Police are criminalising opinions, say campaigners: The Times 11/05/2019

Good to know that you're hoping to extend to Scotland, FairCop.

More than ten thousand nice things now!

Thanks for everyone's support and comments so far. It really means a lot.

Re the Scottish question, we are getting in touch with someone re Police Scotland and hope to work with them alongside our action which will cover E&W forces. (IIRC, PS often exchange policy advice with COP so if we are successful it suggests PS and PSNI might change their policies too.)

If anyone has any contacts with PSNI let us know otherwise we'll try reaching out to GC groups over there in due course, as well.

Thanks again.

Julia Long and Accenture

That was different.

The police are duty bound to assist (by force if necessary) organisers and security staff who want to eject unwanted participants/guests etc. It's an everyday, routine power that shops, pubs, buildings and householders etc need to deal with challenging situations, drunks, etc.

The police will not care about the rights and wrongs of the participant's case. They have no interest in who you are, your sexuality or why you think you ought to be allowed to stay. If security say that they want you out, then that's the end of the matter. You will be asked nicely. You will be asked firmly. You will be touched lightly to steer you towards the door. If all those warnings fail then more force will be used.

I felt that the police action on that day had been misrepresented to suit an agenda. I thought that it was the wrong thing to do - because it was hyperbole, spin and exaggeration. There was nothing to criticise the police for.

And don't forget Julia Long and City of London police at Accenture.

And they called the police twice at the recent Stonewall conference protest

Good reminder! Once again, police action was triggered by using certain words - we don't know what they were but I can take an educated guess (intimidation, abusive, offensive, transphobic, homophobic, people feeling unsafe blah blah). When the officers saw for themselves that the behaviour was perfectly lawful and no-one was at risk, they shrugged, talked to the protesters pleasantly and walked away. They probably reported to the control room that the caller had given misleading and exaggerated information.

It seems there is a great fear of action to create legal clarity around police powers and the accounting of what crime is actually happening in the country.

Panicked smearing is as panicked smearing does.

Cutting to the chase: cui bono? Why would anybody be happy that the police are acting in excess of the law? Why would anybody be happy that crime figures are unreliable?

Odd that anyone would be so threatened by efforts to clarify the limits of police power and accuracy of crime figures that they would join a messageboard specifically to deter others from helping to achieve that clarity.

Very odd.

Or, on the other hand, not odd at all. Cui bono?

And they called the police twice at the recent Stonewall conference protest.

That happened last October.

Thread here
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3386612-Police-called-to-Green-Party-Conference

Bristol have obviously not been "trained" yet! Good on them for their common sense approach tho ☺

There is an interesting exception to the published cases of police heavy handness against gender dissent.

A phonecall from someone at the Green Pary Conference in Bristol sent a group of police officers to the scene. The police had been told that the conference go-ers felt unsafe because anti-trans protesters were distributing transphobic hate leaflets.

The officers were bemused to see three polite women handing out GRA leaflets from Fairplay for Women. They left the Green party in no doubt that the women were not breaking any laws and were entitled to hand out the leaflets. They were bemused because they couldn't see how anyone could be intimidated or made to feel unsafe by the material or the women's actions.

I think that there was a difference in response because the officers were able to witness, at first hand, the exaggeration, hyperbole and lies of the caller.

Genderfreelass

That's a really good idea but you would need to ask Debbie as they have the funds. I also fear that 25% has already been sent to the 3rd recipient.

Dancing raven I'm twitter banned but what if Kate's share of nice things was added to Harry ' nice things? As a contributer of nice things for Kate et al I'd be very happy with all of the 50% that didn't go to VRR going to this campaign. Obviously others would have to agree.

Datun
Well said

How utterly illogical is it to support free speech but criticise a campaign for it, on the basis that the advocate said something you don't agree with.

What on earth difference does the person's difference of opinion make if they win the fight for free speech?

You can go back to criticising them for what they say, once they have cemented their, and your, right to say it.

Saw this on twitter which might help answer some questions

twitter.com/BishBas58122507/status/1127858347913371648?s=19

I used to sell Militant. The idea that I am now a Trotskyite is bizarre. People's opinions and priorities change. Harry just said on Talk Radio that he thinks using hate crime legislation if a group of white thugs want to beat up a black person is fine and what the law is designed for (or something like that I don't recall the exact words). Also you can agree with someone on one issue and disagree on another.

You asked for evidence, sorry I provided it. Everyone can put their time, money and hero worship where they choose. Mine will go to feminists, not men who are worried about their free speech who say "Now it the time, Tommy, I'm in." Please resume attacking me for saying so.

About to be on Talk Radio with JHB. Harry the Owl

Good of you to show your hand....must have taken a lot of work to dig those old tweets up

Goodness, how very desperate.

I find the idea that if you agree with a person on one thing you agree with everything they say/do ludicrously childish. It's a bit like kids saying to each other if you are friends with X then you can't be friends with me/us. TRA tried it on with the left leaning Martina, accusing her of being far right because she believes males have physical advantages over females.

So if Harry has supported TR or even if he still does it is irrelevant to this issue other than a poor attempt at a smear campaign. Try harder breakfast.

LangCleg

Very true dear.

whatsforbreakfast

If you looked at my Twitter from 2014 you'd find me supporting self Id and labour but you knock yourself out! If you wanted to make a tit out of yourself you're doing a grade A job of it

twitter.com/HarryTheOwl/status/505796523389894656

twitter.com/HarryTheOwl/status/673559735229128704

twitter.com/HarryTheOwl/status/672914627114725377

twitter.com/HarryTheOwl/status/390955452017942528

tbf Rob is more apologist than fan

twitter.com/robjessel/status/1008684201544122368

twitter.com/robjessel/status/1008684201544122368

twitter.com/robjessel/status/1075410151241383937

HTH

Good comment from That Which Shall Not Be Mentioned But Accepts Good Things:

We need to stop the police from effectively making up laws.

That's the crux of it. We live in a democracy where our representatives make laws: not a police state where they make up their own.