Tbf, it's not the case that they are more worried about wrongthink because they're just not worried at all by petty theft - or almost any other instance of micro-criminality.
Would you believe me if I said the police aren't worried about it because even if they put in the effort and catch thieves, they won't be prosecuted very hard. Since 2014, "low-value shoplifting" (under £200) in England and Wales can only be tried in the Magistrate's court and have a maximum sentence of 6 months (now ~1 year since 2024), no matter how many summary offenses you're convicted of. So if you steal under £200 of stuff, hundreds of times over, it's the same outcome. You'll be back on the street very soon.
The government is currently seeking to amend that:
> The bill will remove the perceived immunity granted to shop theft of goods to the value of £200 or less, by repealing Section 22A of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 and the legislation that inserted it (section 176 of Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014).
> This will ensure that all offences are tried as ‘general theft’ (an either way offence with a maximum custodial sentence of seven years), instead of summarily in the magistrates’ court, unless the defendant elects for jury trial
"Either-way" here means that the offence can be tried either as a summary or indictable offence; an indictable offence can carry much more serious penalties.
I don't disagree, and I would add that the court system is so clogged up that one might not even end up behind bars at all - because by the time the hearing is finally scheduled, the perp might well be on another continent.
Still, the public would appreciate some effort - if anything to actually get some of their stuff back, if not to inconvenience thieves.
There's a recent video of a woman getting arrested, not for the first time, for admitting that she might be praying to herself inside her head, silently.
Because there is a law against people impeding or trying to influence people within 150 meters of an abortion clinic. Her admitted goal was trying to influence people entering. Will her defense be that she does not believe prayer has an influence on the world?
Most would agree that 150 people standing in front of the abortion clinic would obviously an attempt to impede or influence people. What if someone stands there "praying" but really noting faces and license plates for future harassment? Where does the law draw that line?
The ADF is a discriminatory, corrosive organization that has done real harm to millions by rolling back civil rights in the US, and now they have taken their agenda internationally.
The hypocrisy of calling this a "thought crime" is stunning. ADF is the same organization that brought a case against a Colorado law that banned discrimination against LGBTQ businesses, because a baker was worried she may have to bake a cake for a gay wedding - which she was never asked to do. So some thoughts are legally protected (prayer) while others (concern) are justifications to roll back civil rights. But the thoughts of others (terror and shame while entering an abortion clinic, feelings when discriminated against, love for a same sex partner) are irrelevant and not worthy of protection.
Their stated purpose is "advancing every person’s God-given right to live and speak the truth" - but only "live" and speak the "truth" that they deem to be correct, based on their evangelical and politically-charged interpretation of Christianity. And they want that legislated.
It is the case in reality. We are talking about an objectively measurable outcome, and delusional thinking from the propaganda victims does not change it.
Tbf, it's not the case that they are more worried about wrongthink because they're just not worried at all by petty theft - or almost any other instance of micro-criminality.
Would you believe me if I said the police aren't worried about it because even if they put in the effort and catch thieves, they won't be prosecuted very hard. Since 2014, "low-value shoplifting" (under £200) in England and Wales can only be tried in the Magistrate's court and have a maximum sentence of 6 months (now ~1 year since 2024), no matter how many summary offenses you're convicted of. So if you steal under £200 of stuff, hundreds of times over, it's the same outcome. You'll be back on the street very soon.
The government is currently seeking to amend that:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/crime-and-policin...
> The bill will remove the perceived immunity granted to shop theft of goods to the value of £200 or less, by repealing Section 22A of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 and the legislation that inserted it (section 176 of Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014).
> This will ensure that all offences are tried as ‘general theft’ (an either way offence with a maximum custodial sentence of seven years), instead of summarily in the magistrates’ court, unless the defendant elects for jury trial
"Either-way" here means that the offence can be tried either as a summary or indictable offence; an indictable offence can carry much more serious penalties.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/12/section/176
> 22A (1) Low-value shoplifting is triable only summarily.
I don't disagree, and I would add that the court system is so clogged up that one might not even end up behind bars at all - because by the time the hearing is finally scheduled, the perp might well be on another continent.
Still, the public would appreciate some effort - if anything to actually get some of their stuff back, if not to inconvenience thieves.
There's a recent video of a woman getting arrested, not for the first time, for admitting that she might be praying to herself inside her head, silently.
Here's an article I searched up about it: https://adfinternational.org/news/uk-christian-woman-crimina...
Because there is a law against people impeding or trying to influence people within 150 meters of an abortion clinic. Her admitted goal was trying to influence people entering. Will her defense be that she does not believe prayer has an influence on the world?
Most would agree that 150 people standing in front of the abortion clinic would obviously an attempt to impede or influence people. What if someone stands there "praying" but really noting faces and license plates for future harassment? Where does the law draw that line?
The ADF is a discriminatory, corrosive organization that has done real harm to millions by rolling back civil rights in the US, and now they have taken their agenda internationally.
The hypocrisy of calling this a "thought crime" is stunning. ADF is the same organization that brought a case against a Colorado law that banned discrimination against LGBTQ businesses, because a baker was worried she may have to bake a cake for a gay wedding - which she was never asked to do. So some thoughts are legally protected (prayer) while others (concern) are justifications to roll back civil rights. But the thoughts of others (terror and shame while entering an abortion clinic, feelings when discriminated against, love for a same sex partner) are irrelevant and not worthy of protection.
Their stated purpose is "advancing every person’s God-given right to live and speak the truth" - but only "live" and speak the "truth" that they deem to be correct, based on their evangelical and politically-charged interpretation of Christianity. And they want that legislated.
(outside an abortion facility)
Yes, the place she thought needed her prayers.
How is that important?
3 replies →
It is the case in reality. We are talking about an objectively measurable outcome, and delusional thinking from the propaganda victims does not change it.