Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Liverpool: Right-wing politician ‘to sue for wrongful arrest’ after rainbow flag complaint

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. I would imagine his arrest was due to using hate inticing texts on a day that was celebrating what he clearly is a homophobe… Religion and spirituality is one thing, the moral compas of eons past added in a book something else; the said mp might want to realise additions and emmitions on books was standard in the past…
    As for the planning permission…. Words fail me on how stupid can get …

  2. He states he thinks its unfair to be arrested for quoting the bible but I wouldn’t be surprised if he did not follow the same belief about someone quoting the quaran….

    On a lighter note I think Liverpool police department are setting an amazing example not only by flying the flag but by acting on negetive behaviour!

    1. Gemma Gillon 20 Jul 2012, 7:45pm

      I agree

  3. Hahahaha!

    This guy doesn’t know when to quit does he?

    As i said before, if this guy wasn’t wearing an outfit made of only one material then he hasn’t got much of a leg to stand on quoting Leviticus

    1. i think this is more about him being able to quote leviticus without fear of being detained rather than his typical christian hypocrisy. depending on the details of his arrest he might have case against police. we will have to wait and see

  4. Helen Wilson 20 Jul 2012, 5:10pm

    He s right he should sue! Its a padded cell at the hospital he should of been put in, not a police cell ;)

  5. Did he ‘only quote the Bible’? I’d guess there may have been another reason why he was detained. Either way, he’s making a fool of himself.

    1. I’d guess he came over as quite threatening.

  6. What a plonker. Wasting taxpayer money of police and courts for the flying of a rainbow coloured flag…

  7. I would ask Mr Rimmer what his demeanour was when he was “quoting the Bible” – perhaps an arrest was necessary to prevent a breach of the peace.

    Is Mr Rimmer not aware that not all arrests lead to caution/charge? So his claim this is vindication of his position is bogus and a complete misrepresentation of the legal facts.

    1. Cardinal Capone 21 Jul 2012, 12:51am

      If he repeatedly makes baseless claims he’ll be declared a vexatious litigant, and need special leave anytime he wants to make claims in the future.

    2. Mr Rimmer… I can’t read/say that name without snickering haha

  8. Doh! Idiot!

    For an arrest to be lawful does not require it to lead to a charge; there merely has to be “reasonable grounds to suspect” the commission of an offence by the relevant person. Investigation and legal advice may determine that either that person did not commit a crime, a crime was not commited or it was not in the public interest to pursue the matter – nonetheless, the arrest would still be lawful.

    Rimmer will have to consider the evidence on CCTV and from officers/others about his attitude and behaviour – given his belligerence on flags, it seems likely he will have kicked off somewhat – and then be able to demonstrate that all of this would not make an officer reasonably perceive the offence occurred.

    He is likely to be laughed out of court with huge costs towards him. But thats what he wants – he wants to be the victim and cry because he is being victimised because he can not demand others behave the way his indoctrination says should happen. He can not demand it!

  9. He will never win an election, but he is determined to leave on one in any doubt as to the extent to which he is a complete plonker.

  10. Robert in S. Kensington 20 Jul 2012, 6:30pm

    Maybe he was belligerent toward the police or resisted arrest, hard to know until the CCTV is viewed. Either way, great that Liverpool police did the right thing.

    1. Gemma Gillon 20 Jul 2012, 7:34pm

      If the arrest was unlawful he will be upheld by a judge as having a right to resist under English common law. There was a boy in Scotland (Sighted in a trial of police brutality ) that kicked an officer in the genitals for unlawful arrest and the judge agreed the boy had the right to do it under Scots common law.

      The polcie are subject to the same law as us, break it and you can fight back and be upheld in a court of law after the fact. Or are we in the habit of letting abusive officers off the hook because they have a uniform, well, maybe we are as seeing how a cop that pushed a drunk civilian onto the concrete streets of got off with it. Some animals are more equal than others it seems in some peoples eyes, but as any good judge will tell you – not in the eyes of the law.

      1. completely invalid point.
        1) he didn’t “resist” his arrest. and he isn’t charged with resisting arrest.

        2) kicking someone in the genitals is common battery/ physical assault.

        3) the word is “cited”… as in, a “citation”. not “sighted” as in “seen”.

      2. Gemma

        Scots law does not set precedent for English law.

        Robert did suggest resisting arrest, but I don’t believe either Rimmer or Merseyside Police are suggesting that he resisted arrest. So your comments (which appear to be attempts to justify Rimmers odious actions) are, at best, tenuous.

        Rimmer has a history of lashing out with histrionics. He appears to have rambled on (perhaps quoting the Bible) within the police station for several hours despite being asked to desist. He refused to do so. The officers formed the opinion they had a power to arrest him, and thus took action to prevent him continuining his tirade. He had exercised his freedom of speech, but doing so for several hours was restricitng others rights to a quiet life and their freedom from religion.

        That there is no charge is not relevant in whether the arrest was lawful or even whether it was legitimate.

  11. One of my favourite quotes of Paul Rimmer is that “Christian ethics is not decided by majority vote”. Forgetting the grammar issue, would this mean that Rimmer would accept that a referendum on the issue of equal marriage would be a bad idea?

    1. Gemma Gillon 20 Jul 2012, 7:35pm

      Good point. :)

    2. only when they were writing the bible they did vote on things, they even voted on the divinity of Jesus.

  12. Gemma Gillon 20 Jul 2012, 7:27pm

    I myself as a bisexual trans person will be complaining against this polcie force for this. He is repugnant yes but he happens to be right hear, his human rights were abused. You cant arrest somebody for holding a different opinion and filing a complaint. If that flag was raised contrary to the town and county planning act then it was raised contrary to it, if the polcie did not like it they should campaign like us, to have the law changed. As for the Leviticus quotation so what ? I could have the custody sergeant give me a king James with the very same sentiment, if I was in a cell. Dose that mean the state is homophobic and asking for the death penalty then ? No. It seems from the article that the man was assaulted, falsely imprisoned and discriminated against. I would not be just suing I would be involving the CPS.

    1. You would.

      1. Gemma Gillon 20 Jul 2012, 7:45pm

        I genuinely am not trying to be a quizzing hear I am just trying to be honest. There are plenty of quotations in the Quran and other faiths that outlaw homosexuality, calling for execution but the police would NEVER a member of another faith for quoting it. I am not saying this man was not an idiot but if your going to make a law it must be consistent. You must at least see that.

        The police in England are going to come up a cropper. A religious minister in the streets of England was arrested for doing the exact same thing and prosecuted under hate crime legislation. When it went to trial the guy simply pointed to the king James in the court room he had been asked to swear upon and showed the same quotation. He stated, well if ou find me guilty you must find the state guilty of promoting the same.

        The judge agreed. You cant send him down for saying what the state is saying everyday to gay people, the answer is not to put people in cells but to replace the king James.

        1. With regard to that, do you know that that was the reason he was taken into custody? I doubt that because people quote Leviticus lots of times, and in public too, without being detained. That’s why I suggest it might have been his behaviour that got him detained, not his Bible.

          1. Cardinal Capone 21 Jul 2012, 12:39am

            Wasting police time would be my guess, but he would have been told the reason for his arrest at the time. Iinterestingly he is not mentioning it.

        2. Actually the police have charged muslims and they have been convicted for shouting similar quotations. It is criminal in this country whether you like it or not.

    2. Bisexual? You said you were gay on another thread. I have no idea whether you’re Aiden or not but your constant, vociferous defence of any matter vaguely related to Christianity at the expense of the rights of LGBT people makes me suspicious. That and the fact that when talking about LGBT people on another comment page you said “you” instead of “we”….

      1. Gemma Gillon 20 Jul 2012, 7:54pm

        LGBT is the one thing to me. I don’t like labels. I’m not this guy. i can see how you see me as a quizzing but there is a method to the madness hear. If the state can favour one group today then they can disfavour you tomorrow for the favour of another. The law must be equal, then there is peace. If I called you a ‘Gay so and so’ I would expect to be put in a cell, on the same not if I called you a ‘Christian so and so’ I would expect the same.

        I will defend a Christian to the hilt or a atheist to the hilt if his rights are abused either way.

        Anyway, rant over.

        1. I agree with equality and I respect the rights of those who hold religious beliefs to hold them. I’ve stuck up for religious rights before on Pink News. But – and this is a comment not an insult – I find you seem go too far the other way, that is, tending to favour religion over LGBT rights. That makes me uneasy and suspicious. I don’t get your motivation sometimes. Maybe you just come across badly someyimes, I don’t know.

          1. i’m with you Iris. GG’s poorly reasoned support of both Christian Concern made recently, and now for this nut, indicates a rather distorted perspective on legal rights, skewed in favor of the opposition. But, to be fair, it could just be a lack of familiarity with British culture and law…. the writing does not read like that of a native speaker.

          2. Thank you, SkepChik. You make a good point about the language. Perhaps it’s that that’s skewing our perception of Gemma’s words. I’m still not wholly convinced though at the moment.

          3. Robert in S. Kensington 21 Jul 2012, 12:29am

            Iris, I have been monitoring GG’s comments and will continue to do so. I suspect “hers” (I think it’s a fake female, possibly Aiden) tend to favour the religious argument. I’m glad I’m not alone in this. When they’re threatened with being blocked from PN, they change their tone, slightly, but it’s quite transparent where they are coming from. They’re not quite that smart to outfox the rest of us and they always give themselves away.

          4. I’m glad it’s not just me, Robert. I always feel bad suspecting people, but there’s something that’s pinging my trolldar here. Could be an unfortunate coincidence based on Gemma’s use of language and writing style, but I still don’t feel completely reassured yet.

        2. If you don’t like labels and just feel “LGBT”, then stop misusing “trans”, “bisexual”, and “Gemma Gillon”, why don’t you?

    3. Complain away Gemma – you will get very polite letters back from Merseyside Police (and if you choose to involve them the IPCC and CPS) explaining that your interpretation of the law (in this matter) in very much in error.

      From what I have read of this case, Rimmer was asked to stop his commentary (that had lasted several hours) in a police station and refused. Now you could argue this was exercising freedom of speech – perhaps for the first 10 or 15 minutes, but after being asked politely to desist and that a police station is not an appropriate arena for the type of comments that were being made and having had it explained how the issues could be raised – to continue for a protracted time is not exercising freedom of speech it becomes denying others their rights to a quiet life, disrupting the business of the police protecting other parts of society, denying others their right to freedom from religion. So, legitimately he can be arrested. I would not (personally) have chosen the

      1. specific offence the officers did (based on the information I have, although I was not there at the time – and I suspect Gemma was not either, thus her ability to make a legitimate complaint about this issue is questionable!) – I suspect I would have arrested to prevent a breach of the peace.

        It is sheer madness to believe that Rimmers actions are acceptable or appropiate in a civilised society.

        1. DJ Sheepiesheep 21 Jul 2012, 12:37am

          At weekends, Mr Rimmer goes by the name “Gemma”.

  13. Let him sue. I’m sure there are plenty of lawyers who will take his money.

    1. yeap plenty of lawyers that know he doesn’t have a case but will argue it anyway for his money.

  14. Roger The Cabin Boy 20 Jul 2012, 8:51pm

    In England, peoples surnames often reflect their past professions or proclivities. ie; a blacksmith would be called Mr. Blacksmith. I wonder what Mr. Rimmer’s proclivity really is?

  15. Anyone think it’s just a little ironic that he is called Mr Rimmer?

    I don’t agree that he should be arrested though. Everyone has a right to freedom of speech no matter how idiotic. If he did incite hatred or violence towards anyone then yes he should be.

    1. Cardinal Capone 21 Jul 2012, 12:43am

      There exists a charge of wasting police time. Maybe that’s what he was arrested for.

  16. Keith Farrell 21 Jul 2012, 12:06am

    Want to quote Leviticus at me? Ok, two can play that game.

    Leviticus 19:27 “You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard.” Bye bye round haircuts!

    Leviticus 11:8, which is discussing pigs, reads “You shall not eat of their flesh nor touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you.” Bye football, you had a nice run (Geddit? Run? Cus they run in football?).

    Leviticus 19:31 reads “Do not turn to mediums or spiritists; do not seek them out to be defiled by them. I am the Lord your God.” No more horoscopes.

    Leviticus 19:28 reads, “You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the Lord.” No tattoos. Not even a little star.

    Leviticus 19:19 reads, “You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together.” That one speaks for its self.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 21 Jul 2012, 4:56pm

      There are many others to elsewhere in the old (jewish) testament. I love the one in Deuteronomy 22, 13-29: ” “If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman; so you shall purge the evil from Israel. “If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor’s wife; so you shall purge the evil from the midst of you. “But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die”…..

  17. Mr Rimmer?….!!!!!!!

    I wonder what he does at weekends?

  18. Section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 provides:

    “(6) Where a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an arrestable offence has been committed, he may arrest without a warrant anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of an offence.”

    There is an obiter dictum of Mr Justice Forbes in Millington v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (The Times May 28, 1983 referred to in a footnote in Clayton and Tomlinson’s publication Civil Actions Against the Police (2nd edition (1992) pp 175-176).

    It was implicit in that approach that, depending on the circumstances of the arrest, what might be required to determine whether reasonable grounds existed for suspicion was investigation not of what was in the mind of the arresting officer but rather of what was in the mind of some other officer who instructed or requested the first officer to make the arrest or who provided the information which, reasonably or otherwise, caused that officer

    1. to form a genuine suspicion and make the arrest.

      It has also to be shown that there had been reasonable grounds for forming such a suspicion. The basis of that suspicion was not necessarily the officer’s own observations. He could have formed the suspicion from the information he received, whether true or false, and a reasonable man, having regard to all the surrounding circumstances, would also regard that suspicion as reasonable.

      Reasonable grounds suggest an objective test, this is lower than the standard sufficient to prove a prima facie case. In the course of their duties constables act for various reasons, eg, information received, radio messages, telephone calls, or perhaps the word of an informer; all are valid reasons. It is not surprising that the Courts have allowed reasonable scope: whilst setting limits.

      Where a constable’s reasons for suspicion are sufficient, he is under no obligation to go looking for further evidence, or to probe every explanation before exercising

    2. his powers of arrest; as Lord Devlin said in Shaaban Bin Hussien v Chong Fook Kam [1970] AC 942, at 948; “suspicion in its ordinary meaning is a state of conjecture or surmise where proof is lacking: ‘I suspect but I cannot prove’.”

      Arrest does not necessarily lead to a charge. If the police decide to proceed, they will consult the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) about the charge, and will then pass the papers to the CPS who will make the final decision to continue with a prosecution.

      The focus of the legal argument on any civil action for unlawful arrest by the Merseyside Police officer would be in connection with the perception and belief of the officer at the time they made the arrest. If they had reasonable grounds to suspect an arrestable offence may have been committed (note the may ) then this makes the arrest highly likely to be lawful. Arguable it also would then render Rimmers case to be potentially vexacious – but I suspect he (and possibly Andrea Williams) are

    3. already very much aware of the legal fact that this application is likely to fail. That, I suspect, is not their motivation – their motivation is to appear to be the victim – which they are not.

  19. Section 5 public order act or if he made the police officer feel threatened common assault No leg to stand on for Mr Rimmer.

  20. What an absolute ignorant idiot this man is! I hope Merseyside Police sue him for inciting hate!

  21. Quoting Leviticus is a bit stupid if you’re a ‘committed Christian’, as it was Jesus who basically said to ignore the rules in that particular book.

    It’s disgusting to use scripture to justify homophobia and bigotry.

    Religion has a lot to answer for.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all