| ▲ | spwa4 19 hours ago |
| Yes, the Brussels state is in desperate need of funds, so they rent out public parks, including the Cinquantenaire, for private events. Of course, during such events the park is not accessible to the public, and there's private security who can hand over anyone to the Brussels police to be escorted out of the park. You know, like you can do in your apartment too. So if Bill White, the US ambassador, pays to rent out the park for, I think it was 2 weeks, they can have whoever they want removed from this public park. Including any reporters. |
|
| ▲ | FabCH 18 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| They are not allowed to lie about it though. Lying to the police that the reporters are an "active threat" is criminal. |
| |
| ▲ | gpm 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | Presumably the ambassador has diplomatic immunity unfortunately. Really a concept we should get rid of in the day of video calls - there's no longer a strong enough need for foreign diplomats to be in a country to justify putting them above the law. |
|
|
| ▲ | carlosjobim 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The police didn't do something outside of their legal powers, that's not what the question is. It's rather unusual for any ambassador to use force to kick out invited reporters from a function. |
|
| ▲ | philipwhiuk 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > So if Bill White, the US ambassador, pays to rent out the park for, I think it was 2 weeks, they can have whoever they want removed from this public park. Including any reporters. That would be by private security not police though. You aren't generally arrested for annoying an event organiser. |
| |
| ▲ | Aerroon 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | If you get trespassed then wouldn't the police get involved? | | |
| ▲ | darreninthenet 19 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Depends on the laws in Belgium (I've no idea what they are)... in the UK for example trespass by itself is not a criminal matter, even if somebody refuses to leave your property... they need to be doing something else. | | |
| ▲ | n4r9 18 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Just to clarify. The UK police can assist you in ejecting trespassers, whom you have told to leave your house, in order to "prevent a breach of the peace". They won't arrest or charge trespassers unless they have reason to suspect criminal activity. In this case the Belgian police might have been justified in escorting the journalists off the premises. But I'm not sure what grounds they had to detain and question them. | |
| ▲ | 1234letshaveatw 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | They should have claimed the reporters were using AC |
| |
| ▲ | gspr 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | They weren't trespassing, they were invited! Aside: why do Americans always talk about trespassing as something that is done to the trespasser? Isn't trespassing the act itself? If I plant myself in your livingroom uninvited, then surely I am trespassing. Why do so many people instead say that I "get trespassed"? | | |
| ▲ | darthwalsh 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Because it's a common phrase? Same as "get carded"? English is flexible; almost any combination of words can start to have meaning. | | |
| ▲ | efreak 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Tresspass is not a reflexive verb. It does not happen to you, rather it's an action you perform. Saying someone got trespassed is like saying you were driven when you go somewhere in your car, or that the door opened itself; you're taking the agency away from the person doing the trespassing and saying that they didn't actually do it themselves, but rather someone else did it/it something that happened to them. This isn't a judgement on the article; it you don't want to say they were trespassing, then you should say it differently: they were _charged with_ or _accused of_ trespassing, etc. | |
| ▲ | gspr an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Because it's a common phrase? I know it's a common phrase (albeit sa uniquely american one? Never heard this from e.g. Brits). I'm asking how it came to be that way when it seemingly makes no sense. > Same as "get carded"? No, because "being carded" (if I understand correctly) is something that does in fact happen to you. In trespassing, you are the one doing the trespassing (to something/someone else). That's why I find it so weird that Americans turn the subject into object in the sentence. > English is flexible; almost any combination of words can start to have meaning Sure. But taking a perfectly fine sentence and turning the subject into an object (when the physical reality is unchanged) seems strange, and warrants curiosity. |
| |
| ▲ | Aerroon 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Because in semi-public places, like a store, you are only trespassing if you've been told to leave (you are trespassed). | | |
| ▲ | gspr 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | Why "are you trespassed" if you're told to leave? I understand that you might not be engaging in the act of trespassing until you have been made aware that you must leave. But refusing to do so surely then means that you are trespassing not that you "are trespassed? Trespassing is the act. The trespasser is the subject undertaking the act. The object that is being trespassed upon is surely then the offended location and/or person? |
| |
| ▲ | NopIdoN 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | the trespasser got trespasserized* by the trespassee, who was trespassed against when the trespasser did a trespass on them * trespasserified |
|
|
|
