Don't be so disingenuous Mary. You know exactly why anti abortion protestors stand outside clinics. It is to make it more difficult for a woman who is already in a traumatic situation to go through with a desicion they have made elsewhere. The primary function of this clinic is to carry out the procedure, after those involved have already been to their GP and had advice offered to them, from more than one source.

Alternatives will already have been made clear and to claim that the clinic does not inform patients of what happens is blatantly untrue. They inform patients of what the medical procedure involves, which is their job. Abort 67's interpretation of what happens is not explained because it does not revolve around medical fact, which is the primary responsibility of the clinic at this stage.

Clearly the actions of Abort 67 are not illegal, but that does not make them any less reprehensible. Targeting vulnerable women is disgraceful behaviour, as is your attempt to defend their actions.

They were found not guilty because they did not break the law. The verdict is not confirmation of Abort 67 'raising awareness'.

It is possible of course that Abort 67 are a lovely group of people with a genuine desire to 'help' others. Unfortunately for them, the rest of the global pro-life lobby tend to be rather extreme, violent (numerous murders of those who have actually been born), and their opinions based on fictional beliefs rather than medical facts.

If someone doesn't agree with the fact that abortion is legal in the UK, then perhaps they should try to get the law changed by targeting people who can change it. To target those who have decided to take advantage of their current legal right is cowardly behaviour, that is effectively an admission of the futility of the exercise. The majority want pro-choice in the UK. Targeting a few traumatised women is not going to change that, but it will affect their lives, and that seems to most on this board to be harassment, even if not in the legal sense.
[quote][p][bold]marymog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: As I've already said, the simple act of standing outside an abortion clinic while women are forced to walk past them to go inside is an act of intimidation. If a woman is walking into the clinic on her own there is nobody to back her up against the bullies at the gates If a protest group chose to stand outside a mosque handing out leaflets stating why they think the muslim religion is wrong do you think the people walking in past them might feel intimidated or angry perhaps? Would that be acceptable? Why don't these vile protesters protest somewhere else AWAY from the clinic? What would be wrong with a protest in Churchill Square? They could have a public place to protest, we could just ignore them while we go shopping and they wouldn't be intimidating woman by the clinic - there you go everyone's happy!![/p][/quote]1) There are no "bullies" at the gates. There are women, some of whom have had abortions, standing quietly ready to present the information about abortion the Clinic won't. If you've ever been to see the display at Wistons you'd know the display is not at the gate but around the corner from it and there are two access routes to get to the main entrance without passing the heavily signposted display. 2) Exactly because the Clinic won't discuss or provide information to women about a) alternatives or b) what actually happens, it is felt necessary to be at "point of enquiry"... people don't shop around Churchill Square for medical advice let alone abortions. [Though there's otherwise nothing wrong with the idea of displaying there too.] All this was recognised today in the Magistrate's written judgement, both about the pictures and Abort67's behaviour, "I am not satisfied... that these images are "threatening, abusive or insulting". If Abort67 had been behaving at all in the way some of you here would like to suggest, no doubt the Magistrate would've come to a different judgement. Truth is, Abort67 don't intimidate, threaten, shout slogans or yell "murderer" like some ProChoicers would like to suggest. Exactly because they are peaceful and civil and because their intention is not to give deliberate offence but to raise awareness they were found not guilty.[/p][/quote]Don't be so disingenuous Mary. You know exactly why anti abortion protestors stand outside clinics. It is to make it more difficult for a woman who is already in a traumatic situation to go through with a desicion they have made elsewhere. The primary function of this clinic is to carry out the procedure, after those involved have already been to their GP and had advice offered to them, from more than one source. Alternatives will already have been made clear and to claim that the clinic does not inform patients of what happens is blatantly untrue. They inform patients of what the medical procedure involves, which is their job. Abort 67's interpretation of what happens is not explained because it does not revolve around medical fact, which is the primary responsibility of the clinic at this stage. Clearly the actions of Abort 67 are not illegal, but that does not make them any less reprehensible. Targeting vulnerable women is disgraceful behaviour, as is your attempt to defend their actions. They were found not guilty because they did not break the law. The verdict is not confirmation of Abort 67 'raising awareness'. It is possible of course that Abort 67 are a lovely group of people with a genuine desire to 'help' others. Unfortunately for them, the rest of the global pro-life lobby tend to be rather extreme, violent (numerous murders of those who have actually been born), and their opinions based on fictional beliefs rather than medical facts. If someone doesn't agree with the fact that abortion is legal in the UK, then perhaps they should try to get the law changed by targeting people who can change it. To target those who have decided to take advantage of their current legal right is cowardly behaviour, that is effectively an admission of the futility of the exercise. The majority want pro-choice in the UK. Targeting a few traumatised women is not going to change that, but it will affect their lives, and that seems to most on this board to be harassment, even if not in the legal sense. Lewesroadresident
  • Score: 0

5:08pm Wed 19 Sep 12

oh dear says...

It is insulting to the women attending at BPAS to think they haven't considered what their baby/foetus may look like, how developed it is, what the alternatives may be. I seriously don't think a shock tactic like those photos is going to make it a more considered process for them but will make it a more distressing experience.
Does anyone believe that the women are ignorantly skipping into that clinic, happy to 'get rid' and move on?! Very very insulting...
Also, I would argue it is intimidation. This is a highly sensitive and personal matter. I have not found myself in such a scenario where I have considered an abortion but even being fairly confident in myself and not too uncomfortable talking about personal matters, if I was on my way in for a smear test for instance, I cannot imagine how I would feel if outside the clinic there were men (and women) holding up big pictures of the procedure; and this is a far less emotive issue but is personal and sensitive. I'd feel intimidated, vulnerable and exposed. I have an idea of what goes on 'down there' but health professionals never handed me leaflets with photos of it and to think women attending at BPAS have no clue and haven't even thought about it without the photos is ridiculous. There are other approaches that would not compromise free speech but would not intimidate and distress the already vulnerable.
It is insulting to the women attending at BPAS to think they haven't considered what their baby/foetus may look like, how developed it is, what the alternatives may be. I seriously don't think a shock tactic like those photos is going to make it a more considered process for them but will make it a more distressing experience. Does anyone believe that the women are ignorantly skipping into that clinic, happy to 'get rid' and move on?! Very very insulting... Also, I would argue it is intimidation. This is a highly sensitive and personal matter. I have not found myself in such a scenario where I have considered an abortion but even being fairly confident in myself and not too uncomfortable talking about personal matters, if I was on my way in for a smear test for instance, I cannot imagine how I would feel if outside the clinic there were men (and women) holding up big pictures of the procedure; and this is a far less emotive issue but is personal and sensitive. I'd feel intimidated, vulnerable and exposed. I have an idea of what goes on 'down there' but health professionals never handed me leaflets with photos of it and to think women attending at BPAS have no clue and haven't even thought about it without the photos is ridiculous. There are other approaches that would not compromise free speech but would not intimidate and distress the already vulnerable. oh dear
  • Score: 0

6:05pm Wed 19 Sep 12

marymog says...

For goodness sake people "I" haven't said "I" do anything for anyone! Stop trying to personalise and think objectively about the arguments and what's actually been written. "I" didn't suggest anyone get medical advice from anyone, I simply asserted that most shoppers don't go to Churchill Sq for medical advice, and I did not say that Abort67 gives medical advice! I also said I don't represent Abort67!
For goodness sake people "I" haven't said "I" do anything for anyone! Stop trying to personalise and think objectively about the arguments and what's actually been written. "I" didn't suggest anyone get medical advice from anyone, I simply asserted that most shoppers don't go to Churchill Sq for medical advice, and I did not say that Abort67 gives medical advice! I also said I don't represent Abort67! marymog
  • Score: 0

7:33pm Wed 19 Sep 12

AmboGuy says...

marymog wrote:
For goodness sake people "I" haven't said "I" do anything for anyone! Stop trying to personalise and think objectively about the arguments and what's actually been written. "I" didn't suggest anyone get medical advice from anyone, I simply asserted that most shoppers don't go to Churchill Sq for medical advice, and I did not say that Abort67 gives medical advice! I also said I don't represent Abort67!
Oh how about you stop dodging the questions and just answer them. It was you who first used the term 'medical advice' not anyone else so why did you say that if that's it the case?
A few other points were also raised which you've blatantly chosen to ignore so why don't you try again.
[quote][p][bold]marymog[/bold] wrote: For goodness sake people "I" haven't said "I" do anything for anyone! Stop trying to personalise and think objectively about the arguments and what's actually been written. "I" didn't suggest anyone get medical advice from anyone, I simply asserted that most shoppers don't go to Churchill Sq for medical advice, and I did not say that Abort67 gives medical advice! I also said I don't represent Abort67![/p][/quote]Oh how about you stop dodging the questions and just answer them. It was you who first used the term 'medical advice' not anyone else so why did you say that if that's it the case? A few other points were also raised which you've blatantly chosen to ignore so why don't you try again. AmboGuy
  • Score: 0

2:35pm Thu 20 Sep 12

AmboGuy says...

Ok so that seems to be a no comment from the pro life lot on this forum. I suppose they're not used to people talking back to them as the women they harass are usually much too scared to say anything back to them.
Ok so that seems to be a no comment from the pro life lot on this forum. I suppose they're not used to people talking back to them as the women they harass are usually much too scared to say anything back to them. AmboGuy
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree