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:
andyoldlabour · 03/02/2020 14:56

"It's like holding a kkk meeting"

Didn't take long for that to happen did it? Comparing WPUK to the KKK - Women are human females T Shirts to white hooded cloaks and burning crucifixes.

dworky · 03/02/2020 14:55

Top victim blaming SapphosRock.

Women discussing their rights peacefully are entitled to meet anywhere.

OhDeez · 03/02/2020 14:55

Yes - all women, be they born as women or be transwomen.

OldCrone · 03/02/2020 14:54

Sapphos and OhDeez

Are these the rights you're referring to? @Michelleoftheresistance posted what these might be on the Keir Starmer thread.

  • The right to change your legal data to something you prefer rather than objective reality?
  • The right to access spaces and resources reserved for a group of society with a characteristic you don't actually possess?
  • The right to be treated as someone/something you objectively are not even when it damages the class of people you've self identified into?
  • The right to compelled speech and enforced lying/enforced belief from others - ie the right to trump ACTUAL human rights of others?

Is this what you mean? If so, why do you think trans people should have these privileges? And why do you have no concern for the other people who might be harmed if trans people have these privileges?

littlbrowndog · 03/02/2020 14:53

Jeez now we have a person on here likening wpuk to the kkk

And sapphos you still never answered me

Are there places like towns and cities that you would approve of where women can have meetings to talk about women’s rights ?

Should you make a list where it can be sent to wpuk ?

There are some women in Brighton I heard ?

thehorseandhisboy · 03/02/2020 14:52

The video clip uploaded on Twitter (Dr Jane Clare Jones, I think) of a number of people banging on the window and shouting looked pretty scary to me.

Testimony of many people who attended said the same thing.

Banging on windows is a violent act, no?

WPUK don't even mention trans people in their manifesto or other publicity. Their focus is on protecting the right of women, not taking rights away from other groups.

Trans women have attended most of their meetings, not sure about this one, but it's a bit daft to claim these trans women are attacking their own rights.

TruthOnTrial · 03/02/2020 14:46

I think you might be on the wrong thread here deez

Did you want to support women's rights?

SapphosRock · 03/02/2020 14:46

To be clear, I think WPUK do some great work but they are definitely against trans women being legally recognised as women.

Most WPUK attendees do not support the Gender Recognition Act at all. The speakers said in both meetings it is not fit for purpose and many attendees I spoke to think it should be repealed.

The GRA has given trans people the legal right to have their gender identity recognised since 2004. Repealing the GRA would remove these rights. Hence trans rights being 'under attack'.

Supposed shock and surprise that a women's meeting is protested by trans people is disingenuous when large parts of the meetings focus on the negatives of the GRA, or supporting de-transitioners.

OhDeez · 03/02/2020 14:45

There was no violence.

OhDeez · 03/02/2020 14:44

I thought the police reply was thorough.

BovaryX · 03/02/2020 14:43

I'm with Sapphos on this one. It's like holding a kkk meeting in East London. It was provocative. I'm glad the trans people protested

Note the totally bankrupt comparison to the KKK. This thread clearly reveals people who believe in freedom of speech. And people who believe that it's acceptable to use violent intimidation to silence women.

OhDeez · 03/02/2020 14:42

And don't start with the 'they are asking for privileges'. They're asking to be treated as the gender they have transformed to.

OhDeez · 03/02/2020 14:41

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

OldCrone · 03/02/2020 14:32

Trans rights are under attack from WPUK, nobody is claiming otherwise

This is not true. What power do you think WPUK have? And which rights do you think are 'under attack'?

and the protestors had every right to make that protest. Therefore WPUK and the protestors hold joint responsibility for the chanting.

So according to you, women are responsible for what men do.

Which rule of misogyny is that?

littlbrowndog · 03/02/2020 14:31

What’s rights are wpuk are demanding are removed from trans gender people ?

They havevsame rights as everybody else

Women live in Brighton
don’t know what green voters have to do with this at all

Are you really still saying that women can only meet to talk about women’s rights in places that you say is ok ?

TruthOnTrial · 03/02/2020 14:30

Trans right are NOT under attack though are they.

Trans privileges are, as are male privileges at a womens meeting.

I can categorically state that wpuk do NOT hold any responsibility for what anyone else chants.

I am now shocked you could hold that belief to be true. Almost that I think you might not be serious? That is wrong-thinking for holding anyone other than those chanting, responsible for their choice of chant!

Its only one-very-close-step off saying it was tue wpuks fault they chose to hammer on the windows to intimidate and threaten aggression

Not 'whoever' did, it required a police and others to line up to prevent it. It was many, not 'who'.

Floisme · 03/02/2020 14:29

I am referring mainly to this, Sapphos fromthe police response.
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.

Italics are mine. I see you agree this was totally unacceptable but I'm still not clear whether you hold WPUK responsble for it?

Also could you please clarify which rights you believe are under attack by WPUK as that is a rather inflammatory statement.

TheCuriousMonkey · 03/02/2020 14:28

I have attended WPUK meetings in Oxford and Reading, both of which attracted protesters. The bomb threat was made in respect of a meeting in Hastings, hardly Wokesville. As far as I know there are protests whenever and wherever women seek to hold meetings about their rights.

The Brighton protests were particularly intimidating. That is not the responsibility of the women gathering at the Labour Party conference to talk about their rights.

To say otherwise sounds suspiciously close to "look what she made me do".

TruthOnTrial · 03/02/2020 14:22

That letter does state [through its meanderings] that trans are stopping meetings that the likes of wpuk want to hold as a result of the threat of aggression.

Its not satisfactory to say, but you have to do all this extra stuff, well no, we have the meeting, you, the police do your job and ensure we don't feel threatened in holding our legal meetings, thats tue bottom line.

If the police can't do that its not because of those holding the meeting, its a direct effect of aggressors that the meeting couldn't be held, or had to endure these grim carry ons.

The police didn't effectively carry out their duties here and despite aggressions against them, they seem to be scared to arrest anyone.

SapphosRock · 03/02/2020 14:18

Floisme what do you mean by behaviour? The chanting or the banging?

The chant I heard from the protestors was 'when trans rights are under attack what do we do? fight back'

Trans rights are under attack from WPUK, nobody is claiming otherwise and the protestors had every right to make that protest. Therefore WPUK and the protestors hold joint responsibility for the chanting.

The banging on the window? Totally out of order and the responsibility of whoever did it.

OldCrone · 03/02/2020 14:16

Pointing out the venue change at short notice was valid and I didn't read it as a criticism, just a fact.

Not necessarily. If the venue was changed as a result of the action of the people who protested outside the new venue, then they were to blame for the change of venue. Which is why I would like to know why the venue was changed.

This is a possible scenario:

TRAs harass venue causing them to cancel

WPUK find another venue at the last minute which is less secure and they haven't discussed security with the police in advance

TRAs harass women attending the meeting

Police say it's the women's fault for changing the venue

If this is what happened do you see why the police mention of change of venue is unfair?

TruthOnTrial · 03/02/2020 14:13

I think it was blaming.

As usual, agree with Michelle

The police route is to tell those having legitimate meetings to discuss rights currently in legal existence being eroded, to slope off elsewhere, and are effectively owning up to saying the protestors would have succeeded in shutting down the meeting had wpuk not had a backup venue.

How far do they have to go in 2020 to speak about womens rights without fear of intimidation and threatened harms which were very evident.

Why should all those living in the flats above have to endure this, without any idea of what was happening.

If there's a well organised demo, its clear to all whats happening. That certainly wasn't this, to the point of those outside calling 999 and one resident hurling water at the protestors.

They weren't protestors, because they didn't behave like protestors, they were aggressors, and antagonists.

Michelleoftheresistance · 03/02/2020 14:11

No, it's not in conflict with trans 'rights' - the 'rights' being demanded are not rights and exist for no other group of people.

No, it's not like repealing environmental laws: the GRA as it stands is being repurposed, as it currently stands it serves no useful purpose at all as gay marriage and pensions inequalities have been sorted.

51% of the population of Brighton are female, and the privileges being sought by the gender identity extremist lobby actively remove rights from females without consultation with females in a way that will severely impact this population.

The anger and protest of women can't be much of a surprise to the GIE lobby either. And it isn't those women hammering on windows, intimidating and harassing trying to prevent perfectly legal meetings taking place.

OldCrone · 03/02/2020 14:08

This is directly in conflict with trans rights

You must have misunderstood SapphosRock. Nobody is suggesting taking rights away from trans people. They already have the same rights as everybody else. What rights do you think we want to take from them? If you say clearly what rights you think we want to take from them, perhaps we can put your mind at rest.

If they are demanding additional privileges over and above the rights that everyone else has, they should be described as such. Additional privileges are not rights.

Floisme · 03/02/2020 14:03

Thank you for your response but I'm still not sure whom you hold responsible for the behaviour of the protestors?