Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Lesbian interviewed under caution for tweets

256 replies

Justme56 · 11/11/2023 08:36

Link to https://x.com/wearefaircop/status/1723241217536758023?s=46&t=ZX_bLozRqm8etdGICMcAvA

Attached the transcript from the interview- not sure if posted in order.

Lesbian interviewed under caution for tweets
Lesbian interviewed under caution for tweets
Lesbian interviewed under caution for tweets
OP posts:
Thread gallery
12
popebishop · 12/11/2023 18:57

The equivalent with hate speech would be to say you’re allowed to drive but not allowed to drive drunk and then leaving it up to a highly politicised and ideological police force to decide who was and wasn’t under the influence of alcohol

@Rafalww

Right. So, if this was the case, and you wanted to improve the situation, would it be better to
A) say no-one could drink before driving (or say anyone can drink anything before driving)
Or
B) attempt to get some limits introduced into law, even if someone might in future change those limits?

WarriorN · 12/11/2023 18:05

That article says "temporarily suspended" - if the case has been dropped as no case, surely she should be reinstated?

WarriorN · 12/11/2023 18:03

How on earth would the club know who of their members is under police investigation? Unless that guy did report to both police and the club. Which is targeted and indicates he knows her.

Somewhere on his timeline he claims (note claims) to have been an ex employee at the club (ticket office) and know people there.

(Also an extreme troll and best not engaged with.)

AutumnCrow · 12/11/2023 17:37

PronounssheRa · 12/11/2023 16:32

It feels very much targeted and vindictive

According to the Telegraph article, NUFC says it withdraws membership from anyone 'under police investigation'!! Surely that's for football-related public order or violent offences, following senior police and legal advice?! Not for women tweeting facts.

Even if someone is 'under investigation' for something serious (and not convicted), then the club still has to tread carefully and not trash civil liberties, or anyone from other clubs could report any Newcastle supporter vindictively ... where are the legally required checks and balances?

This sounds like a right sorry mess for NUFC and NorthumbPol, if the Telegraph article is accurate.

Rafalww · 12/11/2023 17:32

@Froodwithatowel ”It isn't 'law', because law is applied equally and impartially to set standards.”. Says who? It is law and the law is not applied equally and impartially. The laws against ‘hate’ are very subjective and that was done on purpose.

@Froodwithatowel ”And for every woman who gets sufficiently angry to write to someone or say this out loud, it creeps a little bit further.” If you think the views of the general population matter I would highly recommend reading a book called ‘The Populist Delusion’.

MrsOvertonsWindow · 12/11/2023 17:30

PronounssheRa · 12/11/2023 16:32

It feels very much targeted and vindictive

Very deliberate. And unbelievable that a major football club lets themselves be played by a transactivist like this. But then as we see - showcasing misogyny is always a feature of signing up to transactivism.

Rafalww · 12/11/2023 17:24

popebishop · 12/11/2023 14:47

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 guess what happens, the BUT becomes whatever those in positions of authority want the BUT to be. Sovereign is he who makes the exception.

So everyone needs to agree that something - any action, regardless of context - is either always legal, or always illegal, because someone might change the boundary? So, eg drinking any amount of alcohol at any point before driving should always be a crime, because someone might increase or decrease the limits?

Or is it just verbal and written speech you are talking about?

I don’t engage with people who are disingenuous. I can’t tell if you are being disingenuous or not so I will just assume you are not.

The legal alcohol driving limit is 80 milligrams per 100 milliltres of blood in the U.K. except in Scotland where it is 50. It’s a clearly defined thing that you are not allowed to do.

The equivalent with hate speech would be to say you’re allowed to drive but not allowed to drive drunk and then leaving it up to a highly politicised and ideological police force to decide who was and wasn’t under the influence of alcohol; after first interviewing the suspect about their political beliefs of course! Then, in this hypothetical scenario, I think you would be surprised to find that people with the correct beliefs could drive around pissed while those with the wrong beliefs would be done for drink driving when they were stone cold sober.

PronounssheRa · 12/11/2023 16:32

WarriorN · 12/11/2023 16:26

Isn't that a massive deal? Don't you have to be on a huge waiting list for those (or is that something else?)

It feels very planned to report to NUFC

It feels very much targeted and vindictive

AutumnCrow · 12/11/2023 16:30

WarriorN · 12/11/2023 16:26

Isn't that a massive deal? Don't you have to be on a huge waiting list for those (or is that something else?)

It feels very planned to report to NUFC

Yes, it's a big deal. She's been a Toon fan since childhood, apparently. Lives near St James's Park. She's lost out of tickets allocations now for a few games she wanted to attend.

WarriorN · 12/11/2023 16:27

Or am I thinking of a season ticket...

WarriorN · 12/11/2023 16:26

Isn't that a massive deal? Don't you have to be on a huge waiting list for those (or is that something else?)

It feels very planned to report to NUFC

JanesLittleGirl · 12/11/2023 16:25

catduckgoose · 12/11/2023 16:17

The NUFC season ticket revocation sounds like someone trolling. Is this really part of what happened?

According to the Telegraph, her membership has been suspended which means that she no longer has priority access to tickets.

catduckgoose · 12/11/2023 16:17

The NUFC season ticket revocation sounds like someone trolling. Is this really part of what happened?

Rightsraptor · 12/11/2023 16:00

Ooh, Roddy Dunlop KC is wanting to get involved.

Wonderful!

WarriorN · 12/11/2023 15:40

Rightsraptor · 12/11/2023 14:23

I've just read an article in the DT online (paywall, never did understand 12ft ladder or whatever it is called) stating that the woman in this case first knew about this investigation into her tweeting when Newcastle United Football Club told her it had suspended her membership. If I've read it right, that is. Gobsmacked.

She was interviewed by the police only last Friday. So the cops somehow knew she was an NUFC supporter, they told NUFC, NUFC told her that they had suspended her membership and only then did the police knock on her door.

Oh, and the investigation is now closed.

I really hope I've got that wrong, because this is not my country any longer. I do not want to live under this regime.

This is appalling and stasi like.

I am also wondering if they've (police and NUFC) have gone ott because of the recent high level bridge graffiti which was all reported in the local press (ITV iirc, who India Willoughby used to work for) as transphobic, though a large amount was not and similar to what the woman in question tweeted. As well as valid comments on the transition of children.

Froodwithatowel · 12/11/2023 15:04

pronounsbundlebundle · 12/11/2023 12:43

Who can I report my distress, anxiety, alarm and offence to about Northumbria Police's threatening and unlawful behaviour which constitutes hate speech (and actual action) against a lesbian?

I mean, is there anyone? It's probably worth doing even if it's filed in the bin. It's funny how they know whose distress and offence to take seriously - almost as if inner gender feels are less important than observable biological sex.

There is around here somewhere, the footage of a well known women's rights activist, half of a lesbian couple, who talks to camera - I think on the day that Posie was last interviewed for the sin of being blonde and having views that made men cross.

She explains that she has, twice, reported offenses to the police that were committed by trans activists. She is lesbian and black; two protected characteristics, and one of the reports involved her showing her phone to a police officer where the activist's communications were recorded, including references to monkeys and other straight out racial abuse.

The policeman shrugged.

It isn't 'law', because law is applied equally and impartially to set standards. As demonstrated in this incident: it doesn't matter what happened, what matters is whether or not you matter. And a lesbian black woman, particularly one standing reprehensibly representing a desire for women's equality and access in public, was not seen as entitled to the protection of the law as it stands. Want to see what real oppression looks like instead of the fun kind? There it is. When you're told you're not entitled to the law because you're not the right kind of person and not behaving nicely enough to deserve it.

Which makes this nothing more interesting than partisan bullying and harassment to further political aims of an extremist and increasingly questionable political lobby by suppressing those pointing out what they are doing and what it means.

And you're funding this with your taxes. And the government know, but are hoping if they ignore it it will all just go away, and it's not like it's happening to anyone who really matters, and all the other parties are in favour of enthusiastically enabling this to happen more, bigger and faster.

It's bloody depressing, but pointing it out here has helped in the past few years. Glacially bloody slowly, but what gets said here does creep out. And for every woman who gets sufficiently angry to write to someone or say this out loud, it creeps a little bit further.

RethinkingLife · 12/11/2023 14:52

Rightsraptor · 12/11/2023 14:23

I've just read an article in the DT online (paywall, never did understand 12ft ladder or whatever it is called) stating that the woman in this case first knew about this investigation into her tweeting when Newcastle United Football Club told her it had suspended her membership. If I've read it right, that is. Gobsmacked.

She was interviewed by the police only last Friday. So the cops somehow knew she was an NUFC supporter, they told NUFC, NUFC told her that they had suspended her membership and only then did the police knock on her door.

Oh, and the investigation is now closed.

I really hope I've got that wrong, because this is not my country any longer. I do not want to live under this regime.

I'm sure that I'm wrong, but that sounds like an integration of facial recognition technology with social capital assessments. As practised by some of the less open or democratic regimes.

I must be wrong.

MrsOvertonsWindow · 12/11/2023 14:52

Rightsraptor · 12/11/2023 14:23

I've just read an article in the DT online (paywall, never did understand 12ft ladder or whatever it is called) stating that the woman in this case first knew about this investigation into her tweeting when Newcastle United Football Club told her it had suspended her membership. If I've read it right, that is. Gobsmacked.

She was interviewed by the police only last Friday. So the cops somehow knew she was an NUFC supporter, they told NUFC, NUFC told her that they had suspended her membership and only then did the police knock on her door.

Oh, and the investigation is now closed.

I really hope I've got that wrong, because this is not my country any longer. I do not want to live under this regime.

I saw that - and noticed a KC commenting on X that he'd like to get involved in the case. My guess is that post Forstater, Newcastle will soon be doing an embarrassed reverse ferret:

https://twitter.com/RoddyQC/status/1723425040702562594

https://twitter.com/RoddyQC/status/1723425040702562594

popebishop · 12/11/2023 14:47

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 guess what happens, the BUT becomes whatever those in positions of authority want the BUT to be. Sovereign is he who makes the exception.

So everyone needs to agree that something - any action, regardless of context - is either always legal, or always illegal, because someone might change the boundary? So, eg drinking any amount of alcohol at any point before driving should always be a crime, because someone might increase or decrease the limits?

Or is it just verbal and written speech you are talking about?

Rafalww · 12/11/2023 14:35

SinnerBoy · 11/11/2023 23:24

I'm fine with action against actual perpetrators of hate speech; racist rabble rousers, people calling for Muslims to be deported, people who harass disabled people and the like.

I'm not fine with the Police abusing it, to falsely arrest and threaten people who state scientific facts, which are legally protected philosophical beliefs.

Do you see my point?

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 guess what happens, the BUT becomes whatever those in positions of authority want the BUT to be. Sovereign is he who makes the exception.

When lefties called for hate speech laws did they think their morals and their beliefs and ideals would be the ones favoured by the powers that be in perpetuity or something? Were they really that naive? It’s hard to believe it.

Rightsraptor · 12/11/2023 14:23

I've just read an article in the DT online (paywall, never did understand 12ft ladder or whatever it is called) stating that the woman in this case first knew about this investigation into her tweeting when Newcastle United Football Club told her it had suspended her membership. If I've read it right, that is. Gobsmacked.

She was interviewed by the police only last Friday. So the cops somehow knew she was an NUFC supporter, they told NUFC, NUFC told her that they had suspended her membership and only then did the police knock on her door.

Oh, and the investigation is now closed.

I really hope I've got that wrong, because this is not my country any longer. I do not want to live under this regime.

Brefugee · 12/11/2023 13:06

pronounsbundlebundle · 12/11/2023 12:48

Plenty of women have done this: Posie has mentioned how she's reported threats to the police and they've done nothing. Also JKR (I think she got a bit more action, but she has a team of lawyers on hand). Also, Caroline Farrow has had actual threats and intimidation such as takeaways being sent to her house in an 'we know where you live' style message and we all know what's happened there.

I'm not saying it's not worth doing just that there is evidence women reporting actual death threats / stalking / physical intimidation against them results in zero action. See also Wayne Couzens and the McDonalds employees who reported his actual crime of flashing with nothing happening. I think some female MPs have had a similar experience in getting very little / no action when they've reported threats against them.

Almost as if the police know the sex of the complainants and are prioritising accordingly. How very transphobic of them.

Then we/they need to make more noise about it. It is absolutely appalling

pronounsbundlebundle · 12/11/2023 12:52

Wait, what?

Similarly you cannot make a formal complaint if you have only viewed the actions via video or online post of an incident where you were not present.'

But the 'misgendering' referred to in the interview was an incident where the person being misgendered wasn't present. That seems incredibly unfair and wrong.

So abusive males can weaponise the police to abuse by proxy if women say things they don't like, but no-one can complain about this unless they're physically in the police interview? That's convenient for abusers.

pronounsbundlebundle · 12/11/2023 12:48

Brefugee · 12/11/2023 09:08

people need to start reporting those tweets to the police. Someone writes that to you, or in reply to one of your tweets? report directly to the police

Plenty of women have done this: Posie has mentioned how she's reported threats to the police and they've done nothing. Also JKR (I think she got a bit more action, but she has a team of lawyers on hand). Also, Caroline Farrow has had actual threats and intimidation such as takeaways being sent to her house in an 'we know where you live' style message and we all know what's happened there.

I'm not saying it's not worth doing just that there is evidence women reporting actual death threats / stalking / physical intimidation against them results in zero action. See also Wayne Couzens and the McDonalds employees who reported his actual crime of flashing with nothing happening. I think some female MPs have had a similar experience in getting very little / no action when they've reported threats against them.

Almost as if the police know the sex of the complainants and are prioritising accordingly. How very transphobic of them.