100 meter exclusion zone

[WILF 44,334]

3 minutes ago, NEWKID said:

I agree with free speech, it's something we are losing as a country with only a few being allowed free speech......but....

if me and my wife were told she was carrying a severely disabled child etc... and we made the heart breaking decision to terminate, as we felt it was the right thing for the unborn child and us,... if some  prick started shouting murderer and waving some stupid plackatd at my wife as we were walking through the hospital... the plackard would be shoved up their ass and they'd be kicked down Ealing High Street

And rightly so.

The common sense approach, we don’t need politicians to do this stuff for us really when you think about it.

 

[NEWKID 26,211]

Just now, WILF said:

Now that’s part of a massive and different debate mate.

We have thing that are fundamentally wrong in our society and that need fixing......and, I totally get what you are saying.

However, if we don’t start to deal with small things at a time then we deal with nothing....that’s just my personal opinion.

But as I say, that’s a much wider and massively more complicated debate.

100% agreed mate... the country is in a shit state, my old estate is a million miles from what it was, no pride, kids born into shit for more benefit money, we all know the score... these 20'000 terminations are in the main wrong.. shit rat parents with no care... but do the kids deserve that.. as I said pages back religion doesn't like blurred lines... it's all terminations are banned.... I agree with your sentiment entirely....but we both know it's just not that easy..

 

the subject was the exclusion zone, for me the right call... shout at politicians, march on parliament... but not outside hospital doors where you haven't a clue on the circumstance... 

 

[NEWKID 26,211]

1 minute ago, WILF said:

And rightly so.

The common sense approach, we don’t need politicians to do this stuff for us really when you think about it.

 

Unfortunately it's the politicians who make the rules... so I'd end up banged up and my mrs would be even more pissed off lol

[WILF 44,334]

1 minute ago, NEWKID said:

 

the subject was the exclusion zone, for me the right call... shout at politicians, march on parliament... but not outside hospital doors where you haven't a clue on the circumstance... 

 

Ahh, but this is the crux.....you can’t have one without the other.

If you let them take away one then you have already given permission to take away the other.......you have in effect set the rules for having your own rights revoked.

But, you knew that part anyway mate.....I’m not telling you anything new.

[South hams hunter 8,837]

2 hours ago, WILF said:

The uncomfortable side of freedom mate.

This week its their freedom, next week it’s yours......that matters mate.

And surely the poor women should have the freedom to make their own decisions without being hounded by people who have no business telling anyone what they can or can' do

[ChrisJones 7,973]

3 hours ago, Born Hunter said:

I don't know how 'flexible' ground C so I can't comment. But I will say that if ground C was there for the situations of the 23 yr old shown above then there would be no need for grounds A and B which cover that very explicitly.

Anyway I just wanted to add some facts.

I can't like anymore on this thread for some reason, Born, so have a

I'd be curious to know if it's as easy as is being alleged but if the status quo is kept those numbers will only go up. Who wants to discuss a pragmatic and proactive solution though?

5 hours ago, greg64 said:

quite right chris if the boot was on the other foot and it was the man who became pregnant there would be an abortion clinic on every street corner 

As above, Greg. Have a

It's a more zealotry based argument from this side of the canal and restrictions are getting tighter in some states. It hasn't stopped abortions though. Funny that. You outlaw something and only outlaws do it. Doesn't really affect you if you have a cock.

 

[WILF 44,334]

1 hour ago, South hams hunter said:

And surely the poor women should have the freedom to make their own decisions without being hounded by people who have no business telling anyone what they can or can' do

Let me attempt some sensible dialogue......

Do you always take headlines at face value?

Where did it say anything about being “hounded” or that anyone was telling people “what to do” ?........or did you just imagine that’s how it is?

In the BBC article I read it said that they had banners, handed out literature and tried to enter into conversation to see if they could offer alternative advice?.......oh, and they held prayer sessions.

Not exactly a baying mob is it?

Im not saying there may not be few but jobs but that’s the same anywhere.

If you threaten or abuse people the police nick you or move you on......always have, always will.

Why is there a need to extend that power to peaceful protest?

Edited April 11, 2018 by WILF
Fat fingers !

[ChrisJones 7,973]

3 minutes ago, WILF said:

Why is there a need to extend that power to peaceful protest?

Because of the EU as we stated earlier.

If your local constabulary believes that it could affect "social peace," that this protest could turn violent based on history, and set an exclusion zone accordingly.

[WILF 44,334]

Just now, ChrisJones said:

Because of the EU as we stated earlier.

If your local constabulary believes that it could affect "social peace," that this protest could turn violent based on history, and set an exclusion zone accordingly.

Ahh, the good old “law” that is open entirely to the person who is using its own interpretation!

The UK has quiet a lot of them now.......and judging by some folks inability to understand the issue I’m not surprised my friend.

[Kay 3,709]

I dont think there has ever been a thread on here thats been so testosterone driven before. I am a little reluctant to post anything tbh other than there is a need to enable women to have terminations safely & within the law, the days of downing a bottle of gin because of fear of some backlash from anti abortion opinions & views are hopefully long gone .

I am an evil selfish baby killer I murdered a fetus that wasnt a viable pregnancy & I had 2 injections in the backside & regular blood tests to check the hormone levels to ensure it had worked , that was donkeys yrs ago & I genuinly belive that at that time in my life it was meant to be, I had got 2 healthy kids & my marriage was in tatters & the thought of bringing another baby into the world of alchohol abuse, financial dependency & general control made it bloody hard to leave the abuse .

If I had left the pregnancy as it was it would have very likely killed me as it wasnt in the womb.... the thought of leaving my kids in the hands of him .... not while I had a breath in me , so the pregnancy was terminated , my youngest was only 3 at the time  & the thought of trying to find a safe place for all 3 of us was terrifying . i didnt want to end up in a refuge , over the years my ex husband slowly lost the control as the drink took hold, he is now a poor old thing with heart failure& has a host of health issues all brought on by being an alchoholic.

I will be honest it was a bloody relief, because i had witnessed his abuse very slowly transfer to his son, i was prepared to die at his hands to save my son from becoming one of his victims . when my lad was 15 he floored him & the abuse stopped & he promptly left once he could see me & the boy where a team . cowards always loose in the end . even now I could see my boys face when he went ...he turned round & looked at me & said ''thank f**k he has gone  '' he has been gone 8 years now & my lads a dad himself & in work & I am very proud of him , so forgive me if i dont shed any tears for something that wasn't meant to be 

I wasnt a candidate for the pill as a few years after my first pregnancy i had a blood clot .so i had a coil fitted & it was while that was in place I had this ectopic pregnancy 

[ChrisJones 7,973]

4 minutes ago, WILF said:

Ahh, the good old “law” that is open entirely to the person who is using its own interpretation!

The UK has quiet a lot of them now.......and judging by some folks inability to understand the issue I’m not surprised my friend.

Social peace is a very broad spectrum to operate under. I'm sure if you're passionate enough about any subject you could be a threat to social peace, in the eyes of the law. Let's be fair here. The local constabulary doesn't make the law. They enforce it. But when it's as ambiguous as this how can you possibly expect anything other vastly differing perspectives of personal interpretation?

Do you trust your government?

No!

Why would you want to make it bigger?

[ChrisJones 7,973]

2 minutes ago, Kay said:

I dont think there has ever been a thread on here thats been so testosterone driven before. I am a little reluctant to post anything tbh other than there is a need to enable women to have terminations safely & within the law, the days of downing a bottle of gin because of fear of some backlash from anti abortion opinions & views are hopefully long gone .

Thanks for your unique perspective, Kay.

That pretty much closes it for me.

[mackay 3,054]

18 hours ago, Francie said:

An what if hes not a drunk, an hes a respectable honest man scot, should he have no say???

After all it takes two to make a baby, not just the mother, so why does she have the right over the babies sn the father???

I dont know which pro life march youve been too, im pro life an i dont call them heartless or whores, maybe some are but the point is these women could have avoided this easily, but on the receiving end of a brutal procedure the baby is dead with no say in the matter.

Tbh scott your last paragraph is just full of excuses, maybe the two teens should of been taught to not f**k about an wait till there married eh?

So from your logic another baby dies cause these teens are what??? Poor no job blah excuses excuses.

Many a good man an woman were born to young parents, or parents with no job, its just excuses is all i hear.

Ffs look back 40 50 60 years, most didnt have a job an were raised on the bread line, f**k all wrong way that scott.

Whether you like it or not the father has no say, and rightly so, it's not his body, he's not carrying the child and he's not enduring labour.

To imply the father has the same rights as the mother would imply that the father could insist on the mother keeping the baby or for that matter insist she aborts it.

In your world that might be acceptable,  in the real world the final decision lies with the woman carrying the child whether it's for the right reasons, wrong reasons or selfish reasons.

[WILF 44,334]

This thread was never about if people approve or disapprove of abbortion but as with all these things it got dragged that way.

It was always about people right to protest a subject so grave without restriction and at the point where it may do most good as long as it was within the law.

However, the message I am getting is that to restrict the freedom to protest it is simply good enough for someone, anyone, to say they are upset or offended and that’s it........the state have carte Blanche to nullify your protest and lots of people think that’s ok.

Just don’t forget you asked for it when it comes to get “your thing”

Want to go to an anti hunting meeting to protest for the pro hunting side?.......forget it, they find hunting and you as the face of hunting upsetting and hurtful, some of you may even offend someone with your speech......clear off to the next street where nobody will ever see you and your view point won’t matter.

Legendary stuff lads.

[WILF 44,334]

What hospital?.....they are hanging about no such place.