Posie is being interviewed under caution

It comes down to the fact that we as women don’t make as much noise as the few vocal complainants directly to the police, Twitter etc We don’t make their lives a misery by repeated reports because we have been trained not to bother, both by sex conditioning as well as having no faith in fair treatment by the various arms of the justice system. corporations and those in power.

We need to learn unspeak and stand up and collectively rattle the cages of the police et al as it gets results- we need to stop the vexatious AWAs talking over us as though we aren’t sat at the same table- we need to demand that we are listened to and assert our collective power - we could start by mass withholding of votes - it would be interesting to see how that would skew voting patterns - had anyone know of any sex analysis of voting patterns by constituency and party?

Also we could make a decision to not support any advertisers on Twitter/fb etc for example - just don’t buy from them and make it know that we are withholding our purchasing power until we get an equal hearing and tested fairly

We also need to build bridges with Libfems somehow and help them escape from cult neocon

Yep, that’s the difference. TRAs report report report (to scare people into submission) whereas GC people don’t report as they’re able to discuss without thinking a discussion questions their existence

Why is there no rushing around (or even a faintly lifted eye brow) from the police about the endless sea of 'die in a fire', 'punch a terf', rape and murder threats made constantly by TRAs?

I wonder how often they are reported.

(Aside from the predicatable Police response in the event they are)

The reasoning is flawed when there’s no misogyny hate speech law - therefore the so-called marginialistion of a very few men, which can’t be verified using professional statistical protocols, takes prescedence over the actual oppression of most women that is very well historically proven, globally acknowledged, written into international law and well documented.

Misogyny has been codified in law in the UK yet again. Now that is nothing new..,

Why is there no rushing around (or even a faintly lifted eye brow) from the police about the endless sea of 'die in a fire', 'punch a terf', rape and murder threats made constantly by TRAs?

Stating a woman is an adult human female makes them all run around like headless chickens, rather in the manner of Edwardians when someone shouted 'women and children first'. Actual hate speech, death threats and truly appalling behaviour is fine - so long as it's being done to women. Can someone explain the police's justification for this? I seem to remember a TRA comment that women pointing out a male is a male was literal violence but TRAs making death and rape threats were just 'hyperbole'.

If a journalist put the front page of Terfisaslur.com in the national press that would be the end of the trans lobby on the spot. It peaked me within the first five seconds of seeing it.

Graham Linehan Twitter comment:

"Another thing @ NorwichPoliceUK said: "What causes a person harassment is subjective and different people will be affected in different ways by another’s actions". This is bollocks. There is an objective test for harassment, and the police are supposed to know it"

report-it.org.uk/self_reporting_form
tellmamauk.org/submit-a-report-to-us/
www.stophateuk.org
cst.org.uk/report-incident
www.galop.org.uk/report/

These are all ways to report hate crime online and some are totally anonymous.

The thinking was that marginalised groups did not feel comfortable talking to the police. However what has happened in effect is that these portals are open to misuse, and the figures that are aggregated are used to make the police look ineffective (which, let's be honest, is a political statement in itself and adds to the ghettoisation of marginalised people and their subjugation by "community leaders").

Basically a bunch of charities and NGOs can submit figures that say X number of people have suffered a hate crime, the actual police reports (never mind successful prosecutions) are only Y, where X - Y = a lot.

some threads re West Yorkshire Police

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3381225-Leeds-West-Yorkshire-and-injustices-against-women

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3388312-West-Yorkshire-Police-failure-to-investigate-crimes

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3386917-West-Yorkshire-Police-AGAIN

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3377105-West-Yorkshire-Police-Diversity-Unit-applaud-the-Guides-for-standing-up-for-Trans-Rights

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3193333-AIBU-to-think-Yorkshire-Police-are-a-shit-show

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3472883-West-Yorkshire-Police-delighted-after-trans-hate-crime-reports-triple-in-24-months

“- or Leeds folk are hideously bigoted and hate everyone?”

We speak as we find...

Horrifying stuff on this thread. Susie Green should be prosecuted for what she did to her child, as would have happened if the child had been a girl victim of FGM .
Interesting that she has so much power with the police, how has that happened then ?

Blimey does that mean that Leeds is a haven for all - or Leeds folk are hideously bigoted and hate everyone?

Stop Hate Leeds info here

www.stophateuk.org/leeds/

GahWhatever - yes, you are right

I'm in total ignorance of her back story so I may be doing her a disservice but it does read as her being in favour of limits to free speech as long as she's the one to decide what these limits should be

Freespeecher
This is Lee Lakeman's website:
leelakeman.com/

Similarities to Glinner's approach but surely both should realise that the best way to protect their own free speech is to protect that of those they disagree with or else they won't have a leg to stand on when, for example, the TRAs want to ban things they view as 'hate speech'

Graham Linehan responded to what I think you may be alluding to re his reponse to Mark Meechan in the interview this week with Bejamin Boyce:

Obviously I won't be speaking for either of them

R0wantrees

Sure, she's entitled to define it but, for example, what does 'hate speech against the poor' even mean?

I'm in total ignorance of her back story so I may be doing her a disservice but it does read as her being in favour of limits to free speech as long as she's the one to decide what these limits should be.

Similarities to Glinner's approach but surely both should realise that the best way to protect their own free speech is to protect that of those they disagree with or else they won't have a leg to stand on when, for example, the TRAs want to ban things they view as 'hate speech'.

(Yes, I need to change the record. Fortunately, vinyl seems to be making a comeback).

It was actually free hate crime awareness sessions, funded by West Yorkshire Police, to be deliver by Stop Hate UK. Does anyone know anything about Stop Hate UK?

My linked in page the other day had a link to ‘free hate crime reporting training provided by West Yorkshire Police’. Will try to find it again and post. I wonder what sort of hate crimes they focus on?

OlennasWimple Fri 18-Jan-19 13:38:06
Aimee Challenor reported a Green Member, Andy Healey (?) to the police for alleged hate crimes
And AH was subject to an internal party investigation for the same "hate crimes" - which seem to involve him saying things like "transwomen are not women, they are transwomen" and "women have the right to single sex spaces"
Honestly - if those two sentences are so distressing to you that they cause you to feel the need to report them to the police, I suggest that a) you have had a sheltered life far away from genuine harassment; b) you don't understand what criminal activity means; c) you need to access therapeutic counselling to resolve your issues.

Sadly in AC's case I think that there's enough evidence out there to say that a) is patently untrue. b) is likely true due to a malign influence during the formative years and c)absolutely yes.

@OldCro

(Section 5 Public Order Act) Harassment, alarm or distress

CPS advise the police to charge this offence for "less serious incidents of anti-social behaviour" They cite examples like: rowdiness in a street late at night, pestering people at a bus stop, or shouting obscenities at passers-by. In other words it's reserved for people who are are being "disorderly".

On a tangent - the defintion of section 5 was narrowed quite recently to to enhance the protection of the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (Code for Crown Prosecutors)

As the woman arrested last month, this is deeply concerning. Freedom of speech, freedom to protect oneself is under attack, along with our rights and safety. I admire Posie for continuing the fight, I stand with her, and I'll keep going too.

Every person I've spoken to and told about my treatment, they have been angry at the resources being used this way when there are serious failings to protect happening.

SharkBastard
This should concern everyone for all the reasons you describe.

SharkBastard I also send my best wishes

The following article from channel 4, shows that you are a lot less likely to be murdered if you are trans than if you are just an average person in the UK. Between 2008 and 2017 there were just 9 trans people mrdered in the UK - 1 per year. Between October 2017 and September 2018 there were 369 reported murders of trans people in the World, and 167 of those were in Brazil and 28 in the US.
They also say that there were 545 incidences of "violent hate crime" against trans people in the UK in 2017/18, but that only 149 of those crimes resulted in an injury.
Of course, when Channel 4 asked Stonewall to provide statistics, they said that 4 out of every 5 trans people don't report hate crime to the police.
Stonewall also say that 19 per cent of trans people say they have experienced domestic abuse from a partner in the last year. That’s higher than the recorded rate of domestic abuse among the wider population – 7.9 per cent of women and 4.2 per cent of men.

www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-how-many-trans-people-murdered-uk

Of course we would never accuse Stonewall of making up stuff or telling porkies about statistics would we?

I see that Lakeman states she is not fighting for free speech (unlike Meghan Murphy):

Lee Lakeman makes clear her position as she is entitled to:
12. Meghan sometimes says she is fighting for free speech. I am not. I don’t plan to put up with the hate speech of pornography or hate speech of racism and I’m not to willing to tolerate the hate speech against the poor.

I see that Lakeman states she is not fighting for free speech (unlike Meghan Murphy) as she wants to take on different varieties of 'hate speech'.

Difficulty with that of course is who gets to define what is, and isn't, hate speech.

And AH was subject to an internal party investigation for the same "hate crimes" - which seem to involve him saying things like "transwomen are not women, they are transwomen" and "women have the right to single sex spaces"

See also the manner in which a woman and MN FWR poster was banned from a pub in Macclesfield, Five Clouds Tap & Bottle recently for wearing the Standing For Women T shirt which said "Woman = adult human female"

The pub's allegations of previous 'transphobia' refer to her distribution of Fairplay for Women leaflets during the government's consultation on self id GRA reforms and her wanting to discuss the implications for women's rights and safety.
thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3464900-Reports-of-Macclesfield-pub-barring-woman-for-wearing-adult-human-female-T-shirt

articles:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6561259/Young-mother-barred-pub-wearing-T-shirt-saying-Woman-human-female.html

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mum-barred-pub-wearing-shirt-13821099