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

Interesting if true

She was completely humiliated by 11 police officers 10 of whom were men who burst into her naked and got her out the bath and stood there while she was naked giving her no privacy to get dressed.
Thats disgusting and makes her vulnerable, no way should they get to see her naked just because they have power, she should have been given the respect to get dressed before 10 men stood there gawping at her.

The recipient of the texts accused her. And the police. Presumably she had to be charged with something to be before a magistrate. Thats usually how things work?

And Ive repeatedly said none of us know what was in the texts because she pleaded guilty. And in the current climate that's probably just as well. Im not sure what your point is other than going over old ground.

You seem to have just made most of this up. Since when were people 'accused' at the point at which they're 'up before the beak'?

And yes none of us know what she said. So like everyone else, you have no idea what it was about the messages that resulted in the conclusion that they met the threshold for prosecution.

It says that the sentence was increased due to the homophobic reference, so she would have likely been convicted anyway, which means the rest of it must have been pretty choice.

The F word was an aggravating factor on top of the malicious communication.

The crime was malicious communication.

It's not criminalising words.

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

Source?

She was then in front of the beak where she was accused of a homophobic hate crime by "causing to be sent by public communication network an offensive, indecent, obscene or menacing messages".

." The texts appear to have been homophobic in nature hence the alarm to the recipient and why they were reported to the police. Ie the word "fagg*t"."

Source that this was the cause of the alarm?

" The essence of the "crime" are the words themselves and in this case appear to be the f word."

Source as to the use of this term being the deciding factor?

You acknowledge in your post that nobody knows the content of the messages but go straight in to also deciding you know that this one word was the reason it was reported, the case of the alarm and the essence of the crime. It's all complete supposition on your part.

@randomchap

She was originally reported to police over the word "fagg*t" . She was then in front of the beak where she was accused of a homophobic hate crime by "causing to be sent by public communication network an offensive, indecent, obscene or menacing messages".

She pleaded guilty so there was no trial. So none of us know what she said to see whether the JP was applying the law correctly.

Also I think you suggest that the sentence was uplifted because of homophobia with the underlying offence being malicious communication. The texts appear to have been homophobic in nature hence the alarm to the recipient and why they were reported to the police. Ie the word "fagg*t". However you cant just pull a malicious communication out of thin air. The essence of the "crime" are the words themselves and in this case appear to be the f word.

Hence the whole point of this thread. That words are being criminalised.

Again, you're going off topic. Why are you claiming she was arrested and charged because of a single word? Why the misinformation?

@randomchap

Your trust in the fairness and even application of the current criminal justice system is touching.

She also pleaded guilty. So the matter was never tried.

It's quite clear.

The full information such as the content of the barrage of messages aren't known.

However what is known is that she was charged and plead guilty to malicious communication. The jp described the homophobic word as an aggravating factor to this crime.

You keep repeating that she was arrested over a single word. This is not the case. And it won't be the case no matter how many times you repeat yourself.

Why are you pushing misinformation?

"You seem to be unable to grasp this."

Another one of the Mumsnet Sages who seem unable to grasp that Other People May Disagree with them. It's the same embarrassing phrase again and again.

You seem well informed. When are couple of posts earlier you said the facts were not known.

Why are you starting threads stirring up outrage based on scandalous news reporting with no understanding of the actual circumstances?

Read the reports.

So she didn't harass, she still carried out malicious communication in a barrage of messages.

Because it matters for the offence. If it was ongoing she would have been charged with harassment, which I don't believe she was.

Given Op update that this was an ex friend with her ex there was probably bad blood anyway and her blaming the attack on ex friend causing issues - so accusation bit does make more sense - also bad idea to try and engage with them at all.

However her biggest mistake was to text - if she ranted down the phone or face to face it's much less likely she'd have faced much of any come back.

One of the empolyment truibunals being watched on FWR boards had at one point group chat between friends going back years being used to discredit the complainer as she once said something that could be construned as nasty to a minority group which wasn't directly related to her complaints.

Commication vai text or apps - does appear more natural to my teens - but I've had to make them very aware it's written commication and there are more rules.

Clearly the attack wasn't considered a mitiagting factor - nor is there any explination about why the man that hospitized her wasn't proscuted.

It is odd as I know a shocking high number of women who've had years of abusive texts and app messages and threats and have found their police forces claim to be powerless to help them - that this case go so many resources and got a conviction - but it could be down to police force involved or something else.

That depends on the content of the messages. Which hasn't been made public. The cps decided to prosecute with all the facts. You're commenting without them.

You're framing it in the wrong way. No I wouldn't be 'happy'. But I still don't think it should be a crime. I think it's really important in a democracy that the state doesn't interfere in behaviour that is simply unpleasant or socially unacceptable, because that can very easily become totalitarian depending on who decides what is unpleasant and socially unacceptable. I think most of the time we should rely on the consequences being socially-imposed (e.g. blocked and no long friends) rather than state-imposed.

It’s madness. Also how does malicious comms apply if she’s talking to someone else not directly?

It was a barrage of messages. Describing it as a single episode misses this detail out. Why would you do that? Why deliberately miss out an important fact?

Has she even claimed she reported the attack to the police and was that confirmed.

I'm describing the offense factually. It wasn't ongoing harassment, it was a single episode of unpleasant behaviour. And the whole point of contention is whether it is a good law. I don't think it is. You seemingly do.

"I thought the point of this thread was that the word fagg*t was used and the woman was crininalised for it because the recipient took offence."

Oh no, you're mistaken then.
This could have saved so much time.