Vicar pulls down Playboy stationery display

[Bells]

Bells for starters the second part of my post was aimed specifically at a comment by phlogistician about wether the guy would be found guilty if a case had procided. I was in no way comparing murder or assult to criminal damage.

Oh?

Bells whats next?
Setting fire to sex stores because they "lead to abuse of kids"?????

Would you accept that?
How about burning down Mososcs because some muslims are MIGHT commit terioust acts?
Or burning down the vatican because there policies have caused 1000's to get aids in africa and asia?

Thats not justice thats mob rule, if a gay guy gets bashed and the jury happens to be full of fundimentilist christans do you think it would be JUSTICE for that guy to be aquited even though assult is against the law?

How about if after 11/9/01 if people had gone out and shot muslims in the US and the defence said "well you should aquit my cliants because they are just terrioust scum and should be shot"?

Why even bring any of this into the discussion? It is not related or even remotely similar to a person who stages a protest by throwing a few pencil cases off a shelf in a children's display area.

As for the issue i have with the protest its not up to me to deal with any damage, loss or aditional expences (like the cost of paying the staff to clean up the mess that they would otherwise not have had to do). That is up to the store OWNER (or CEO and share holders if it was a listed company). My issue is with the atitudes right here in this thread and there are more risks associated with this sort of "protest" than wether a kid is going to mestake the playboy bunny for something apropriate to children

And you are reading more into this than is written or known.

Again, Playboy are not offended by the protest. Their reply has been to state that the merchandise should never have been in or near the children's section in the first place. But what has been the prevalent attitude in this thread? That Playboy is not appropriate for children? Ya, big surprise there. That the guy was breaking the law by going into a store and simply throwing stuff off a shelf? Ya, shame everyone who feels that way never realised that the store knew of the protest beforehand and had given him permission to stage his protest in such a way.

Tell me, what risk is there of someone throwing a few pencil cases and such on the floor in a store? Oh yes:

Say for instance that someone had sliped on one of the pens he threw on the floor, would he be willing to compansate that person? Say someone broke there NECK slipping on the pens, would he be willing to take a manslaughter conviction because of it?

Is this one of the main risks for you?

"I started tossing it on the floor away from where people were..."​

He ensured they were away from people as he tossed them on the ground.

Ok none of this happened but it could well happen next time.

Evidently. Especially seeing that he made sure to toss it "away from where the people were".

A person can trip over someone's foot and break their necks. Does that mean we should ensure our feet never ever stick out from our bodies, just in case? Scary if you have big feet, eh? I guess people can always stand on tiptoes just in case so that their feet do not get in the way of anyone.

This is in NO WAY a good precedent to set for a sociaty.

What? Staging a protest by getting the store manager's permission first and then tossing the items on the floor, away from where everyone was?

You'd rather he interrupt traffic and pedestrians by standing outside, waving placards and yelling out his protestations against Playboy and the store itself?

Oh yes:

If you want to protest go ahead, stand on the street and get signitures, write to pollies, wave plackards, fill the whole of fed square (or where ever you are) with protestes against the "evil playboy empire" if you wish but do it in a way that doesnt potentually damage someone elses property or put lives at risk.

Someone could trip and break their necks on a dropped placard, or one could fall on a child's head and cause them serious injury. They could also cause accidents when cars slow down to see what is going on. By standing out on the street, waving placards, he is also interrupting people's daily lives. A placard could also accidently fall against a window and break it, as another example.

Can you see how your notions of what constitutes a proper process can also be harmful to people if I am to apply your reasoning to it?

 

[Asguard]

actually yes i would rather he protest on the street. After all that was one of the main reasons that fed square was BUILT, to provide a place for people to protest. I actually have no issue with him getting authrisation to protest IN the store either and if thats all he had dont then good luck to him (though as i said the churches have NO standing when it comes to human sexuality but that is a different issue). However to start taring a display apart is not a protest anymore than rioting in the streets and burning shops down is a protest. Wether the manager authrised it or not, wether the company who produced the goods agrees or not is not the point. He had no right to use THIS form of "protest" with someone elses property and the store manager had no right to authrise it either UNLESS he was the store OWNER. As no one has yet said "yes he owned the store and the stock" he is an employee of the company and as such should have called the police insted of being complicit in these actions

 

[phlogistician]

phlogistician you have just proven why i never want to go to whatever country you live in. Thats not justice thats mob rule,

Being found not guilty by a jury of your peers is definitely justice. Your opnion of that verdict changes nothing. It's why we have a jury, to decide on the individual facts of the case, and don't just imprison people straight after arrest. Maybe you want to live in some totalitarian nightmare, but I would prefer to have the compassion of my peers as a safety net.

if a gay guy gets bashed and the jury happens to be full of fundimentilist christans do you think it would be JUSTICE for that guy to be aquited even though assult is against the law?

That's not the point in question. Stick to the topic.

How about if after 11/9/01 if people had gone out and shot muslims in the US and the defence said "well you should aquit my cliants because they are just terrioust scum and should be shot"?

That's not the point in question. Stick to the topic.

 

[lucifers angel]

Being found not guilty by a jury of your peers is definitely justice. Your opnion of that verdict changes nothing. It's why we have a jury, to decide on the individual facts of the case, and don't just imprison people straight after arrest. Maybe you want to live in some totalitarian nightmare, but I would prefer to have the compassion of my peers as a safety net.


That's not the point in question. Stick to the topic.



That's not the point in question. Stick to the topic.

i agree with you there phlogistician, but can't the judge in extreme casses over turn the ruling of the jury?

my husband says that here your innocent until prooven guilty, in Australia and US you are guilty until prooven guilty!

 

[Bells]

actually yes i would rather he protest on the street.

He chose to stage his protest his way. He is free to do so.

After all that was one of the main reasons that fed square was BUILT, to provide a place for people to protest.

What does Federation Square have to do with a Vicar in York?

I actually have no issue with him getting authrisation to protest IN the store either and if thats all he had dont then good luck to him

It's not really for you to have an issue with how he decided to stage his protest.

(though as i said the churches have NO standing when it comes to human sexuality but that is a different issue)

Yes it is.

However to start taring a display apart is not a protest anymore than rioting in the streets and burning shops down is a protest.

He had consent of the store's manager to stage his protest in that manner. And removing some items from a shelf and throwing them on the ground is hardly similar to rioting and burning down stores. Again, keep it in perspective.

Wether the manager authrised it or not, wether the company who produced the goods agrees or not is not the point.

Oh, but it very much is the point. Had he not received the consent of the store's manager, then you might have a point. But he had consent and permission, as well as support from the store's manager.

He had no right to use THIS form of "protest" with someone elses property and the store manager had no right to authrise it either UNLESS he was the store OWNER.

And yet, neither of them have been charged. Can you guess why that could be?

As no one has yet said "yes he owned the store and the stock" he is an employee of the company and as such should have called the police insted of being complicit in these actions

Refer to above. Also, you should also keep this in mind:

A spokesman for the shop said: "Because we respect the views of the communities that we trade in, and following Father Jones' visit, we have removed the product from sale in this store while we review our merchandising policy."
​

As it stands, you seem more offended than the people who run and own the store, and the people from Playboy.

 

[Roman]

I don't invite people into my house, nor can they just wander in, so that idea is rather a straw man.

Public decency is something we should all uphold, and I have a problem with the amount of stuff kids get exposed to, so I fully support this guy. The playboy logo is synonymous with hardcore porn, and is not for kids. Playboy admitted that, but here you are championing something they admit is a mistake. Hell, maybe you know more than the owners of the company about how they market themselves, ....

So if you invite someone into your house and he starts ripping up your Koran or whatever, what are you going to do, bend over and let him sodomize you next?
If I want to market dildos to your two year old so I can get her into the oral habit early, that's my right. If you don't like it; don't shop at my store. Boycott. But as soon as you mess with my stuff and wreck it....

 

[phlogistician]

So if you invite someone into your house and he starts ripping up your Koran or whatever, what are you going to do, bend over and let him sodomize you next?
If I want to market dildos to your two year old so I can get her into the oral habit early, that's my right. If you don't like it; don't shop at my store. Boycott. But as soon as you mess with my stuff and wreck it....

You have used the debate tactic 'abstraction to absurdity' upon yourself. Guess how that makes your point look?