Woman's Place UK meeting threatened with "device"

Yes, I'm sure many of us wondered exactly how Millwall were induced to cave.

A bomb threat would have been very effective.

It also explains how the Houses of Parliament didn't cave. Their security will include facing the threat of bombs on a daily basis, I should think.

And publicising the venue at the last minute will also foil threats.

We don't know that the threat and whatever materials that have the potential to become explosives are linked though. It would interesting to see if the organisers know any more.

If this goes to court it could be very embarrassing for those who have used threats of violence to try to shut down other feminist meetings.

You can never be sure what the CPS will decide but given a threat plus bomb making materials found it sounds as if charges will be brought. The more light that can be shone on activists who seek to disadvantage and silence women the better.

Does that give you the right to exclude us from where we have been for decades?

You were there because the women in question allowed you to be there. The women in question can change their minds - it's called consent.

There is a difference between asking, and being allowed to do something that you otherwise wouldn't, and demanding that you be allowed to do something because you want to. Like at a turning - perhaps a person will stop and let me out, but they are under no obligation to do so, and just because by habit people have done it, doesn't make it a right, or the law.

People attending meetings were not given informed consent before attending? Collateral damage?

to a person she does not believe to be a woman as "she" and "her" is not perjury!
It absolutely is forced perjury, AAK.

that would explain a lot, including Millwall developing a sudden case of cowardice
Agreed

Does that give you the right to exclude us from where we have been for decades?
Keep it up Clare, more than happy to pull the (figurative) welcome mat out from under your feet.
Bad house guests are rarely asked to ever return. Think about it.

Why has this hushed up?

Going back to the actual topic of the thread, if this isn't the first meeting where there was a bomb threat that would explain a lot, including Millwall developing a sudden case of cowardice.

Christ on a bike. We're not on the perjury bollocks now, are we? Because, y'know, bomb threats. How vile can people actually be? Is there a limit?

Also have fun explaining why a judge attempting to force Maria, who was attacked at Speakers Corner, to refer to a person she does not believe to be a woman as "she" and "her" is not perjury!

Clare, we have heard the minor admin changes position before. We are not mis-representing anything. It is obviously minor to you (or you want people to think it is) but women and girls will not experience it that way.

Why are you trying to find the venue and get the meeting shut down? Are you afraid of women talking? Are you going to tell us if we speak then people will die? That is the usual next line. Shut up or people will die. Emotional blackmail. We have heard all the same tropes over and over again.

Why are women not permitted to speak in Hastings without your approval Claire? Are you in charge of Hastings? Are you in control of speech in Hastings? Who put you in charge? Are you self appointed? Is your voice more important than ours Claire? You are behaving as if it is?

Whatever the new name for a FOI is, is anyone organising questions being asked of venues and the police? What were the threats? Did they report the threats to the Police?

You could, but then you'd have to explain how to tell a real from a false gender identity for the purposes of a prosecution.

Brilliant!

Perhaps look up the meaning of perjury?

I could explain that the offence of perjury carries a prison sentence, for example.

You could, but then you'd have to explain how to tell a real from a false gender identity for the purposes of a prosecution.

How many of them recieved threats of serious violence?

I have wondered this. How often have they threaten violence and it's been played down?

The desire to stop women talking and to abolish women only spaces seems to be leading to more extreme behaviour.

Are you still here ClareFlourish??

"It's not the being transsexual that's the issue, it's the inability or refusal to engage with women as people with boundaries, needs, and rights of our own that's the issue."

So how far does that go? Does that give you the right to exclude us from where we have been for decades? How far do you want to roll our rights back? AWP misrepresents a reform which would make a minor administrative change in a thing many trans people don't bother with as a sudden prospective invasion of Men in Women's Spaces. What they say is not true. How should I engage with that, do you think? I could explain that the offence of perjury carries a prison sentence, for example.

One of the things that shocks me most is that it has come out now that this isn't the first WPUK meeting that has been threatened with a device/bombing!

And I keep thinking of all those venues that cancelled women's events - Millwall ffs! - which at the time I thought was strange - I mean if it was usually that easy to get events cancelled (get a dozen of your friends to email and phone repeatedly using different voices!) prankers and assorted nasty gits would be doing it all the time.

And several (most, all?) of the venues cited safety and security concerns. How many of them recieved threats of serious violence?

Anyone got a recipe for KFC?

He doesn't come across as the sharpest tool in the shed.
Most of them don't seem to be. Lowest common denominator?

Um...

I Merely Nom On KFC

Unless you think KFC is fine dining.

It's not the being transsexual that's the issue, it's the inability or refusal to engage with women as people with boundaries, needs, and rights of our own that's the issue.

It's not the being transsexual that's the issue, it's the inability or refusal to engage with women as people with boundaries, needs, and rights of our own that's the issue.

It's not the being transsexual that's the issue, it's the inability or refusal to engage with women as people with boundaries, needs, and rights of our own that's the issue.
This this this.

How many times do I need to post this before it actually gets processed?