Sarah Jane Baker leads topless protest in London, and threatens named women

That police officer posing with the person holding the placard should be disciplined. Who can we complain to?

They don’t even need to prosecute him (although they should). They simply need to recall him to prison as per the terms of his licence.

That topless protest 😂

It looks like a building site in summer. I’d want my money back if I’d bought those tits.

No because they’ve been indoctrinated by University groupthink.
They stopped thinking for themselves.

This really does undermine any faith one might have had in the criminal justice system.

Lucy Connolly is serving 31 months for the offence under the Public Order Act (1986) of "inciting racial hatred" on Twitter.

We all know that there isn't an offence of inciting hatred against women - heaven forbid. But the Public Order Act also covers a whole bunch of stuff about harassing people, using threatening or abusive words etc:

A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a) uses threatening or abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening or abusive or insulting
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

That very broad wording would easily cover the words spoken by Sarah Jane Baker in this and previous demonstrations. It would also cover, of course, signs like "Decapitate Terfs" and other delightful placards we have seen on numerous other trans protests.

And yet these people never seem to get arrested, let alone prosecuted or sent to prison.

Funny, isn't it?

Has the BBC reported the facts of this protest and, if not, why not?

It's just sickening male violence. If that is not a breach of licence how far does he have to push it?

Nailed it! 👆 This is what two tier/never here Stalin Starmer has reduced this Country to.

Why the hell is he not arrested? Still at least he is making it clear that these deranged men shouldn't be allowed anywhere near women.

Exactly @JasmineAllen but they can fantasise and wang on on Reddit and Bluesky and in their discord echo chambers that it’s because we’re Victorian prudes and they are just like the women in FEMEN.

Actually, perhaps this is the impact of oestrogen, not implants, but it really does demonstrate that oestrogen has its limits.

I can't see anyone being offended by their appearance because as you say they're men and some men like to walk around topless but plenty will be repulsed by what they see and hear from them.

This behaviour reinforces why single sex spaces are needed.

As I posted on the original Scottish protest thread they appear to think it’s a fiendishly clever gotcha because why are we offended if we think they are men?

I think the lack of capacity for thinking anything much through is the main demonstration really.

It also does rather demonstrate that a man with breast implants still just looks like a man with breast implants.

They don't seem to have thought this through.

It's not clear how this advances the argument that women don't need single sex spaces.

Have either JKR or KJK commented on this? A police report will have more weight from them.

Can't wait to share a female only space with him

I’m imagining it’s eventually going to escalate to genitals with some of these men.

If Baker is hauled up in front of the court I only hope he gets a different judge from the previous 'punch a terf' incident, who let him off with a slap on the wrist. Judge Tan Ikram, I believe it was.

I believe Baker performed an orchiectomy on himself @NatFatPrat. One can only wonder at his state of mind.

This progressive messsage is now explicitly that public threats of violence is ok when it's a man understandably miffed about the law threatening to interrupt his offending. And the issue is not him, it's the law, which should not inconveniently protect women from men with very serious problems, including major sex offenses. And the women who provoke him with unacceptable words such as 'no'.

Clearly not. However, I do have a smidgen (sp) of sympathy for the police. They've been told to get out there and show their support for the LGBTQ++ community as a PR exercise. They know Pride events nowadays are packed with people dressed up in ways that a few years ago were socially unacceptable but now people treat these open signs of fetishes and sexual disinhibition (nothing to do with gay rights, plenty of participants are not gay) as something to be celebrated and not kept away from children - thinking of various pictures over the last few years showing children and police officers with a scantily dressed adult pretending to be a dog on another adult's lead, for example. Safeguarding and common sense have gone out of the window. We know that many police forces have paid for their officers to go through equalities and diversity training delivered by organisations that have taught Stonewall law, not the real law, and have focussed disproportionately on gender identity and sexuality at the expense of the other protected characteristics. Police officers have been told that colleagues who identify as women can carry out strip searches of women and suspected criminals who identify as women can insist on being searched by a female officer. Criminals who are obviously male are being sent to female prisons and their crimes are being recorded as committed by a female, including rape, a crime which in English law can only be committed by a male. Police officers have been sent to arrest people who've attempted to object to all of this and the police officers have been told and have agreed that these are hateful bigots. This has included a young lad on the autistic spectrum who 'misgendered' a police officer and now has a criminal record as a result.

Small wonder that this hapless chap has failed to grasp that it really isn't 'anything goes' when it comes to ignoring what the signs at Pride say, or shouldn't be, when they are threatening violence against protected groups or named individuals. He has probably closed his mind to all his doubts and niggles about this in the hope of avoiding getting into trouble. Unfortunately for him, he's now going to be in worse trouble. Not a good sign in a police officer to lack basic common sense, but unfortunately in recent years that's been actively discouraged in this area.

That individual is repeatedly proving how violent men with significant offending issues and no respect for probationary rules love this bandwagon and find it very useful. How many times can they just crack on re offending in this way without meaningful consequence? Because the consequences involved obviously mean nothing to them.

It's insane isn't it. In 2025, women are confirmed to have protections in law and men and a lot of the establishment go absolutely nuts with pique and horror about it, and it's so acceptable and understandable to threaten violence to women in the street that the police actively and smilingly support it.

We want to hurt women, we demand access to them!

Well I expect that of this lobby, it's the usual normal muddle of social challenge, anti socia behaviour, insane entitlement and no logic or sense anywhere in sight. But a police officer?!

If I stand on the street with a pretty frame and a sign announcing intent to commit burglarly, will PC Plod come and smile with me for a selfie?

Oh gosh Whitehall, I wonder why there's a bit of an issue in the UK with VAWG and major trust issues in the police? Would you like to borrow a five year old to talk you through it?