Anyone seen woman arrested for saying f****t in a private text message?

People can deal with being called a name. NOBODY should ever have to be admitted to hospital with a broken skull because some monster broke their skull amongst other injuries.
There isn’t a word under sun to describe that piece of shit.
There is so much wrong with this justice system.

The hospital would have had to call the police.
She even said they came to the hospital after the attack and initially they arrested him.

"If the police weren’t going to do anything about what he did to her"

Is there any evidence she reported him to the police?

Being fat isn’t a protected characteristic though so it will never be illegal to describe someone as they are. Ie tall, short, blonde, brunette, curly haired, fat or thin.
Someone may not like their appearance but that doesn’t make a fact untrue.
I’m 5’2 if I was hunted by the police who said they were looking for a short woman that would be a description.
I also don’t like being 45 but I don’t believe nobody should acknowledge that fact because I don’t like it.

Personally after what that man did to her I think the word was pretty mild considering what he deserved to be called but apparently words hurt more than skull fractures.
If the police weren’t going to do anything about what he did to her, she’d have been better off caving his skull in with a baseball bat rather than calling him a name to somebody else because then surely she’d have got off too like he did.

More I think about it, whether her being charged was OTT or acceptable, it's still pretty ludicrous forcing entry and dragging her out the bath. I doubt she was about to flee to Mexico or anything.

Not quite the same situation as a violent criminal on the run who could harm somebody unless immediately apprehended. They could surely have just spoken with her calmly and advised her she was being charged etc.

Wonder if she has any recourse to complain. There was certainly a huge outrage when that black girl was strip searched on suspicion of having drugs on her person. This is arguably worse as they could've 100% ascertained guilt without approaching it in this manner, whilst the strip searching was probs the only way they could be entirely sure the girl didn't have drugs hidden in her underwear etc.

I do wonder - what is it that the anti-free-speech people are so worried that they are going to say? What is it about your right to free expression that you are against? It's harldly tinfoil hat when the arrests are being made. I think it was 6 police who arrested the lady for criticising the school management in a message. She was later awarded compensation.
The point behind free speech is to protect the people from the government. Reform might get in, so Nigel Farage might be able to dictate what you can and can't say. And he could, as there would be nothing stopping him. The idea behind free speech that you cannot predict the government of tomorrow. You need something like a 1st amendment, so that, no matter how crazy the government, you're able to criticise, organise, comment, satirise, etc. Suppose Reform decide that they don't want you saying a stack of things becuase it's grossly offensive to far right conservatives. Would we all acquiesce to that? And chime in "well it was against the law". Surely at some point a law becomes unjust? You could easily see feminist ideas labelled "hate speech" by a future government with a very conservative leaning, for example."Hateful against men" or "hateful against the family" or whatever they come up with. Free speech protects everyone; it's either accept you might be offended by words, or accept that you might be arrested for them. But you dont get to pick the words, it's whoever is in charge, they decide.

Two things can be true at once. She did commit a crime and the police did act inappropriately (if the reports are accurate).

You made it out like they were spying on her phone and arrested her she sent it to someone, they went to the police.
I don’t agree with them arresting her over this like that

But when a fat person beats somebody up and the victim angrily says "that fat prick put me in hospital"? The attacker walks free and the victim gets a sentence for calling them something nasty? Nobody is an angel here but it seems a bit backwards.

I'd not have been ranting via text tbh. I'd have had somebody catch up with the guy in a quiet spot like I did when I was being stalked and the police wouldn't do anything about it.

Even on the strength of the “news” article linked by a PP, her narrative is weak. “Round here that word just describes a weak person, it’s not about sexuality”. Sorry, no. Everyone knows what that word is intended to imply, and it’s not physical or emotional weakness.

But it'll reach a breaking point IMO. There's huge pushback against the woke. Trump getting into office repeatedly. Reform probs being our next government. The success of people like Andrew Tate.

I think the issue is that the type of people who want to police offensiveness/control society through wokeness are not usually very 'strong' individuals in the traditional sense. In the long run, those that are resilient won't be pushed around by those that aren't.

I mean 'strong' in both senses. Non woke people that are able to be confrontational/aggressive when needed and might choose roles like the military. Also, people like Trump who (whether you love or hate him) are able to shrug off criticism and attain significant power and resources by not giving a fuck.

I'm not saying people should acquiesce to these types, but when you pick a fight with them you'd better be able/prepared to see it through to the end because you lose the option of an uneasy coexistence, which is more or less what we've had until now.

Kind of surprised to see so many posters in favour of criminalising hate speech on here. You know for sure one of the first groups in the firing line will be those who disagree with sacrificing women's rights for trans rights.

It won't matter whether or not humans can change sex. What will matter was that you said it to somebody who you know may experience distress as a result. It's already happening.

FWIW, I don't think the N word Is acceptable. I'm also not sure whether the recent thread 'All men are filthy losers' with the majority of votes agreeing with OP isn't hate speech.

What I do think is that context is key. If somebody beats you up badly enough to put you in hospital with brain swelling and gets away scot free, then referring to them with a nasty word might be more understandable. I've called somebody the C word before. More than once. Would I use it normally? Generally not.

Also, people will generally just use the most obvious attribute when reaching for a insult. An overweight person might get called a 'fat c*nt' "or a redhead a 'ginger prick'. Most times I doubt the person using the insult really has an issue with ginger people.

Mine did this a well. She never cursed, so I don’t think she regarded it in any way as a slur. Oddly enough, it was in a kind of affectionate way. ‘Little’ was used in front of it. Like ‘Oh, you little rascal’. She was bilingual, with her native and first language being Irish. So, maybe she hadn’t adopted any American use of it being used as a slur against gay men.

"In your opinion?"

Your opinion has no value as you are not basing it on facts, just supposition and bullshit.

"I cannot make myself clearer. (That we don't know the facts. "

Yet you're happy to offer up facts repeatedly with no basis.

"So the newspaper reports state that she was arrested for using a slur word"

Which ones?

I cannot make myself clearer. (That we don't know the facts. If you feel you need to comment try not to pick up fag (if I can say that) ends and read all the posts Ive made.

I think we are talking about Elizabeth Kinney? So the newspaper reports state that she was arrested for using a slur word. You may know better than the papers though.

Anyway that's all for me for now.

"Pushing a right wing narrative"

Again we have the same sort of phrases trotted out. The Guardian has a lot to answer for. In my opinion.

I googled it. The 'search assist' gives the figures at the top of the page.

"two tier"

Well, that just shows you're talking absolute bollocks and pushing a right wing narrative

Musings then to have qualifiers before them. I think.. what if.. it could be...

"She was originally reported to police over the word "fagg*t"

It's nothing if not a definitive statement.

I think my wording shows I am not making any definite statements. I'm just musing on the implications of what may or may not have happened. Which is all we can do. Otherwise the thread is pointless (as Ive already pointed out). You're on this thread too so presumably are content to discuss potential implications too.

Rather than semantics, Im more interested in the current state of the two tier legal system in the UK and whether this case is relevant to that (which as Ive already pointed out upthread none of us know). Prosecutors tend to have a bias....and there seem to be a few activist judges at the moment. In my opinion only of course.

Again, what new thoughts do you have that havent already been discussed at length pages ago?

Not getting bogged down in semantics at all. You keep insisting that "she was reported over the word f-t". You don't know that. As you say, the only source for that are the media reports if you believe them. "A bad development if true". You seem to be allowing a lot of 'ifs' do a whole lot of heavy lifting there.

We do however have a direct quote from the prosecutor which talks of "abusive and homophobic text messages" (again my emphasis) as oppose to "abusive, homophobic messages" See the difference?. They were abusive without the word.

Which media reports claimed the police arrested her due to the use of the slur? rather than arrested her for barrage of messages which included the slur?

I think you are getting bogged down in semantics. Law school was a long time ago for me (before wrong speak was a thing) but Im pretty comfortable with how the magistrates court operates. If that was what you wanted to clarify for me?

If you read the media reports (if you believe them) the police arrested her due to the use of the f word. Which is a bad development if true.

Again..not sure what new information you want to tell me?

You’ve said “she was reported over the word f-t”. You don’t know that. You only know that the use of that word was cited as an aggravating factor.

You’ve said once in front of the beak she was then accused of malicious communication (my emphasis). It wasn’t then, that was always the charge. A charge that having seen the evidence (which you haven’t) the CPS thought worth pursuing. She and her legal team knew what she was charged with and she was advised to plead guilty.