Christian preacher wins £13k after wrongful arrest for telling gay couple....

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2593217/Christian-preacher-wins-13-000-wrongful-arrest-telling-gay-couple-Bible-says-homosexuality-sin.html

Christian street preacher who was arrested and kept in cell for 19 hours without food after he told two gay men homosexuality is a sin paid £13,000 compensation by police

- John Craven, 57, sued for unlawful arrest, false imprisonment and human rights breach
- Told gay men in Manchester street: 'God hates sin but he loves sinner'
- He was arrested on public order offence but no action taken by police
- Christian group finances legal battle and police settle before court


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/03/31/article-2593217-1CB7FB3300000578-144_306x447.jpg


A Christian preacher arrested and imprisoned without food and water after he told two gay teenagers the Bible says homosexuality is a sin, has won £13,000 in compensation for poor treatment by police.

John Craven, 57, says he was held by Greater Manchester Police after he told the couple 'God hates sin, but he loves the sinner'.

The young men then kissed in front of him and approached a police officer and claimed Mr Craven's comments were 'insulting' and had caused them 'harassment and distress.'

Mr Craven said he was 'grabbed roughly by the arm' on suspicion of public order offences and later denied food, water and access to medication for his rheumatoid arthritis while in custody for 19 hours.

He was later bailed before being told no action would be taken against him.

'I told them that according to the word of God homosexuality is an abomination. That is not my opinion it is the word of God. I quoted them Revelation chapter 21 verse 8,' he said.

'This made them very upset and they started to do obscene gestures to me. They were deliberately trying to provoke me.

'I have to be very careful in these sort of situations so I did not give my own opinion, I just gave God's word. But they said that I had taunted them and assaulted them verbally and before I knew it the police arrived. I couldn't believe it.

'I have had confrontations with people before when I have been speaking but never anything like this. I did remained calm and co-operative even though I was being handled very roughly by the police officer.'

Greater Manchester Police said the detention was 'necessary for a prompt and effective investigation' but Mr Craven sued the force for wrongful arrest, false imprisonment and breach of his human rights.

Mr Craven has now been awarded £13,000 in compensation in an out-of-court settlement following a three-year battle, likely to also cost the taxpayer more than £50,000 in legal costs.

The settlement was agreed a few days before the civil case was due in court.

Well done to Mr Craven.

A small but heartening victory for free speech and English liberty. If you ask me, the people who ought to have been thrown in a prison cell are the moron politicians who bring in these laws and the Police with Little Man syndrome who enforce them to the letter.

Thoughts?

[Kardan]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2593217/Christian-preacher-wins-13-000-wrongful-arrest-telling-gay-couple-Bible-says-homosexuality-sin.html

Christian street preacher who was arrested and kept in cell for 19 hours without food after he told two gay men homosexuality is a sin paid £13,000 compensation by police

- John Craven, 57, sued for unlawful arrest, false imprisonment and human rights breach
- Told gay men in Manchester street: 'God hates sin but he loves sinner'
- He was arrested on public order offence but no action taken by police
- Christian group finances legal battle and police settle before court


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/03/31/article-2593217-1CB7FB3300000578-144_306x447.jpg



Well done to Mr Craven.

A small but heartening victory for free speech and English liberty. If you ask me, the people who ought to have been thrown in a prison cell are the moron politicians who bring in these laws and the Police with Little Man syndrome who enforce them to the letter.

Thoughts?

What laws? He wasn't charged with anything? The article is just about the stupidity of the police officers.

Also I might go out and get a bible and start preaching infront of gay people if it will get me £13k :P

[The Don]

He looks exactly how I imagined. I can't stand people who shove religion in your face and go round preaching. I'm also not particularly surprised at the result since he was deprived of food for so long and then not charged with anything.

[-:Undertaker:-]

What laws? He wasn't charged with anything? The article is just about the stupidity of the police officers.

Also I might go out and get a bible and start preaching infront of gay people if it will get me £13k :P

The 1986 Act on 'offensive speech' that the article mentions.

I don't think we should have any laws against any form of speech, but maybe that's just intolerant old me.


He looks exactly how I imagined. I can't stand people who shove religion in your face and go round preaching.

I feel the same with Gay Pride parades.

[The Don]

What laws? He wasn't charged with anything? The article is just about the stupidity of the police officers.

Also I might go out and get a bible and start preaching infront of gay people if it will get me £13k :P

I'll join you, I need a new car!

- - - Updated - - -


I feel the same with Gay Pride parades.

Well that's understandable since they are a minority and generally have less rights (well up until yesterday). Christianity is the predominant religion in this country and it's unnecessary to go around telling people they are sinners or degrading people.

[Yawn]

glad he was starved for nearly 24hrs wat an irritating UGLY man

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well that's understandable since they are a minority and generally have less rights (well up until yesterday). Christianity is the predominant religion in this country and it's unnecessary to go around telling people they are sinners or degrading people.

I've never personally thought that dressing up in gimp suits, bondage chains and women was a way to bring public opinion on your side.

Talk about degrading people though, they do it themselves with the gay prides. Behaviour of the lowest order yet no shame.

[Kardan]

The 1986 Act on 'offensive speech' that the article mentions.

I don't think we should have any laws against any form of speech, but maybe that's just intolerant old me.



I feel the same with Gay Pride parades.

I think it's important to have a law over 'offensive speech', but as the police realised after they'd kept him in the cell for nearly a day, talking about your religion isn't classed as offensive speech.

[The Don]

I've never personally thought that dressing up in gimp suits, bondage chains and women was a way to bring public opinion on your side.

Talk about degrading people though, they do it themselves with the gay prides. Behaviour of the lowest order yet no shame.

Not everybody in gay parades wear bondage, gimp suits or anything of the sort, don't generalise everybody that attends them due to a minority. That's like me branding all christians homophobic bigots due to this one article you've posted.

Were those two men who were degraded by the preacher from the article participating in a gay parade or were you just generalising every gay person to rationalise and excuse such fowl behaviour?

[-:Undertaker:-]

I think it's important to have a law over 'offensive speech', but as the police realised after they'd kept him in the cell for nearly a day, talking about your religion isn't classed as offensive speech.

Well of course you do, because you are the so-called tolerant liberal who wants to shut down opinions you do not like using the law and i'm the nasty intolerant bigot who doesn't want to shut down any form of speech. What's new?


Not everybody in gay parades where bondage, gimp suits or anything of the sort, don't generalise everybody that attends them due to a minority. That's like me branding all christians homophobic bigots due to this one article you've posted.

It's largely a public display of sex and nudity which I regard as far worse than a preacher on the street reading out his Bible. But then again, in modern Britain it speaks volumes when gay pride parades (involving the stuff i've mentioned) are held as bastions of good and a man preaching from his Bible is deemed worthy of abuse and arrest. What a country we live in.


Were those two men who were degraded by the preacher from the article participating in a gay parade or were you just generalising every gay person to rationalise and excuse such fowl behaviour?

The two men were acting like intolerant bigots, absolutely - they seemingly couldn't understand that somebody would disagree with them or their lifestyle and attempted (in the end unsuccessfully) to get the law to arrest this poor man simply because of what he said.

I personally think that is foul and disgusting behaviour.

[Yawn]

well apparently they asked him his views on homosexuality he said it was a sin but god still loved them

so they started kissing in his face and mocking him crudely. they r just as annoying (if not more)

[The Don]

Well of course you do, because you are the so-called tolerant liberal who wants to shut down opinions you do not like using the law and i'm the nasty intolerant bigot who doesn't want to shut down any form of speech. What's new?

I would just like to live in a nicer society where you can walk through the streets without abuse being shouted at you.

[myles]

i guess this proves that people who serve god faithfully will be rewarded

[The Don]

well apparently they asked him his views on homosexuality he said it was a sin but god still loved them

so they started kissing in his face and mocking him crudely. they r just as annoying (if not more)

That's what he's saying, whether that's what happened is another matter. However yeh that is pretty low of them if true.

[karter]

why are you bothered about gay prides what the hell

[The Don]

It's largely a public display of sex and nudity which I regard as far worse than a preacher on the street reading out his Bible. But then again, in modern Britain it speaks volumes when gay pride parades (involving the stuff i've mentioned) are held as bastions of good and a man preaching from his Bible is deemed worthy of abuse and arrest. What a country we live in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Giving two incredibly bias and extreme examples from either side to somehow win an argument is an incredibly weak effort on your part. Are gay parades lauded and classed as 'bastions of good'? Are all preachers abused and arrested? The answer to both is a resounding no but of course let's not let the facts get in the way. The same way you act as if everybody attending a gay parade is bondage-cladded and sex crazed, more often than not this is not the case and using extremities does not make your argument stronger.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I would just like to live in a nicer society where you can walk through the streets without abuse being shouted at you.

So ban all abuse then? Make abuse itself a crime? How tolerant of modern Britain! :rolleyes:


why are you bothered about gay prides what the hell

why are the gays bothered about an old man reading from his Bible what the hell


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Giving two incredibly bias and extreme examples from either side to somehow win an argument is an incredibly weak effort on your part. Are gay parades lauded and classed as 'bastions of good'? Are all preachers abused and arrested? The answer to both is a resounding no but of course let's not let the facts get in the way. The same way you act as if everybody attending a gay parade is bondage-cladded and sex crazed, more often than not this is not the case and using extremities does not make your argument stronger.

Don't give me your theories.

My point is simple: that for some reason these days, a man reading from his Bible is seen as worse and potentially something he can be arrested for than a load of people parading up and down the street in some rather questionable outfits. That to me just goes to show how far we've fallen. In a rather strange turn of events, it's now Christians who have to fear the Police like homosexuals had to in the 1950s.

It's the same with the Christian B&B owners. Very scary.

[e5]

What laws? He wasn't charged with anything? The article is just about the stupidity of the police officers.

Also I might go out and get a bible and start preaching infront of gay people if it will get me £13k :P

3 years to get 13k is hardly worth it

[The Don]

Don't give me your theories.

My point is simple: that for some reason these days, a man reading from his Bible is seen as worse and potentially something he can be arrested for than a load of people parading up and down the street in some rather questionable outfits. That to me just goes to show how far we've fallen. In a rather strange turn of events, it's now Christians who have to fear the Police like homosexuals had to in the 1950s.

It's the same with the Christian B&B owners. Very scary.

Re-read my post and explain how it is wrong and then I will reply. Love how you dismiss my point because you know it's true and cannot reply.

[Kardan]

3 years to get 13k is hardly worth it

Sending a view letters over 3 years for 13k seems worth it to me.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Re-read my post and explain how it is wrong and then I will reply. Love how you dismiss my point because you know it's true and cannot reply.

You are avoiding the point.

You said how you hated preachers on the streets, but seemingly haven't a problem with gay parades. My point is that given the choice between having old men preach at me from their Bibles or gay men prancing up and down the streets wearing the bare minimum, I know which one i'd prefer. You obviously think different. And are they lauded as bastions of good? You answered that yourself when you tried to make some weak connection between prancing about in an exhibitionist way on public streets with the fight for equal treatment in law.

[karter]

why are the gays bothered about an old man reading from his Bible what the hell


You didn't answer my question

from what I read the guy approached the couple initially so initiator = old guy with the bible

who did the unnecessary religious rant? old guy with the bible

why are you fired up by retaliation by the couple? it was harmless and i'd do the same? so much for free speech and free country!! when you can go and dehumanize anyone on the streets telling them they're sinners and what not..contrary to popular belief among socially conservative population, you can be an 'old guy with the bible' anywhere but when it comes to being a gay couple, a harmless relationship has to be questioned repeatedly. being a christian is not a hurdle. please stop

p.s: what's with the use of "the gays" while referring to homosexual people lol

[The Don]

You are avoiding the point.

You said how you hated preachers on the streets, but seemingly haven't a problem with gay parades. My point is that given the choice between having old men preach at me from their Bibles or gay men prancing up and down the streets wearing the bare minimum, I know which one i'd prefer. You obviously think different. And are they lauded as bastions of good? You answered that yourself when you tried to make some weak connection between prancing about in an exhibitionist way on public streets with the fight for equal treatment in law.

Are you incapable of reading? I've answered your 'point' on page one (post #5). You've then replied with another point which I have yet again responded to (see how discussions evolve?). You then made yet another point
It's largely a public display of sex and nudity which I regard as far worse than a preacher on the street reading out his Bible. But then again, in modern Britain it speaks volumes when gay pride parades (involving the stuff i've mentioned) are held as bastions of good and a man preaching from his Bible is deemed worthy of abuse and arrest. What a country we live in.

Which I responded to with

Giving two incredibly bias and extreme examples from either side to somehow win an argument is an incredibly weak effort on your part. Are gay parades lauded and classed as 'bastions of good'? Are all preachers abused and arrested? The answer to both is a resounding no but of course let's not let the facts get in the way. The same way you act as if everybody attending a gay parade is bondage-cladded and sex crazed, more often than not this is not the case and using extremities does not make your argument stronger.

YOU then avoided the point by simply writing off my post with DON'T GIVE ME YOUR THEORIES (lol what?) and then accused me of avoiding the point when i've responded to every one of your posts in detail, the same can't be said for yourself and I am still waiting for a response to my paragraph above.

[-:Undertaker:-]

You didn't answer my question

from what I read the guy approached the couple initially so initiator = old guy with the bible

who did the unnecessary religious rant? old guy with the bible

why are you fired up by retaliation by the couple? it was harmless and i'd do the same? so much for free speech and free country!! when you can go and dehumanize anyone on the streets telling them they're sinners and what not..contrary to popular belief among socially conservative population, you can be an 'old guy with the bible' anywhere but when it comes to being a gay couple, a harmless relationship has to be questioned repeatedly. being a christian is not a hurdle. please stop

It's not the kissing I have a problem with, it's the fact they purposely went to a Police officer to intervene. That's low.


p.s: what's with the use of "the gays" while referring to homosexual people lol

It was the homosexual campaign groups which hijacked the word gay decades ago. Do they want to be called gay or homosexual?

If i'm honest I couldn't care less, but I thought I was being nice calling them what they want to be called. I can't win really, can I? :P


Are you incapable of reading? I've answered your 'point' on page one (post #5). You've then replied with another point which I have yet again responded to (see how discussions evolve?). You then made yet another point

Which I responded to with

Giving two incredibly bias and extreme examples from either side to somehow win an argument is an incredibly weak effort on your part. Are gay parades lauded and classed as 'bastions of good'? Are all preachers abused and arrested? The answer to both is a resounding no but of course let's not let the facts get in the way. The same way you act as if everybody attending a gay parade is bondage-cladded and sex crazed, more often than not this is not the case and using extremities does not make your argument stronger.

YOU then avoided the point by simply writing off my post with DON'T GIVE ME YOUR THEORIES (lol what?) and then accused me of avoiding the point when i've responded to every one of your posts in detail, the same can't be said for yourself and I am still waiting for a response to my paragraph above.

No no no dear, that's you. You do it every time. You know exactly what i'm talking about - that Christians in this country are now being hounded by the media, law and homosexual campaign groups - simply because they happen to disagree with gay marriage and/or homosexuality itself. Instead, you do as you always do which is state the bleeding obvious that not everybody in a gay pride parade is wearing a gimp mask and skimpy undies - well really Einstein!!!? The point however still stands that whilst you may find street preachers annoying or detestable, I find the sight of gay parades with large amounts of men dressed as women, public exhibitionists and bondage weirdos as detestable and/or annoying.

So to clarify the bleeding obvious for you: not everybody at a gay parade is bondage or skimpily clad. But many of them are.

Happy now? |-)

[The Don]

No no no dear, that's you. You do it every time.

I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I?! Grow up, I don't write off entire paragraphs with a five word sentence.



You know exactly what i'm talking about - that Christians in this country are now being hounded by the media, law and homosexual campaign groups - simply because they happen to disagree with gay marriage and/or homosexuality itself.

Grand exaggeration there. Give me some examples of Christians being 'hounded' excluding cases where their outdated and bigoted beliefs have been challenged. You're living in fantasy land, two gay people kissing in front of a homophobic preacher in a public places is hardly classed as hounding. Especially when the preacher approached them as i'm lead to believe.



Instead, you do as you always do which is state the bleeding obvious that not everybody in a gay pride parade is wearing a gimp mask and skimpy undies - well really Einstein!!!?

Because you continuously mass generalise huge groups of people. If it's not 'the gays' (as you like to call them) it's those bloody muslims, they are all third worlders and inferior to christians, right?! It was only yesterday you derailed a gay marriage legalisation thread to mention how all gay people are scared of muslims because every person that follows islam is violent and homophobic. Or how you virtually refer to all Romanians as criminals.


The point however still stands that whilst you may find street preachers annoying or detestable, I find the sight of gay parades with large amounts of men dressed as women, public exhibitionists and bondage weirdos as detestable and/or annoying.
I find people campaigning for equality much better than those campaigning for inequality. How dare 'those gays' think they have the same rights as us? Only a man and woman deserve the right of marriage since the bible says so!

[karter]

That's low.


Calling the police when you're being harassed by a guy whose opinions were totallly unnecessary and uncalled for is low? kay....

If i'm honest I couldn't care less, but I thought I was being nice calling them what they want to be called. I can't win really, can I?

idk have you tried calling them gay people or homosexual people...because...well...they are people?


simply because they happen to disagree with gay marriage and/or homosexuality itself

Denying basic rights to people is not included in cutesy acceptable 'opinions vary' stuff so.


I find the sight of gay parades with large amounts of men dressed as women

O_O

let's just leave this aside...but you do know that trans people exist right? and they actively participate in lgbt rallies? I can't believe I have to ask you this

[GommeInc]

It seems blatantly obvious that is his opinion that gays are an abomination. If it wasn't he wouldn't feel the need to spout it purposefully in front of the couple.

What a waste of tax payers money - the police clearly do not know what assault is and, though his opinion was insulting, it wasn't an assault. Assault is having the victim(s) apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence. None of his words were to that effect - just ignorant. If anything it was a misapplication of the law but the law here is solid. Don't blame the law when it is misapplied, blame those applying it wrong :P

Standard compensation but 3 years was horrific. It could have been a lot less compensation and a lot less in court fees if it was dealt with promptly - it should have only taken either immediate realisation (statements from the couple and the preacher) or a matter of weeks to realise the preacher did not assault the couple. It's not even necessary to go into the whole "free speech" rubbish as in this instance the argument falls short at the first hurdle that he was guilty of some sort of offence.


well apparently they asked him his views on homosexuality he said it was a sin but god still loved them

so they started kissing in his face and mocking him crudely. they r just as annoying (if not more)
Strangely you're post probably makes the most sense :P He wasn't necessarily offensive saying God loves them, just not what they do (hilarious Christian logic - I hate farming but I love farmers). Their response was a bit childish.

[FlyingJesus]

Why is everyone so blindly extreme in all their views this is a case involving a grand total of four people, all of whom were wrong in some way. The preacher didn't have to antagonise them by saying what he did, but their reaction went a long way too far. They purposefully acted to make him feel uncomfortable and then wrongly involved the law just for telling them what they probably already knew the Bible said. The policeman was also clearly wrong in making an arrest (rather than just getting everyone to move on) and then for whatever reason detaining the preacher without food or drink; I can't imagine why he would have thought that was a good idea on any level.

Now some reasons why everyone is wrong:
*Marriage was not for most of human history just between a man and a woman anyway.
*"Shoving religion in your face" is just the same as any advertising, and I'm yet to see a missionary of any kind force someone to listen when they don't want to.
*Gay Pride events are usually just big concerts tbh, anyone in extreme clothing is still in small enough number to be anomalous.
*Making a statement from a historical document is not abuse.
*The B&B thing was also one isolated incident and not an attack on the church at large.
*Public displays of intent and belief are public displays of intent and belief no matter what they entail, you either like them all or hate them all make a choice.
*Getting someone arrested isn't a harmless reaction.
*Christians are not "under attack", but their leaders (as with all restrictive pressure groups other than feminists) are being allowed less leeway in law than they were previously used to in order to not hold back simple rights from non-believers.

Did I miss anything important

[GommeInc]

Did I miss anything important
Other than a question mark you pretty much nailed it ;)

EDIT: Oh, maybe a misapplication of the law if the preacher did supposedly commit an assault on the couple.

[The Don]

Why is everyone so blindly extreme in all their views this is a case involving a grand total of four people, all of whom were wrong in some way. The preacher didn't have to antagonise them by saying what he did, but their reaction went a long way too far. They purposefully acted to make him feel uncomfortable and then wrongly involved the law just for telling them what they probably already knew the Bible said. The policeman was also clearly wrong in making an arrest (rather than just getting everyone to move on) and then for whatever reason detaining the preacher without food or drink; I can't imagine why he would have thought that was a good idea on any level.

Now some reasons why everyone is wrong:
*Marriage was not for most of human history just between a man and a woman anyway.
*"Shoving religion in your face" is just the same as any advertising, and I'm yet to see a missionary of any kind force someone to listen when they don't want to.
*Gay Pride events are usually just big concerts tbh, anyone in extreme clothing is still in small enough number to be anomalous.
*Making a statement from a historical document is not abuse.
*The B&B thing was also one isolated incident and not an attack on the church at large.
*Public displays of intent and belief are public displays of intent and belief no matter what they entail, you either like them all or hate them all make a choice.
*Getting someone arrested isn't a harmless reaction.
*Christians are not "under attack", but their leaders (as with all restrictive pressure groups other than feminists) are being allowed less leeway in law than they were previously used to in order to not hold back simple rights from non-believers.

Did I miss anything important

I'm not sure if any of that is aimed at me but i've already stated in this thread that I thought all the people in this incident were wrong in some way. I also never said making a statement from the bible is abuse. Again, wasn't sure if you were aiming any of that post at me but wanted to clarify incase you were.

[FlyingJesus]

I think points 2 and 6 were about some of your posts I can't really remember who said what I thought thought it was hilarious that near enough everyone was wrong in some way

[Yawn]

as if undertaker not want to see men strutting in bare minimum. u not fooling any1 u got tom daley in speedos on ur wall!

[FlyingJesus]

Yes but he cries while touching himself and has to do 100 Hail Marys after

[The Don]

I think points 2 and 6 were about some of your posts I can't really remember who said what I thought thought it was hilarious that near enough everyone was wrong in some way

Fair enough, although I fail to see how my distaste of preaching is relevant to what you've said in point 2. I never said I thought it should be banned, just that I personally dislike it so I don't really see how that can be wrong. I also dislike intrusive advertising, which is why I have adblock installed on my computer :P As for point 6, I can see where you're coming from with that, but again it's not the act of public displays i'm against. I *personally* dislike people that preach, that doesn't mean i'm against them doing it. I don't like it because everyone knows what christianity is, and it seems unnecessary to 'raise awareness' for something that is already extremely popular.