The Phelps strike again

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by Chief_Joseph, Jun 7, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. There was a thread on this not long ago. This is an interview I just came accross of the crazy christian group that has been protesting at the funerals of fallen US troops I know that there's a special place in hell for people like her
  2. is yet another in a line of Trooper Bashing extremists. Personally they're usually handled quite easily with balloons filled with beer urine & "Skunk scent" from the local hunting shop. :wink:
  3. Thank you Chief_Joseph,

    What a complete and utter 'Fruitcake'!

    It was a highly articulate delivery of utter drivel presented with rudeness and hostility by a misanthropic representative of a 'religion' of pure evil masquerading as Christianity.

    Can you imagine being married to someone like that!

    No grieving family needs that at the funeral of their loved one.

    It does not surprise me in the least that someone should seek to detonate an IED in their 'Church'

    Regards and best wishes
  4. It amazed me, she openly states that all who are not with them are already damned and that there is no redemption. What she says is not simply an attack on americans (clearly the intended target), but upon all halfway decent and moral human beings in the world. I've learned that the FBI has them on their Terror Watch List, as a group to keep an eye on as a "hate group" for their stance on homosexuality. I heard someone mention that they have chapters in other countries as well, including britain. I hope that isn't true, I'd hate to think that anyone else would have to put up with them.
  5. Jesus holy christ, I just looked at that link. Who the f*ck do they think they are? Those cnuts are O2 thiefs of the highest degree. They use photos of soldiers crying at their comrades funerals to display their "weakness".
  6. Jesus, what a bunch of fecking loonies!
    I particularly like the way they can generalise about every single American soldier since the Revolution!
    I wonder if the Mexicans or Japanese would have allowed them to protest like this?


    I also find it mildly amusing the way they can contradict themselves on the very same page.

  7. Neither of these groups would make much of an impact in the United Kingdom. Unlike the USA, this country has no written constitution. It's constitutional sources comprise a diversity of common law judgements, Parliamentary Supremacy, Conventions and prerogatives which have allowed this country to enact legislation of a far more extensive and draconian nature than would be tolerated in the USA. Such groups would fall squarely into the laws of incitement or conspiracy and would certainly not be allowed access to a tightly controlled media at national level.

    Whether our system is a good one or a bad one has been hotly debated for many years by academic lawyers, but I suppose the real price of domestic freedom is tolerating the views of such groups.

    Of course we have our own lunatics on this side of the Atlantic but we have a more subtle approach in that that freedom of expression is tolerated only insofar as it appears 'eccentric' or 'harmless'. It is only where such unpopular views, or those which do not accord with government policy are adjudged likely to be taken seriously by anyone will we have state intervention in the form of 'banning orders' or a refusal by the Police to hold a demonstration or rally'.

    Most curbs on the freedom of expression is subtle and unseen by our public.

    For example, many Americans will have heard of 'Speakers Corner' in Hyde Park, London as the place where traditionally, one can stand on a soapbox and exercise one's freedom of speech to anyone who will listen and visitors from all over the world to London can often be seen among the crowds listening to a variety of unorthodox views from a variety of 'fruitcakes'.

    Outwardly, the appearance is given that a wide variety of views are tolerated and given expression to with the speaker exercising that right as an observable act of demonstrable reality.

    What is not generally known is that each speaker must submit what he has to say well in advance to Westminster Council who will 'vet' it before a licence is given to allow one to stand on one's soapbox. Thus, if one has anything serious to say that might be regarded as inflammatory, or even sensible, the speaker will not be allowed to proceed.

    Similar rules apply to broadcasting with such statutory bodies as the Advertising Standards Authority, Broadcasting Authority and a plethora of controls over the content of what may or may not be broadcast on Television and Radio.

    The internet is, of course, a different matter. The approach here is that although access is freely available, it is monitored by the security services and those who use such sites are, in turn monitored if they are adjudged to pose a threat.

    Hence, 'fruitcakes' regardless of whether they may or may not have a legitimate cause do not flourish in the United Kingdom and are unlikely to do so.

    Regards and best wishes
  8. My understanding of these ... erm ... "people" is that they make their living sueing anyone who tries to stop them claiming freedom of speech. The cynic in me feels that being as objectionable as possible is merely their business model. Yet another reason to shoot all the lawyers I suppose.
  9. Just watched this interview myself. Aside from the obvious unsavoury, ill-informed, and insulting views expressed by Phelps there are some classic moments of pure comedy. Listen carefully. Phelps is so caught up in desperately trying to justify her 'church's' totally unjustifiable position that she misses the fact that she's havin the rip taken well and truly out of her.
  10. I have heard similar stories in respect of litigation for violation of their constitutional rights - of course such actions both fund their 'church' and provide free publicity for them.

    They would have a rather more difficult job in UK jurisprudence since the only available option would be under the laws relating to defamation for which no legal aid is available and for which they would almost certainly fail to overcome the defence to defamation of 'justification' or 'truth' and of 'fair comment' - not that they would, of course ever become established in this country - thank goodness.

    Our Press would make 'mincemeat' out of them and eat them alive!