British Woman Leaves “Vile” Note On Ambulance . . . Police Arrest Woman For Public Disorder

1519059712419

We have repeatedly discussed how Great Britain has been in a free fall from the criminalization of speech to the expansion of the surveillance state.  The alarming rollback on free speech rights in the West, particularly striking in England ( here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here).  Now, a new case shows how ambiguous laws are being used to criminalize conduct that was once viewed as simply rude or obnoxious.  A woman has been arrested for leaving a furious note on an ambulance of the West Midlands Ambulance Service for parking in a reserved space during an emergency call.  The note is disgraceful, but the arrest shows how England has plunged head-long into the waters of speech criminalization and regulation.

The ambulance crew was responding to an emergency call to help a person who was having trouble breathing. When they returned, they found a note that they described as “vile” reading:

“If this van is for anyone but Number 14 then you have no right to be parked here. I couldn’t give a s— if the whole street collapsed now move your van from outside my house.”

 

West Midlands Ambulance Service

When the Staffordshire police saw the Twitter post, they went and arrested the woman on suspicion of public order offenses.

So it is a crime against “public order” to leave an insulting note on an ambulance? Presumably, the police will decide what language is sufficiently disruptive. Of course, since this was read by public employees, they simply can claim being hurt or upset to establish such a crime.  Moreover, the note was not truly public (beyond being put on a windshield) until the crew posted it on social media. That is when it became a public disorder.

Once again, I fail to see how our British cousins do not see the implications of such laws and the arbitrary way that they are enforced.  In this case, the putting of the note on social media and the resulting public outcry led to the police effort.  The danger is that what is considered disruptive will turn on public agreement or disagreement with the written sentiments.  Free speech becomes an extension of public opinion.

What do you think?

41 thoughts on “British Woman Leaves “Vile” Note On Ambulance . . . Police Arrest Woman For Public Disorder

  1. If I were the ambulance driver, I would’ve lit the note on fire and dropped it in the mailbox at #14. I would not have gotten whiny and shown it to the police or the press.

  2. Off topic. New topic which the Turley blog needs to address. Florida Shooter and killer of 17:
    Florida has a set of statutes as do almost all states. A wacko can be identified by a cop, a school person, a medical person. anyone, and directed to the duty. Yes Duty! of the prosecuting attorney in the county to submiit a case to a judge to remove the crazy dork to a mental facility for evaluation and thence lock up and mental health treatment. I set forth the Florida statute on a previous blog here. Read it.

  3. Law has certainly changed.

    – Roman law allowed a man to beat, divorce or murder his wife if she besmirched his name or damaged his property.

    – The “Rule of Thumb” of English common law allowed men to beat their wives with sticks no larger than the diameter of their thumbs.

    – “All states made ‘wife beating’ illegal by 1920.”

    Whatever happened to America? The American Founders presumed civility, “good men”, honor, etiquette, manners, decency, being polite, etc. The American Founders UNDERSTOOD profoundly that the restricted vote was of utmost and essential importance to the perpetuation of the representative republic they created. They had no idea it was of any importance to codify a vote restricted to European male landowners aged 21. They thought it was universally understood as a physical axiom. Transgenderism, “Affirmative Action Privilege”, welfare, quotas, forced busing, Obamacare, illegal invasion/immigration, transfer of American wealth to China, floated dollar printing, $21 trillion national debt, “he said, she said” election campaigns, anti-testosterone “Pussyhat Resistance” movements, etc.

    Someone has been duped. The American Founders established severely limited government not

    Laws “R” Us!

  4. ɪ ɢᴇᴛ ᴘᴀɪᴅ ᴏᴠᴇʀ $80/ʜᴏᴜʀ ᴡᴏʀᴋɪɴɢ ꜰʀᴏᴍ ʜᴏᴍᴇ ᴡɪᴛʜ Two ᴋɪᴅs ᴀᴛ ʜᴏᴍᴇ.I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 3k a WEEK doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless.Check it out here… >> ExpertTrade4.Com

  5. @issacbasonkavitch

    Don’t worry, you’ll get your sacred hate speech laws here soon enough. I would respect you more if you just admitted that as a goal.

    • Anteny

      There is no such thing as a god given or unalienable right. Men/people stated this; therefore the people who stated it made it happen, not a god.

      So called unalienable rights have been added, amended, and most of all perverted since the beginning of the use of the word. This is true with all religions, constitutions, bills of rights, etc.

      The variable is the context of the moment. This is what makes those that demand to be armed to the teeth so dangerous. Not only do they pervert the second amendment, they stand out of context.

      This is also true with the freedom of speech. The law differentiates between free speech that is connected to harm and free speech that is not, in all countries including the US. It can be no other way. There will always be an area of decision making.

      In Great Britain a judgement call was made. That does not mean Britons have any less freedom of speech than Americans.

  6. Unless she physically blocked their ambulance or interfered with their job, then her actions should not be considered criminal. Rude, yes, but not criminal. As someone who has asthma and has had trouble breathing, which is frightening, I found her note callous. However, I feel lucky that we enjoy such robust free speech rights here in the US.

    If you could be arrested for offending anyone here in the US, then we would all live in prison. Anyone who upset anyone else over Climate Change, for or against, politics, religion, sporting events, riding disciplines, clothes…pretty much anything, would be jailed. Of course, the government would pick and choose which offenses to criminalizing, and we citizens might not like how they define that.

    • Of course, the government would pick and choose which offenses to criminalizing, and we citizens might not like how they define that.

      You and your rights, um,er privileges will be just fine as long as you don’t lose elections to people that don’t share your beliefs.

  7. Woman exposed the fact she is a crank – should not be considered a crime. I bet the EMT folks have had to put up with a lot worse.

  8. “Vile” Note On Ambulance . . . Police Arrest Woman For Public Disorder”

    This is what happens in a society where PC goes wild. The note was not a physical threat and nor does that type of disorder become one. If it were, we would probably have to arrest everyone at one point or another.

    Issac shows his stripes. Pure authoritarian mixed with a bit of craziness “In the US free speech is held as a sacred right, except when it is directed at a cop or a licensed gun owner then the free speaker gets blown away.” Not true even for a warped mind. A mind is a horrible thing to waste. Maybe Issac should be arrested for wasting his mind.

      • Olly, I think Issac is unable to understand that democracy is not a protection of one’s rights. As I have said over and over again democracy provides 51% the right to enslave the other 49%. Thus since the note was rude and 51% might believe the person should be prosecuted that doesn’t make prosecution right.

        I don’t think Issac understands the reasoning behind a constitutional republic. I think he believes his mindset is the “correct mindset” and that all other “mindsets” are incorrect and in the vast minority. Thus his underlying idea of democracy takes over and suddenly what he believes becomes law whether or not it denies human rights to another.

        It is not until Issac is suddenly in the minority on an important life issue does Issac realize that the denial of his rights is inappropriate even though 51% believed it so. It is only at that time that he will reject such a vote and realize he has entered an autocratic world.

        • Allan,

          issac is not alone in his worldview. I agree elections have consequences, but his worldview puts everything on the table. The security of rights, liberty and property (pursuit of happiness) should not be at risk simply because an election doesn’t go our way. Conservatives and Liberals may disagree on policy, but we shouldn’t have to fear for the security of our rights merely because our candidate didn’t become President, or that Congress is controlled by an opposing party, or that the Courts might lean against us.

          So because issac and his ilk believe our rights are privileges in disguise, then elections do pose grave risks. This means elections must be won by any means necessary. This means money will flow into the process in greater and greater amounts. This means those with the greatest influence will seek politicians that can be bought. This means unscrupulous people will seek the power of political office and do everything in their power to remain there.

          All of issac’s blather about oligarchs rings hollow as his worldview is precisely why they exist.

          • You think that’s bad? Think about what happens when the only choices being offered are between abrogating one subset of your rights, versus abrogating a different subset.

          • “I agree elections have consequences, but his worldview puts everything on the table. The security of rights, liberty and property (pursuit of happiness) ”

            Olly, it is not just a viewpoint. It is a vision based on dreams or a type of religious fervor. When reality doesn’t meet their vision they skip over what is real and focus on the unreal or those things that do not significantly pertain to the point at hand. That is one reason that principle is seldom adhered to by the left.

            I believe some on the left recognize this reality but still pursue their vision. I think Ken is an example. He recognizes that some of the information about Trump is questionable and can’t deal with logical arguments so he probably feels that since he can’t dispute the facts he might as well lie and make ridiculous facts up. Thus his diatribes accuse Trump of all sorts of sexual deviation despite the fact that few if any actually believe some of them. He figures the barnyard approach and arguments are as good as the truth. In other words, he lies (pun intended) with sheep, goats, and ducks.

            • Allan,
              I said worldview, not viewpoint. Huge difference. It’s more than just their vision for the future. It’s how they view history and the present.

              Regarding Ken. Imagine him in a discussion with you and others where you were all physically present. Based on his comments, you’d likely dismiss him as an illiterate pervert and move away from him as quickly as possible. Would you even give him a second thought?

              • “It’s more than just their vision for the future. It’s how they view history and the present.”

                Olly, their vision of the future impacts how they view history and the present. Many of them believe the end justifies the means. Sorry for the mixup in words, but I don’t the difference in wording is so huge when are talking about their vision.

                “Regarding Ken. … Would you even give him a second thought?

                I wouldn’t be around Ken in his present persona, but we are on a list where there are two separate roads. The road you and I both wish to be on is one where people are able to discuss things and learn while welcoming those that disagree with intelligence instead of stupidity. The second road interferes with the first and there is nothing you can do about it except quit the list and start your own with intelligent people. The problem is if one has libertarian thoughts on the subject the Ken’s of the world cannot be kept off the list so one has to deal with them either quietly or learn to respond on their level.

                I think that distresses you, but if you communicate intelligently and enough people do so they would fade away in the background, but I didn’t see that happen before I posted or after so I am not about to change the world.

                  • OK, Olly, I am glad you are not distressed by the discourse on the blog. I really thought you were because of a comment you made to me quite awhile back. In the meantime, I appreciate what you write promoting our natural rights.

  9. If you read the full article, you would have noticed that the issue was not that the woman vented her spleen and whether she had that right under some interpretation of freedom of speech, but that the emts were not to feel threatened in any way that would impede them doing their jobs. It’s a fine line but is worth considering. Those performing emergency services should not have to worry about nutcases who may or may not slash a tire or ?. In the US free speech is held as a sacred right, except when it is directed at a cop or a licensed gun owner then the free speaker gets blown away. Per capita how many free speaking gun toting nut cases are roaming Great Britain? In the end it is all about prevention. I doubt very much that if the ambulance was a plumber’s van, this would have happened. The woman’s position is one of someone who should be notified of society’s priorities.

    In the end, all of our freedoms are privileges that through responsible exercise can be taken as rights. A right abused is no longer a privilege.

    • but that the emts were not to feel threatened in any way that would impede them doing their jobs. It’s a fine line but is worth considering.

      Threatened by “you can’t park here, move your van?”. That’s not remotely close to any line, and not worth considering in the least.

    • In the end, all of our freedoms are privileges that through responsible exercise can be taken as rights.

      By responsible exercise you mean as determined by the state. So if the state determines you have been irresponsible or cannot be trusted to be responsible (whatever that means) in your rights, then those rights become privileges that are no longer unalienable? Well congratulations, you’ve now made a strong argument for a return of the slave trade. Now all that is necessary is to elect legislators that believe anyone with Canadian roots should not have the privilege of life, liberty or property.

      • Olly, your point is essential for one’s understanding of what a free man is. Without being snarky I don’t think Issac’s mindset permits him to understand the concept you are raising though that concept is clear to you and me.

  10. So much for their precious “unwritten constitution.” They’ll learn all this political correctness is the vanguard of the tyranny of compassion but it might be too late if the Muslim horde grows any stronger.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s