Not holding recent arrivals to the same standards as the native population and then suppressing anything that might make the new arrivals look bad is the problem.
Allowing parades with banners that read “Behead those who insult Islam” whilst arresting a Christian for silently praying across the road from a family planning clinic is the problem.
This is true, but I take issue with @billybutcher’s definition of ‘immigrant’. I am an immigrant here but I certainly wasn’t where I was born and brought up, I was a native there. ‘Descent’ is the operative word.
References?
As long as you are equally prepared to describe some born in a specific country a “native” even if their parents were born somewhere else. As a reasonable person I am sure you would be happy to do so - many are not.
The point, as I said, is that if we trace our lineage back we are all descended (if you prefer) from migrants, we are all the same.
Some of @NotALot’s claims are redolent of the myths that immigrants get put straight to the front of the queue for the best/largest council housing, it rarely stands up to scrutiny.
For example
I presume that you mean this protest from 2006?
Well, yes. There’s a freedom of speech question here of course - but I agree the posters displayed go beyond what I would think was reasonable on that basis.
There’s also the issue of practical policing - if a group turns up unannounced with posters such as the ones on display do you allow the demonstration to proceed or do you stop it. The met in particular have a bad reputation for being too heavy handed and I can see that this occasionally might cause their decision making to swing too far the other way.
However this protest was not without repercussions for those involved - although the police were initially reluctant to act they did eventually do so and several arrests were made ultimately resulting in custodial sentences for four of the men involved ranging from four to six years.
So, contrary to @NotALot 's claim this protest was not allowed without sanction, the messages displayed were deemed to be inciting racial hatred and people served jail time as a result.
Naturally I agree we should stamp out religious extremism - though I’d argue that applies equally to anti-abortionists attacking clinics and medical staff, which brings me to:
You still haven’t provided a reference or context for this have you? No doubt the reference to “family planning clinic” takes us into anti-abortion territory where the claim might not be as straightforward as it seems.
Of course it is so much easier to make the claim and spread the lie than it is to think about it or fact check it - that’s the real problem with social media - that, as they say, a lie can be half way around the world before the truth has got its socks on.
Here you go:
This is my favourite paragraph:
“ An online video shows Ms. Vaughan-Spruce being told by an unidentified police officer that her silent prayer “is the offense” against a Public Spaces Protection Order that bans protest by “graphic, verbal or written means, prayer or counselling.”
I’m not a fan of those groups who demonstrate with banners and Bible verses near abortion clinics: it feels more like blame than love.
While Vaughan-Spruce was indeed arrested (as you say), it turns out that the CPS dropped the case (as indeed was the only reasonable thing to do) according to Two defendants acquitted of abortion clinic Public Spaces Protection Order breach
The accounts provided make it clear that it really was as straightforward (and wrong-headed, as I hope you’d agree) as arresting someone for silently praying in the wrong place.
I think this is quite disingenuous, as the only cases I’m aware of were effectively attempts at harassment of women entering clinics.
I would concur - I’ll look at the detail of the Vaughan-Spruce case later (at work just now so don’t have the time to look up the case) , I think there is a wider context here though it probably isn’t what the headlines claim.
Not disingenuous at all.
I did a bit of research before forming an opinion. I admire your economy of effort in omitting the research step and proceeding straight to forming an opinion 
Here’s something to help: Abortion clinic charges dropped against Wolverhampton priest - BBC News
Funnily enough 
, the BBC report shows people with banners, whereas the evidence is that Vaughan-Spruce was merely standing there: https://youtu.be/wXURFRSUS9U?si=70_TzDwADwjWzfSx
The issue is not the prayer - neither I, anyone here or anyone else can prove what was going on in that person’s head - it might have been prayer, it might have been silently screaming hatred at those using the clinic.
The issues are whether this was a protest, whether it was designed to intimidate, whether it fell foul of the public order act and whether that act goes too far in criminalising peaceful protest and freedom of thought.
However, please remember:
Your religion, does not get to tell me how to behave and being “religious” does not automatically make you a good person.
Different context - one clearly outside a courtroom, one in the street.
The fact that the Catholic church is trying to make this about “prayer”, which cannot be proven, rather than about whether it was intimidation (the fact that it appears at first glance to be repeated behaviour might have had some bearing on the arrest and any charges) is suspect IMO.
There is no difference between standing there praying, standing there with the intent to intimidate others and standing there singing “beautiful day” in your head.
This is not about “prayer”, whatever obfuscation the Church are trying to pull.
I’ve added the final words to illustrate the absurdity of the original order (made under s. 59 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/12/section/59/enacted
Do you really think it’s okay to criminalise just standing somewhere and praying? Doing nothing more than that (because all the evidence I can find is that that is all she did)?
Normally you’re strongly against restricting the right to protest (see here, for example: PM and his cabinet to resign? - #33 by billybutcher). Do you support freedom of speech and thought only on topics you agree with?
“If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
@Porridge - please forgive the fact that I have not had time to look through this properly yet, and probably will not get to do so until this evening at least. Wasn’t it you suggested “a bit of research” was necessary “before forming an opinion”
Yes, I am - see above. I have outlined the things I want to consider in this case rather than firm conclusions that I have reached. However I can see enough that it is clear the business of “prayer” is a deliberate distraction.
Let’s (as above) leave that at “Do you really think it’s okay to criminalise just standing somewhere”. You can’t prove she was praying, I can’t prove she was praying, the Pope can’t prove that she was praying.
Normally, no, I’d say peaceful protest should be allowed - I am tempted to think the Police overstepped here but I have yet to make up my mind.
I note that a lot of the footage is from US media outlets with a distinct RW bias such as Fox, I doubt their first priority is a truthful unbiased reportage.
Agree.
That was my thought too. I particularly didn’t like the fact it was Fox.
However I could not find any instance of a British news outlet showing the video.
So, looking around I did come across this (ref):
That dates from Dec 2022.
So, this is not about her general freedom to stand on any old street corner and pray (or not).
It is about the fact that she was in violation of a previous order covering that space - one presumes there had been prior issues with the clinic.
I also suspect that she knew about the order so was being provocative, at the very least.
As I said, not at all “straightforward”.
I must remind you that both Christianity and Islam have their origin in the same part of the world
Indeed basically worship the same god.
Dave Allen: “May your God go with you”. We each have our own and that includes the gods of science, rationality, atheism, rain, empty parking spaces, lost objects, kitchens.
I think his phrase should have been “May your Gods go with you”. I like the Norse / ancient Greek / ancient Roman / etc /etc versions of all of this rather that a single deity, we all have many gods and some can be playful and others very annoying, but much more fun than a single man in white habit with a beard. Or these days Morgan Freeman.
Where on Earth did you get that idea from?
(I’ll give you a clue why it’s nonsense. One of them gets its name from the God it worships; the other considers Christ merely a prophet. Oh, dang, I’ve given it away 
)
I don’t know. I rather like the idea of a God whose first thought, after helping his mates land a huge catch of fish, was to do a barbecue!