Lesbian interviewed under caution for tweets

To be fair I have only ever seen leftists engage in this sort of horrible behaviour though, like the disgusting mob that recently accosted Michael Gove.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with that in the strongest possible terms.

What about the anti vax blokes accosting Whitty and the BBC presenters? Or the ones at Timmy Robertson rallies? You know, actual right wing racists.

I don't dispute that left wing extremists can be verbally abusive and the same online.

Rafalww
If you read the definition, for the protection to be extended, certain conditions must be met. Now, exactly how one would determine they have been, who knows - but they exclude people who would be included by using “gender identity”: those who declare themselves “cis-gender”; the supermajority of non-binary people; & indeed most of those who state they hold any of the 100+ gender identities other than TW/TM.

I have only ever seen leftists engage in this sort of horrible behaviour though, like the disgusting mob that recently accosted Michael Gove. Fortunately the right are better than that.
But that’s simply untrue. Most of the arrests - the “vast majority” according to the police - on Saturday were counter-protestors, characterised by the PM as “EDL thugs”. ERWT is the most significant terror threat to the UK. LASIT, by contrast, is considered low threat.

@LarkLane thanks for that. That’s pretty much how I understood it but you have confirmed it.

it’s probably a good thing that it omits sex to be honest, if it included sex I imagine that a lot of feminists might be getting a knock on their door for making broad generalisations about men as group that someone somewhere found offensive and believed to be hateful (I.e motivated by hateful thoughts).

To add to Nitro's post, just if anyone's lurking and wondering.
Hate crime, however, omits SEX
To potentially constitute a hate crime, one of these factors must be present.

• Race
• Religion
• Disability
• Sexual orientation
• Transgender identity

If I then shout back to Freda Bloggs You are Fred, a man in a frock, and no Lesbian
Then Bloggs involves the cops, and claims to be the victim of a hate crime. and sooo distressed.

Nah following a person in the streets is an action, following someone home goes beyond just saying words doesn’t it?

To be fair I have only ever seen leftists engage in this sort of horrible behaviour though, like the disgusting mob that recently accosted Michael Gove. Fortunately the right are better than that.

OK I stand corrected it’s gender reassignment that is protected. But the individual gets to assign and choose their own gender. So I don’t see how this is any different in practice.

@Rafalww
The protected characteristic that pertains to gender is that of gender reassignment. Not that the definition thereof makes very much sense; but it is still distinct from the nebulous concept of “gender identity”.

No I don’t see your point at all I’m afraid. If you have exceptions to free speech, I.e free speech BUT… then

So, you're all cool with scumbags following my wife home from the Metro, chanting racist abuse at her, because to stop them would infringe on their rights of free speech.

OK, I see what you are.

“You have hate speech laws that are subjective and based on perception and these laws protect ‘protected characteristics’, one of which is gender identity

No it isn't.”

Anyone else want to take this one? I have given up?

The police have been captured by leftist/progressive ideology so it should come as no surprise that they manipulate language and use the word ‘voluntary’ to describe a situation where you’ll be arrested and forced to comply if you don’t do exactly what they want. That is just typical left wing language games. I don’t think they believe in absolute truth so I don’t think words really matter to them, language is just another thing to be twisted and manipulated to get them what they want and what they want is to get you into trouble.

In my opinion you are completely correct to say that best to say as little as possible and say ‘no comment’ if you can. I think their goal is to keep people talking until they say something that can be used to incriminate them. They might act all friendly but I think they’re looking to use whatever you say against you in anyway that they can. In that situation I agree that it’s wise to say as little as possible. What could you possibly gain from speaking to people openly and freely when they have already decided to use everything you say against you?

Then suck it up, eat what you ordered and don’t complain when someone reports you based on their subjective feelings about something you have said. I won’t waste my time replying to you again. Enjoy living in the society you helped to create.
Are you replying to someone else? What did I 'order' or help to create? I genuinely don't understand what it is you think I have done.

You have hate speech laws that are subjective and based on perception and these laws protect ‘protected characteristics’, one of which is gender identity

No it isn't.

How did the police find out who she is? Did she have her name publicly available, or was she doxed by the complainant, or did the police track her down through her internet connection, or ...?

@popebishop ”Saying a male is male does not come under this, so it's not what I want at all. I wouldn't say "I supported these laws" as I don't know much about them in detail. I think a decent analysis would need to be done about their effects.”

It absolutely does, or at least it absolutely can. It’s not complicated. You have hate speech laws that are subjective and based on perception and these laws protect ‘protected characteristics’, one of which is gender identity. In some circumstances you absolutely could be done under that legal framework for saying someone who identifies as female is a man.

@popebishop “I was mainly disagreeing with your argument that "BUT… then guess what happens, the BUT becomes whatever those in positions of authority want the BUT to be" the fact that people can apply laws inconsistently or may change them in future, does not, in itself, mean there shouldn't be a law at all.”

Then suck it up, eat what you ordered and don’t complain when someone reports you based on their subjective feelings about something you have said. I won’t waste my time replying to you again. Enjoy living in the society you helped to create.

Yes, true @LarkLane . KJK had to attend a voluntary in fairly recent history.

She seems to have had advice from Fair Cop to secretly record the interview. I wonder if she got any other advice from them or anyone else. In her position, I'd probably trust advice from Fair Cop.
https://nitter.net/WeAreFairCop/status/1723241224507633920#m

I strongly disagree that the police are leftist and progressive. We have seen how anti-woman they are. I don't think how the police actually act is any representation of what the law sets out. Just because the police are inconsistent and biased and act what appears to be unlawfully, I don't think that's a reason to shrug and bin any law they claim to be upholding.

I agree that outlawing certain types of speech because that speech itself in a manifestation of hate is impossible when it's so dependent on context, humour etc - and if we attempt it, the bar should be very high. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be any bar whatsoever though, in my opinion. It's tiring beyond belief to live your life hearing hatred against you day in, day out, people persuading others that you are vermin or less than human or deserve violence simply because of an aspect of yourself - not your beliefs, or actions, or words, but just how you were born.

Saying a male is male does not come under this, so it's not what I want at all. I wouldn't say "I supported these laws" as I don't know much about them in detail. I think a decent analysis would need to be done about their effects.

I was mainly disagreeing with your argument that "BUT… then guess what happens, the BUT becomes whatever those in positions of authority want the BUT to be" the fact that people can apply laws inconsistently or may change them in future, does not, in itself, mean there shouldn't be a law at all.

Yes, you are quite right @Rafalww. I was thinking about it some more.

I imagine she attended voluntarily as not having been arrested, she will not need to disclose the police interview if, for example, she ever needs to undergo a DBS check for work. Important to note for anyone who may need DBS checks throughout their career.

Sometimes the police invite you to attend voluntarily as a bit of a fishing expedition when they haven't got enough evidence to arrest you, amongst other reasons. Then if you answer the questions more fully, you may be giving them what they are looking for. The questions she was asked are very pertinent to gaining more evidence of her alleged transphobia. So glad she said No Comment.

It's a really good idea to take legal advice before attending for interview voluntarily ime. Although you are entitled to a legal representative at the interview under the legal aid system, it's luck of the draw who turns up to advise you.

My own position is that they would have to arrest me, but everyone's situation is different, and that might not be appropriate for someone else, as in DBS checks for your employment.

@LarkLane ”I missed that she went voluntarily for an interview under caution. I hope that she changes her legal advisor.”

I think this might be more Orwellian language. I’m pretty sure if you don’t attend these “voluntary” meetings they come and arrest you and ask the same questions at the police station.

Same m.o.
But best leave it there on this forum. I think you are on the right track.

I was thinking of someone else too.

A. Haddock has links that way. Just saying @WarriorN

(The person claiming to have reported the woman to NUFC and the police I mean.)

This woman has been deliberately targeted by someone who knew what they were doing. And knew they could use the police.

And I doubt that person is a real toon supporter reading all those tweets from that weird account.

I'm immersed in enough toon supporters (mother of Geordie boys, many friends also football heads) to know the slang and football supporter style. They've slipped up several times.

@popebishop

B. But only if the limits/rules are clearly defined and apply to all without fear or favour. That’s how it works when it’s something like drink driving.

But that is not how it works with something like hate speech, especially not when the political police are infused with left wing values (or any other values other than impartial law enforcement for that matter).

Hate speech laws not only don’t work like drunk driving laws, they simply cannot work that way. 1. Because it’s based partly on subjective feelings and 2. Because the police are now a politicised institution with leftist/progressive ideological values. The police cannot be neutral now because they have been politicised on purpose to use these subjective laws in exactly the way they are using them today. This was always going to be the case; as soon as these laws were passed where we are now became inevitable. Those who supported these laws have simply gotten the meal they ordered off the menu.

On Friday, she was asked to attend a voluntary interview at Forth Banks Police Station in relation to “malicious communications” over several posts on X, formerly known as Twitter.

I missed that she went voluntarily for an interview under caution. I hope that she changes her legal advisor.

The football club's involvement is very odd indeed.