Lesbian interviewed under caution for tweets

https://beta.northumbria.police.uk/latest-news/2023/november/new-head-of-professional-standards-department-reaffirms-commitment-to-ensure-everyone-held-to-highest-of-standards/

'The new head of our Professional Standards Department has reaffirmed the Force’s commitment to ensure everyone is held to the highest of standards.
Detective Superintendent Donna Rose has taken up the position, after almost 26 years in policing.
She has outlined our ongoing proactive approach to tackling unacceptable behaviour.
“As a Force we are determined to be outstanding in the service we deliver – and that starts with all officers, staff and volunteers upholding the high standards rightly expected of us.
“It is an honour and a privilege to be a police officer, and upon joining we take an oath to serve with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality.
“Sadly, as we have seen both nationally and locally, there are times when individuals fail to meet these qualities. In the more serious cases, this can lead to criminal action being taken against those same people who made a commitment to uphold the law.
“We absolutely recognise the impact such incidents can have on the communities we are here to protect.
“These cases are also felt sharply within police – and we too are just as disgusted and equally feel let down.
“We have made a real commitment to build on the trust and confidence we have worked so hard to earn with our communities.
“As we have previously made clear, this includes being relentless in our pursuit to root out those individuals who don’t share our values – and who ultimately have no place within policing.
“We therefore expect to see a continued rise in the number of cases going through misconduct proceedings.
“This shows the extensive work we are doing in this area is having a positive impact, with people increasingly recognising when someone has acted inappropriately and further highlighting the culture within the organisation where they have the confidence to come forward.
“It is then important that we act – taking those concerns seriously.
“When someone falls below the standards expected and which they made a commitment to uphold we will take appropriate action.
“The overwhelming majority of officers, staff and volunteers at Northumbria Police come to work to make a positive difference to people’s lives – often going above and beyond to provide the very best service possible.
“We are determined to ensure their efforts are not overshadowed by the actions of those who do not share these same values.”'

good question.

'Complaints can be made about general standards of policing, operational policies/procedures and individuals who work for Northumbria Police. This includes serving officers, members of police staff, contractors and volunteers.You must have been directly affected by the issue you are complaining about. You cannot make a complaint if you have only heard about the actions of an officer, police staff member, contractor or volunteer by a 3rd party. 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.'

So how do we complain about the problem that the police are intimidating a protected group (lesbians) and contributing to misogyny by this action?

https://beta.northumbria.police.uk/our-services/feedback/compliments-and-complaints/

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.

Well as a taxpayer and a citizen I find it alarming, distressing, causing anxiety and offensive that the police behave in this way. And I'm betting my alarm, distress, offence and anxiety is far greater than any man who believes he has a female gender identity has when called a man. What they have put this women through is state bullying and intimidation. They threatening her into not speaking freely and coerced language, and the solicitor is apparently going along with this whilst noting it's actually illegal.

At the same time the police failed to do anything about Wayne Couzens flashing at MacDonalds, which was reported with video evidence. This is an actual crime. They failed to do anything about an actual crime. If they had done something about this, he may not have been free to murder Sarah Everard.

The police are more unfit for purpose than a chocolate teapot (which presumably you can still eat after it's melted...

I'm almost tempted to start a twitter account - just to be able to comment on Northumbria's No Comment.

Congratulations to Northumbria Police on their level of public engagement.

Now past the half-million mark - 525k views - though (sadly) only 114 likes.

Thanks Frood I'm glad that my thought made sense. Sometimes I have thoughts like that, and then I think that it can't possibly be right - because it's insane - but then I look again and think that unfortunately, it might actually be correct after all.

So when people say 'transphobe' we should translate it to 'blasphemer.'

Trans activists can freely threaten to kill (in graphic, deeply disturbed and often sexual detail), sexually assault, rape, batter and maim women, and post pictures of them posed with the weapons to do so, and this is apparently fine and an exception to the law of malicious communications/hate crime/yada yada.

Women stating to a man that he is a man when this is against his wishes is an arrestable offence.

This would suggest that accountability under the law depends on who is breaking it and that the law is applied to oppressed groups (women for example) and not to powerful groups (trans activists, almost entirely male ones, and many not actually TQ or only temporarily TQ).

Well said, Frood.

These facts are clear. Our ‘justice’ system is openly biased against women in this area, putting female lives at risk.

It’s not as if those in power haven’t noticed social media. They have, and choose to weigh in against women.

It is exactly this. Blasphemy law. That is nowhere anywhere in the law and has never passed through any form of democracy or mandate. And is escaping direct accountability by hiding under a very old and battered fig leaf of 'hate speech/criminal communications' when the law is not enforced against men who openly threaten to rape and kill women.

If it wasn't so bloody appalling it would be laughable.

Don't think we will know all the facts though here for a while; I'm picking these bits up off twitter

Sometimes I cannot help but wonder the following:

Hate speech = blasphemy.
The religion involved that has been blasphemed against is that of Gender Identity Ideology.

If any of you are Bee Loud Bonnet I doff my cap to 'thee'

They forgot to mention this in their round up of actions they've taken this week - but it's OK as commentators have reminded them 😂

https://twitter.com/northumbriapol/status/1723010294820045206

I’ll see you all in jail. Bagsie the top bunk.

473k and only 113 likes.

No comment.

471k now

The police are constantly making themselves look like absolute clowns, but despite cases being dropped and public ridicule they just keep on doing it.

More seriously I think the only way this will stop is if the police forces are sued alongside individual officers (Im talking about the people giving the orders rather than boots on the ground PCs though some of them probably need it)

473k by the time I previewed and posted.

@Redshoeblueshoe

I think the twitter account is Naomi Cunningham's.

Hope it's okay to quote, for those not on Twitter/X.
She runs through the police questions with her own answers.
My favourite bit:

Bee-loud bonnet (thou/thee)

1. What do I mean by "thou/thee" in the bio, you ask. Well, people often give their pronouns. If you think people ought to use preferred pronouns, these are mine.

1. Please remember this, if you decide to interview me.

You will need to ask questions like "How often dost thou use X?" "What dost thou mean by "thou/thee" in thy bio?"

You may find there is a modest cognitive cost to this, but that's ok with me.

(And the NLand police tweet views is now up to 456k since my last post.)

NLand police account usually has under 10k views per tweet.

This one is up to 448k and still rising. Sunlight, hopefully.

Sorry I don't know how to link but on Twitter someone called Bee Loud Bonnet has done a thread with what they would have said to the police. It's hilarious.

Also note the fur coat and no knickers approach of the left (which the right has not had sufficient guts or organisation to deal with.)

Your house is being burgled and we've got no one spare to come for a few weeks to pop you a crime number, kids being knifed in the street across the UK, we have no time to deal with your muggings and even if you can evidence your rape it probably won't get to court - but by God we'll put the frighteners on a woman who dares to tell a bloke he's a bloke when he doesn't want her to say it!

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

Not to mention that in a sane, modern society, should the tax payer funded force intended to deal with criminal activity (to prevent citizens needing to take matters into their own hands to protect themselves and their property) be using very stretched resources and funds to run about wasting them on 'but she said facts I don't like and my feelings got ouchy'?

And while there IS a shading into criminal law in, for example evidenced o the thread, threatening in a public space to behead people, this appears to be ok so long as you only do it to women saying no to men .

So the law isn't being applied equally or impartially or even logically.

The tax funded police are using up overstretched resources, taking away from actually doing their jobs, to enforce political control on the dictat of an extremist, unbalanced lobby with no democratic mandate of any kind.

This is a bit of bloody horrific issue in historic terms. But it's ok, Sunak's got his fiddle out.

Hate speech was only ever what the people in power disagree with. Probably originally known as treason. I think it’s a sign of human progress that, after generations of it protecting the ruling classes or Establishment only, it got a rebrand which aims to give the vulnerable some protection. But is it always going to be misused & abused as a concept, whatever form it takes? Of course - it’s a construct tied to power dynamics in a flawed society. The challenge is working out where to draw the line, when the line itself is always going to be subjective & arbitrary.

Well now, your history is a bit wonky, it's nothing new. For example:
Jesus and the Apostles didn't do too well under the Romans. Those famous lefties.
He only said 'Render unto Caeser what is Caeser's'.
The Roman's reckoned that was tantamount to stickering. After that, it was all down hill for the Christians.

The concept of hate speech is at least several thousand years old.

They won't say nuffink till the brief gets there!