Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

My complaint to Sussex Police re their handling of protest at WPUK Brighton Meeting

668 replies

WomanBornNotWorn · 03/02/2020 11:01

I was at the WPUK meeting in Brighton in September.

It was targeted by a group of protestors rather bigger than Saturday's London bunch - well, that one was just a little posy ...

They kicked and punched the windows for several hours, while Julie Bindel's video shows police officers staring into space:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7497869/Anger-crowd-transgender-rights-protesters-intimidate-meeting-womens-rights-group.html

I submitted a complaint that the officers allowed it to go on for a long time (watch the WPUK videos on You Tube and you'll hear it).

I've now received the detailed response from the police:

"Following your complaint, made regarding the actions of Sussex Police in dealing with a protest at a Woman’s Place UK meeting in Brighton on 23 September 2019, I have now completed my enquiries.

In your complaint you explained that you were unhappy that the officers who attended the incident at the Woman’s Place meeting took no action to prevent the disruption from protesters and stood by while protesters were shouting and banging on the windows of where the meeting was taking place.

Chief Inspector Sproston was the Public Order Silver Commander during the event, he held full responsibility for the actions of the staff who reported to him and he provided a report following the event.

The Bronze Commander was Inspector Lovell who was on the ground with the Public Order teams, he provided me with an account of the event.

Chief Inspector Sproston was fully aware of the problem caused by protestors at a previous WPUK meeting in the city and the requirements for public order policing. He and Inspector Lovell held a briefing prior to the event and formulated a plan to manage the protest against WPUK using the Protest Liaison Team (PLT).

The agreed venue, which WPUK had arranged for the meeting, was at the Odeon cinema. This afforded complete security with no access to the protestors once inside the venue. However on the evening of the event, the Odeon management declined to allow WPUK to hold their meeting there and the venue was changed. WPUK organisers had already identified a secondary location which Sussex Police were unaware of until they were informed of the venue changed half an hour before the meeting was due to start.

Inspector Lovell deployed his staff to the new venue at the BMECP Centre in Fleet Street using the same plan as was intended at the Odeon. Protestors were already at the venue and a public order team were sent to the front of the building. There were also four security staff employed by WPUK at the front, controlling entry to the building. The initial approach had been to use the PLT to try and engage with the protestors and they deployed as soon as they arrived at the new venue.

As the meeting progressed, part of the protest group went to the rear of the premises where the windows to the meeting room were at ground level. The protestors began banging on the windows and the PLT asked them to stop. When the banging escalated Inspector Lovell sent two Public Order Teams to form a cordon in front of the windows.

The protestors continued shouting and chanting at the front and the rear of the premises. Residents from the flats above threw water down onto the protestors, which also covered some of the Police Officers, but it could not be ascertained exactly which flat it had come from.

Chief Inspector Sproston had considered a number of things when making his assessment. The venue had been moved, with no notice, to a location that police had not been able to carry out a reconnaissance at. Their public order assessment had been for the Odeon cinema which had one manageable entrance and resources available to deal with that. Chief Inspector Sproston is confident that had there been a consultation on the new site, it would not have been recommended by police.

WPUK have the right to hold a meeting and not be subject to serious disorder, damage or disruption to the community. The protestors have the right to protest under articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Human Rights Act. Freedom of Expression under article 10 is applicable to the expression of views that may shock, disturb or offend the deeply held beliefs of others. This does however, have to be balanced against the rights of WPUK.

Chief Inspector Sproston considered imposing section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 as the banging on the windows could have been interpreted as being intended to intimidate WPUK members with a view to compelling them not to hold their meeting, which they had a right to do.

Section 14 would have allowed the senior officer present to stipulate the location, duration and numbers of people allowed to protest. There was no suitable place to direct the protestors to as any place which would not have affected the venue of the meeting, would have meant the protestors would have been completely out of sight of the venue. This would have effectively stopped the protest and not just restricted its effect which is not in the spirit of articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Humans Rights Act. In turn this would have not stood up to scrutiny or challenge.

Although the protestors were loud, the meeting did go ahead and there were no reports of serious disorder, serious damage to property or disruption to the life of the community.

Public nuisance under common law was also considered. However this offence constitutes injury, loss or damage to the public in general. Undoubtedly the protestors were a nuisance by their presence but they did not commit this offence.

Inspector Lovell reported that there was no effort on behalf of the protestors to damage or enter the building. No one was prevented from entering or exiting the building and the meeting was able to go ahead.
There were 6 phone calls to police between 18:30 and 21:00, four from people inside the venue and two from third parties who were not in attendance.

The first caller was at 18:37 expressing concerns over people outside shouting. During the call they told the call taker that police were arriving on scene.

The second caller was at 19:15 concerned about the banging on windows. During the call they advised the call taker that police were now inside the building and helping.

The next two callers were also from inside the venue who expressed concerns about the banging on windows. One was at 19:24 and another at 19:27 who said that she was scared to leave the venue due to protestors smashing on the glass.

The last two callers were from third parties who had been in contact with people inside the venue. They were alerting the police to the banging on windows. One call was at 20:32 and the other at 20:54

There was only one call from a local resident at 21:20 complaining about the noise from the protestors. However Sussex Police were aware and monitoring the social media posts.

I have viewed Body Worn Video footage from several officers at the event. I have also viewed the video footage obtained by the Public Order Evidence Gathering Team (EGT).

At 19:09 the EGT footage showed a small group at the rear of the building with a few of the protestors banging on windows with their hands. The PLT were speaking with the protestors.

At 19:27 the EGT footage showed a larger group gathering at the rear and many of them were banging on the windows with their hands. The public order teams formed a cordon in front of the windows and the officers were physically pushing the protestors away from the building in order to prevent a Breach of the Peace.

At 19:30 BWV footage showed the officers getting between the protestors and the building to form the cordon, preventing the protestors from banging on the windows. Although some banging could be heard in the background, it was unclear where this was coming from. The footage continued until 20:20 and showed the officers with their backs against the building. The protestors formed a line in front of the police, with their backs to them whilst they continued to shout and chant.

At 21:09 BWV footage showed a protestor telling the group to go to the front of the building as the meeting was coming to an end. She told the protestors make sure they filmed the police and got their ID numbers.

At 21:11 BWV footage showed the police cordon between the protestors and the building, leaving a clear walkway for the attendees to leave the meeting. The protestors continued shouting until everyone had left the building.

The protestors were creating a lot of noise and their chants were not only against WPUK, they included obscenities aimed at the police. The footage supports the reports made by Chief Inspector Sproston and Inspector Lovell. There was no violence and no serious disorder.

Using the core principles, and legal framework set out by the College of Policing in their Authorised Professional Practice, I am satisfied that the event was policed lawfully, proportionately and appropriately.

The Professional Standards Department will retain a copy of your complaint and the local resolution outcome."

OP posts:
OldCrone · 04/02/2020 10:55

However when these people who have changed their minds start speaking in churches about harmful gay ideology, that's when it becomes controversial for me.

Similarly WPUK using de-transitioners to illustrate the harms of gender ideology in their meetings is controversial for me.

These two situations are completely different. If someone experiments with homosexuality and then decides they are heterosexual, no harm has been done to anyone. (And does anyone actually start out gay, then change their minds and preach about the evils of homosexuality in churches?)

If someone decides they are 'trans' and takes the medical route, there is always some irreversible effect of that transition even if they detransition later. This is not harmless experimentation.

If trans lobby groups were spelling out the irreversible effects of hormone blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgery, WPUK wouldn't have to give out this information for them. But the trans ideologists are giving out false information like Polly Carmichael's 'harmless pause button', or Johanna Olson Kennedy's (re teenagers having mastectomies) 'if they want breasts later they can go and get them'.

Why do you think that de-transitioners should not be allowed to talk about their experiences?

Arguing the GRA should be completely repealed in case a trans woman lies on her job application is like cracking a nut with a sledgehammer.

It's not just job applications though, is it? It's prisons, refuges, schools, girl guides...

If all someone's documentation states that they are female, how can you prove that they were born male?

SapphosRock · 04/02/2020 10:51

Do you deny that gender ideology can be harmful?

No I don't deny it at all. In fact many trans people object to the use of blockers and experimental drugs, particularly in under 18s.

TreestumpsAndTrampolines · 04/02/2020 10:49

Calling the meeting entirely peaceful is so disingenuous - of course it's not entirely peaceful. It's a complete rejection of transgender identities and everything trans people strongly believe in along with calls to repeal laws that support their rights.

The meeting was peaceful. The protestors weren't.

And as to the other poster suggesting it's not a great use of police time to ask people banging on windows while other people try to have a meeting, are you saying that if a load of people came round to your place of work and starting banging on the windows you wouldn't call the police?

BovaryX · 04/02/2020 10:35

Similarly WPUK using de-transitioners to illustrate the harms of gender ideology in their meetings is controversial for me

Why? Do you deny that gender ideology can be harmful? I suggest you read the words of Keira Bell. She is part of the lawsuit against the Tavistock and she claims that she wasn't warned about the serious medical effects of hormone treatment She had her breasts removed in Brighton at 20. Why has there been such a dramatic increase in young girls presenting for gender reassignment? Three quarters of Tavistock's clients are young girls. Why? What are the long term effects of hormone treatment? Why are these draconian medical interventions being promoted ahead of any other therapy? Your contribution to this thread has been to demand women go to Tunbridge Wells, to blame WPUK for the disruption of their meeting and to repeatedly demonstrate that you don't believe in freedom of speech or the right of women to hold public discussions without harassment.

This week, in a statement, Keira said: 'I don't believe children and young people can consent to the use of powerful, experimental hormone drugs like I did. Hormone-changing drugs and surgery do not work for everyone, and it certainly should not be offered to someone under 18

SapphosRock · 04/02/2020 10:17

I have nothing against supporting de-transitioners. People change their minds in life, that's natural.

Gay people also change their minds. Some people are out as gay for years then decide to enter into heterosexual relationships. Fine.

However when these people who have changed their minds start speaking in churches about harmful gay ideology, that's when it becomes controversial for me.

Similarly WPUK using de-transitioners to illustrate the harms of gender ideology in their meetings is controversial for me.

@OldCrone re the application of EA exemptions it is currently lawful to exclude trans women from sensitive job roles and female sports even if they hold a GRC.

You say that trans women may lie about their trans status on job applications as their paperwork states they are female. Yes that is a possible scenario but would be a serious criminal offence and if they were caught would lead to a criminal record as well as severely affecting future job prospects.

Arguing the GRA should be completely repealed in case a trans woman lies on her job application is like cracking a nut with a sledgehammer.

BovaryX · 04/02/2020 10:05

Haha! That's what I get for spending the evening discussing Universal credit!

No problem DicKerr And I agree with your analysis, the consequences of the GRA were not properly analysed.

DickKerrLadies · 04/02/2020 09:57

TIL - don't post just before the school run Grin

DickKerrLadies · 04/02/2020 09:56

BovaryX

Haha! That's what I get for spending the evening discussing Universal credit!

The other day I forgot again that 1990 isn't 20 years ago.

OldCrone · 04/02/2020 09:55

It's surely not hard to understand that the ideologies of WPUK and TRAs are in direct conflict with one another. It's a simple case of sex based rights versus gender based rights.

This is an important point, and one on which I agree with you. TRAs tend to deny that this is the case, and that their aims are not to remove rights from women, but as you say, their demands for extra trans privileges are in direct opposition to women retaining their sex based rights.

I'd like to see more trans privilege activists admitting this conflict, and helping our elected representatives to see that this conflict exists.

OldCrone · 04/02/2020 09:49

WPUK actively rejects gender identities and regularly invites de-transitioners to speak at their conferences despite the GRA being law. I imagine this is why trans people find their meetings controversial.

Transgender people have also spoken at their meetings. WPUK say this about the people who speak at their meetings.

We do not necessarily agree or endorse the views of all the speakers on our platform and that is because we believe that only by hearing a full range of views can we develop a deeper understanding of the concerns women have and come to a progressive resolution.

What do you find particularly objectionable about support for detransitioners and allowing them to speak about their experiences?

(I'd also like an answer to my previous question about how the EA exemptions can be applied in practice, because it seems to me that it's just not possible.)

thehorseandhisboy · 04/02/2020 09:45

Sapphos I didn't get further than "there is one God..." to find controversy.

That is a bit difference to "women have the right to self-organise" is it not? What exactly is controversial about that?

Do you not think that de-transitioners have the right to self-organise as well? Or should they just keep quiet because they expose the harmful outcomes of 'gender ideology' or 'trans ideology'.

I wouldn't agree that WPUK ideology, rooted in material and biological reality as it is, is particularly comparable to TRA ideology which doesn't have a coherent definition of reality to start from.

And even if you want to take the line that these disparate groups are in 'direct conflict' with each other, it doesn't follow that it's okay for one group to abuse, try to silence, intimidate and bully the other.

Nor does it follow that one of these groups shouldn't be permitted to organise a peaceful meeting in a location of their choosing, or that by choosing to do so they were 'asking for' the abuse and intimidation thrown at them.

SapphosRock · 04/02/2020 09:34

@thehorseandhisboy

These are the statements of faith from Christian Concern:

christianconcern.com/about/statement-of-faith/

What exactly is controversial about them?

Nothing. But Christian concern actively rejects homosexuality and supports gay conversion therapy, despite gay marriage being law. As a lesbian I therefore consider the organisation controversial.

WPUK actively rejects gender identities and regularly invites de-transitioners to speak at their conferences despite the GRA being law. I imagine this is why trans people find their meetings controversial.

It's surely not hard to understand that the ideologies of WPUK and TRAs are in direct conflict with one another. It's a simple case of sex based rights versus gender based rights.

SisterWendyBuckett · 04/02/2020 09:22

It's very illuminating that a thread about the police's response to their handling of a protest against WPUK has become the battleground for a couple of posters.

Now why might it be that some people are so determined to brand WPUK as something it clearly is not, especially following on from their fantastic and hugely enjoyed women's event last weekend.

thehorseandhisboy · 04/02/2020 09:11

Sapphos these are the 'demands' on WPUK.

womansplaceuk.org/our-demands-3/

What exactly is controversial about them?

It was intended to be a peaceful meeting. People who disagreed with the speakers were invited to attend and engage in respectful debate.

The TRAs choose their mode of 'protest' it would seem to me because they don't have any coherent arguments to support their position, so rely on bullying, intimidation and abuse.

OldCrone · 04/02/2020 08:54

you make lying about it a serious criminal offence.

Sapphos they don't need to lie. They just need to not declare that their birth record has been amended.

You seem to think that the exemptions are workable. Explain to me how they would work. How do you exclude someone from a female only space when all their official documents say that they are female?

Floisme · 04/02/2020 08:49

I have to concur that this thread has been illuminating. But thank you for starting it op. Thanks to some epic contributions it has been one of the 'top' threads for almost 24 hours, and many, many readers will have taken note of what's been said.

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g · 04/02/2020 08:43

wellbehavedwomen, that was a great post, by the way.

SapphosRock · 04/02/2020 08:42

OldCrone you make lying about it a serious criminal offence.

SapphosRock · 04/02/2020 08:39

Calling the meeting entirely peaceful is so disingenuous - of course it's not entirely peaceful. It's a complete rejection of transgender identities and everything trans people strongly believe in along with calls to repeal laws that support their rights.

If there was a meeting about the complete rejection of homosexual relationships and calls to repeal gay marriage I imagine plenty of gay people (myself included) would protest it.

Why don't people just own it and admit WPUK have taken a controversial position that wants to remove the existing rights of trans people? (Nothing wrong with that) rather than all these claims that's it's just a peaceful women's meeting and all these terrible TRAs are protesting for no reason.

BovaryX · 04/02/2020 08:31

If we're talking about what should have happened in 2004, the Tories should have introduced same-sex marriage

DicKerr

In 2004, the Labour govt had been in power for seven years. In 2003, they invaded Iraq.

OldCrone · 04/02/2020 08:29

The current EA exemptions state that it is legal to exclude trans women from female spaces if there is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The words 'transsexual status' are used so it applies if a person has legally changed their sex to female.

But how do you identify such people if all their documents identify them as female? You are relying on them saying 'I was born male'. What if they lie and say they were born female?

BovaryX · 04/02/2020 08:28

Confirmation that not only are women's rights seen as transphobic, but support for detransitioners is also seen as transphobic

Quite so.

RoyalCorgi · 04/02/2020 08:24

Of course the police have better things to do than deploy multiple officers for an entire evening to manage a spat between WPUK and TRAs.

A spat? What happened was that WPUK held an entirely peaceful meeting to discuss issues of interest to them, and a group of violent, aggressive people, mostly men, attempted to intimidate and frighten them.

How dare you, how fucking dare you, pretend that this is a spat between two groups when all the aggression, all the violence, comes from one side?

SapphosRock · 04/02/2020 08:23

How can you exclude a man from a woman only space if he has legally changed his sex to female?

The current EA exemptions state that it is legal to exclude trans women from female spaces if there is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The words 'transsexual status' are used so it applies if a person has legally changed their sex to female.

If organisations (particularly those helping vulnerable women) understood and felt able to apply these exemptions then it is a workable compromise. Trans people have their identities recognised and women are protected.

The WPUK speakers have touched on these exemptions a few times and that is why I was keen to attend the meetings to find out more.

thehorseandhisboy · 04/02/2020 08:21

Sapphos this board, WPUK and multiple other forums have and are trying to discuss 'proper application of the EA exemptions' and many other nuanced and complex issues.

The problem is that the people - mainly women - having these discussions end up getting railroaded into justifying, defending and explaining why we NEED to get together either online or in person to have these discussions without fear of intimidation or threats of or actual violence.

This thread being a case in point.

If supporting young people who have medically unnecessary surgery on their bodies which they painfully regret and want to hold those who encouraged it to account and raise awareness among other young people who may be considering the same path is 'rejecting trans ideology' count me in.

Do you really not see the huge growth in young people - mainly women - who via the rabbit hole of the internet and easy access to pharmaceutical companies whose raison d'tre is to make profit
are considering making life-changing decisions about altering their bodies as something that needs to be thought and talked about?

'Trans ideology' should be the starting point of discussion and debate not an unexamined belief system.

Swipe left for the next trending thread