The Student Room Group

Controversial hate preacher attacked by students

Scroll to see replies

She should face charges. The attack was not in self defence and was not in a position of danger.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by the bear
enjoy your special interest publications :h:


I'm not sure if that was supposed to be some kind of cutting sneer. I'm looking at these two publications as in 1885 on one of my family's properties in Long Crendon, Oxfordshire a hoard of Elizabethan and Jacobean coins was found. As happened at the time, the Mint/Treasury on behalf of the monarch claimed many of the best specimens, and we kept the rest and the containers in which they were found.

The coins and containers are still in the family, we wanted to go back to articles printed in the Thame Gazette to find out more about the hoard, the coins that the Treasury kept, etc. Personally I enjoy researching my family's history but even if this was simply an area in which I had a nerdish interest, I'm not sure why you'd think I should be embarrassed by it.

The comment simply causes you to come across as cranky and vulgar
Original post by DiddyDec
She should face charges. The attack was not in self defence and was not in a position of danger.


He should face charges of lewd and lascivious conduct toward a minor and be registered as a sex offender.

Also deeply interesting to me that the Christian hard right strenuously object to children being taught about sex education by their teachers, but are completely fine if it's screamed at the children by some creepy grown man with no job who hangs outside their school
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by *Stefan*
It is unacceptable to use violence against someone who 'preaches' hate, no matter how disgusting what they say is. End of.


Are you okay with grown men hanging around outside schools screaming at children about sex-related subjects and saying these minors deserve to be raped?

Just interested. I don't agree with violence against him, but it's a stretch to claim he was simply exercising free speech.
Reply 24
Original post by Thutmose-III
Are you okay with grown men hanging around outside schools screaming at children about sex-related subjects and saying these minors deserve to be raped?

Just interested. I don't agree with violence against him, but it's a stretch to claim he was simply exercising free speech.


Of course I'm not okay. They should be legally punished (not referring to jail obvs -a slap on the wrist), however, not beaten.

And to me this is not exactly exercising free speech.
(edited 7 years ago)
The only thing I don't like is that the hit round the head didn't knock any sense into him.
Original post by Thutmose-III
He should face charges of lewd and lascivious conduct toward a minor and be registered as a sex offender.


Last I checked, college students weren't minors.
Original post by *Stefan*
Of course I'm not okay. They should be legally punished (not referring to jail obvs -a slap in the wrist), however, not beaten.

And to me this is not exactly exercising free speech.


Why a slap on the wrist? My own view is that society has just cause, when it comes to the protection of minors, to make particular legal provisions and create criminal offences to ensure that individuals who seek to interfere with children (their safety, their education, their wellbeing etc) are punished.

If he has sought to interfere with these students in a sexual way (by making lewd and lascivious suggestions to child minors, that they should be raped) then it is absolutely reasonable for the court impose a sentence of a custodial nature. Though in fairness I also take into account than any conviction on those charges would result in this man being a registered sex offender which would essentially ruin his life, so perhaps a jail sentence is not entirely necessary
Original post by DiddyDec
Last I checked, college students weren't minors.


He wasn't outside a college, he was outside a high school
Original post by Asuna Yuuki
The only thing I don't like is that the hit round the head didn't knock any sense into him.


:lol:

I think we can safely say it didn't cause him any brain damage, given you can't (outside the mathematical world) subtract from nil.
Reply 30
Original post by Thutmose-III
Why a slap on the wrist? My own view is that society has just cause, when it comes to the protection of minors, to make particular legal provisions and create criminal offences to ensure that individuals who seek to interfere with children (their safety, their education, their wellbeing etc) are punished.

If he has sought to interfere with these students in a sexual way (by making lewd and lascivious suggestions to child minors, that they should be raped) then it is absolutely reasonable for the court impose a sentence of a custodial nature. Though in fairness I also take into account than any conviction on those charges would result in this man being a registered sex offender which would essentially ruin his life, so perhaps a jail sentence is not entirely necessary


When I say slap on the wrist, I'm referring to the first time. It would be prudent to have progressively harsh punishment on this type of 'offence'.

Jail is unwarranted for of idiocy. Yes, he should be jailed if he actually goes further, but not because he speaks crap. Orders of financial nature would be both more effective and logical.

In any case, reverting to the original post, whoever hit him should be fined for actual bodily harm or, more appropriately, grievous bodily harm. If people are allowed extrajudicial punishments we are well screwed.
Original post by Thutmose-III
:lol:

I think we can safely say it didn't cause him any brain damage, given you can't (outside the mathematical world) subtract from nil.


so true :rofl:
Original post by Thutmose-III
He wasn't outside a college, he was outside a high school


So, do you support violence against those you disagree with?
Original post by *Stefan*
When I say slap on the wrist, I'm referring to the first time. It would be prudent to have progressively harsh punishment on this type of 'offence'.

Jail is unwarranted for of idiocy. Yes, he should be jailed if he actually goes further, but not because he speaks crap. Orders of financial nature would be both more effective and logical.


It's not his offensive religious judgments for which I demand he be punished; it's the specific issue of his using violent, sexually suggestive language to underage boys and girls. Yelling at 14 year old girls that they deserve to be raped is on the same level as walking up to one in the street and saying, "I want to bleep you, come on baby". Perhaps worse. In my opinion, anyway.

In any case, reverting to the original post, whoever hit him should be fined for actual bodily harm or, more appropriately, grievous bodily harm. If people are allowed extrajudicial punishments we are well screwed.


That is fair enough. The girl should be punished, hitting him in the head was absolutely not okay and profoundly immoral. Quids says the girl that did it has mental or other social adjustment disorders. But clearly the violence was wrong.

Equally though, I find it hard to sympathise with him (even though I believe he has been wronged physically, and the perpetrator should be punished).

Actually, he has said that women invite rape by walking around in skimpy clothing; maybe he invited the attack by not wearing a bike helmet? :wink:
Original post by DiddyDec
So, do you support violence against those you disagree with?


Complete non-sequiter.

I said he should face prosecution for his lewd and lascivious conduct towards minors (screaming at 14 year old girls that they should be raped). You responded that college students aren't minors. I pointed out he was outside a high school, not a college.

Let me repeat that so it can sink in. I said he should face prosecution for his lewd and lascivious conduct towards minors (screaming at 14 year old girls that they should be raped). You responded that college students aren't minors. I pointed out he was outside a high school, not a college.

It seems, at best, a low rhetorical trick to then strawman me by asking whether I suppose violence against those with whom I disagree.

I've made clear I do not think he should have been batted around the chops, and the perpetrator of course must be punished according to law. I'm simply pointing out he should also be punished according to law.

Why are you defending this scumbag's violent, sexually suggestive language to underage girls? At least, that's how your position comes across with your cheap non-sequiter
Original post by Thutmose-III

Why are you defending this scumbag's violent, sexually suggestive language to underage girls? At least, that's how your position comes across with your cheap non-sequiter


Can you please quote the part where I supported his actions?
Original post by DiddyDec
Can you please quote the part where I supported his actions?


So now you know how it feels to be on the other end of a cheap, rhetorical strawmanning by a non-sequiter?

Or perhaps I should have said; can you please quote the part where I supported violence against him?

Also, do you now accept that his conduct was lewd and lascivious towards underage girls? Do you condemn people interfering with underage girls in that way?
Original post by Thutmose-III
So now you know how it feels to be on the other end of a cheap, rhetorical strawmanning by a non-sequiter?

Or perhaps I should have said; can you please quote the part where I supported violence against him?

Also, do you now accept that his conduct was lewd and lascivious towards underage girls? Do you condemn people interfering with underage girls in that way?


The key difference is you stated I was defending him, I merely asked if you supported the violence.

I never said I did or did not support his actions.
Original post by DiddyDec
I never said I did or did not support his actions.


You did defend him. I brought up his harassment and lewd and lascivious conduct toward minors, you defended it by asserting they weren't minors. You tried to take the sting out of that criticism of him by posting untrue information that extinguished the real issue there (that this involved underage girls with whom he was using violent, sexually suggestive language)

I merely asked if you supported the violence


You replied to my correction of your statement with a "So, you support violence against.. etc", a complete non-sequiter and an obvious attempt to play the man not the ball.

You are becoming increasingly dishonest, and seem perplexed when someone can see straight through your low ad hominem devices. Life is too short for this crap, so I think we should leave it there
Original post by UnoriginalBen
What laws did he break? Free speech is allowed. Harassment maybe? I'm certain that the students made threats at the man, maybe they should go to jail.


Anyone who committed a crime should be prosecuted.

In most US states "lewd and lascivious conduct" toward a minor is a criminal offence. He used violent and sexually suggestive language (stating they "Deserved to be raped" ) to underage girls. It seems to fit the bill to me.

Free speech doesn't allow you to go up to underage children and starting engaging them in sexually charged interactions and comments
(edited 7 years ago)

Quick Reply

Latest