Woman told by PSCO that her thinking is wrong and she needs to educate herself.

If there ends up being an allotment for this one, I am ready to dig very deep.

to Bella.

Lost for words beyond that.

Interesting that the PCSO says that one problem with the sticker is that 'people in the real world might see it and begin to think along the same lines' (paraphrased)

I would call something that was threatening and abusive offensive.

Again I don’t think her sign is. I was more thinking of how people can express themselves whilst protecting themselves.

going back to that t-shirt example, it was considered abusive because it was so offensive. Is it possible if someone complains a sign like that is offensive it could be considered abusive ? It just worryingly feels like it could come down to what someone thinks is offensive enough to be abusive.

As I've said above, if one person finds something offensive, that is enough for an 'incident' to be recorded as a Non Crime Hate Incident.

No "we all" don't. YOU might personally find it offensive, as the PCSO did, but that really is a matter of opinion.

Special constables are volunteers. I believe they are only paid expenses.
PCSO's are paid staff, they aren't allowed to arrest members of the public. The ones where I live do the 'door knocking' ,' intelligence' type of work. Ours asks if we have any issues that the police should know about . e.g. drug dealing etc.

If I was told to educate myself , I would smile sweetly and say' I have actually, which is how I have reached this conclusion'. I would also ask what laws I had broken and ask for that in writing.

Chilling that anyone could think this is OK. Fucking police state. Trans ideology is simply that an ideology, people must be able to challenge ideologies.

For clarity - the sticker said 'trans ideology erases women'. The clue that it's a message about ideology, not people, is in the use of the word ideology.

Not known which police force/area this is.

Another hot take from Twitter:

'PCSO seemed reasonable IMO.

Or do you think "You can be shitty about strangers in the privacy of your own home, but not outside" is an unreasonable position for a public order official to take?'

For what it's worth, the sticker was criticising ideology, not people. At the point people are not reasonably allowed to criticise ideology, we're really in trouble.

im not saying her sign fits that description, I’m just saying we don’t have the automatic right to be offensive.

Where are you getting "offensive" from in what you quote? It's talking about "threatening and abusive". That sticker is nowhere near that. The PCOS' behaviour, on the other hand...

Which police force was this? Sorry if already asked I can't see it.

My take is that the PCSO is a TRA, or has had Stonewall type training. They see themselves as a PC, someone in authority with the right to tell people what to do.

They haven't remotely done any critical thinking and I think the police force and it's rainbow lanyards has to think about what they r teaching, as they will employ some people like this who will take advantage of their position.

The PCSO also sees this lady as a bit of an easy target - female, on their own, they might even have known their trauma history etc.

That Lib Dem councillor is a doughnut if they can't see this as harassment.

PCSOs are not volunteers, they are Special Constables.

I saw an ex regular being interviewed, he said the specials came in three forms.

1. retired regulars who wanted to use their skills

2. people who genuinely wanted to give something back to their community and aspired to be regulars.

3. those who wanted a uniform and power

He said the first two were easy to work with, the last were a nightmare.

I think it is a problem with PCSOs that will get worse, the police are changing into a graduate entry organisation but PCSOs still don't need any formal qualifications.

Fair Cop's analysis of recent changes in those guidelines:

www.faircop.org.uk/non-crime-hate-incidents-updated-guidance/

www.college.police.uk/app/major-investigation-and-public-protection/hate-crime/responding-non-crime-hate-incidents/changes

Definition of a non-crime hate incident:

'A single distinct event or occurrence which disturbs an individual, group or community’s quality of life or causes them concern.

National standard for incident recording (NSIR)'

But this is exactly the problem with 'non-crime hate incidents'.

If someone perceives your action/words to be offensive then that can be recorded against your name as a 'non-crime hate incident'. And presumably this is what triggers these visits.

im not sure that’s quite right is it? See this case where someone was charged under Section 5 Public Order Offence for wearing a T-shirt that implied hillsborough disaster was pest control.

www.google.com/amp/s/www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/can-you-arrested-wearing-offensive-8087967.amp

”This relates to the display of threatening and abusive sign and writing, likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.”

the sign is on her front door so definitely can be counted as a display. But it then comes down to what counts as “threatening and abusive sign likely to cause alarm or distress”

im not saying her sign fits that description, I’m just saying we don’t have the automatic right to be offensive.

"The PCSO is expressing her own political opinion, and expecting that for reason this can be substituted for law."

Yes. This is the realm of a legislator, a politician. You cannot do this outside of Parliament, and, if you wish to do this, you must first be elected as a member of parliament, and your political opinion subject to various levels of rigorous debate in the two Houses, and you will need a lot of parliamentary support.

And even then, nothing may happen.

Is there any line more infuriatingly condescending than ‘educate yourself’? Quite apart from the abuse of position and illogical arguments, it is enraging to hear this woman being directed to read and change her mind by someone who sounds like they don’t do an awful lot of reading or thinking.

"Educate yourself" in this context just means "indoctrinate yourself".

Anyone with an ounce of critical thinking and a foothold on reality who actually does attempt to "educate" themselves generally arrives at the position that genderism is ideological metaphysical bs.

The way that PCSO behaved is an utter disgrace and if anyone needs educating it's her - specifically on things like the legality of daring to have an opinion in a supposedly free country.

Agree. Nothing worse than a pompous, uneducated, useful idiot with a mandate to 'sortof' police.

Yes.

I see that we x-posted because we are both thinking along the same lines.

My gut says that this has been received as a "community cohesion" complaint and for want of an outcome for the system (a tick, if you like), this PCSO has been despatched to follow it up, and it's all gone very wrong because that PCSO has not been trained correctly in any way.

I have to say: I'm seeing similar kinds of issues all over state systems -- people who don't know, or refuse to accept, what they are legally allowed to do; people who overstep their jurisdiction constantly; people who are operating on misunderstood legislation ... it's a real problem.

I also think having volunteers working in the police is dangerous. They aren’t motivated by the desire to make a living, so that means they are more vulnerable to being politically motivated and to not moderating their behaviour surrounding that political motivation. Get rid of them.

Bloody hell. Another one who needs reminding of the bloody law.

Some people are really getting this wrong. It’s not whether she has a licence to be offensive (for any reason). It’s that she doesn’t need one. Unless there is a law that prohibits or mandates something, the state has no power to enforce it. She can be offensive (in the eyes of some) because nobody has passed any law against being offensive. Even if they did, her rights are then guaranteed by the HRA (so the law would be illegal). But there isn’t a law anyway so she doesn’t need to rely on any guarantor of her rights - she simply has them. The PCSO is expressing her own political opinion, and expecting that for reason this can be substituted for law. It can’t.

God, that poor woman. Bella if you ever get to read this, you were magnificent. Upset, shaken, having to reveal your trauma, and you stood your bloody ground. Along with your superb daughters.

That PCSO has been utterly brainwashed by Stonewall training, and this should light a bloody fire under Truss, Braverman etc. I know they are on the right track with the issues, but they need to stop all the police training, immediately. And replace it. They are allowing their police force to freely intimidate the general public.

But yes, that particular PCSO is a bully and it wouldn't surprise me at all if she hadn't made the initial complaint.

She needs to be asked exactly where she has acquired her belief in not only in what she was talking about, but her belief that she can freely intimidate female members of the general public like that.

Fucking hell. This has to be the end of Stonewall, surely.