To think when police resources are allegedly so stretched and crime levels are on the rise, this isn't a good use of an inspector's time?

[GabrielleNelson]

twitter.com/HarryTheOwl/status/1110503943245688832 Twitter thread starts here.

EweSurname collated it on another thread. Conversation between Harry and a police inspector goes like this:

Harry The Owl - Limerick Criminal
‏@HarryTheOwl*
I am stunned, shocked, upset, aghast and fuming.Just had Inspector Wilson from @Humberbeat call me re my complaint

Me: Did I commit a crime?
Him: No. But you have upset a lot of people in the trans community.
Me: I do not believe Trans women are women. How do I state that without it causing upset?
Him: Why would you tweet that? Why do you feel the need?

Me: Because I am taking part in a national conversation.
Him: But why do you feel the need to do that?
Me: Because I am a citizen and believe political engagement is necessary. Why are you asking me this?
Him: Because I don’t see why you feel the need to say this.

Me: I can’t believe you, a police inspector, are questioning my involvement in politics. What right have you to do that?
Him: You do have the right. I’m just asking why you feel the need to engage in hate.
Me: Hate? Where’s the fucking hate?
Him: Maybe it’s the wrong wording.

Me: you are a fucking Inspector. You do not get to tell me that expressing a legally held view is hate. And you don’t get to pressure me to stop debating politically.
Him: If you swear, I will end this conversation.

Me. Ok. But I’m angry that you are ringing me and asking me why I’d want to be involved in politics.
Him: You have every right to be involved in politics. But why would you tweet your views when it upsets the trans community?

Me: let me get this straight. I said I do not believe trans women are women, and you ask me why I feel the need to tweet that. Right?
Him: Right. Exactly.
Me: I am ending this conversation now.
Hangs up

I am devastated.

Now, whether or not you think transwomen are women, transmen are men, there are obvious freedom of speech issues here.

Last week Caroline Farrow was called by the police because she had misgendered Susie Green's child on Twitter and she was lambasted by Piers Morgan and Susannah Reid on GMB yesterday for not being nice.

On Thursday Dr Julia Long was physically ejected from a public meeting for which she had a ticket by seven police officers because the people running the meeting thought she might be about to ask an awkward question.

What's going on here? When did the police get powers to stop people being blunt and causing hurt feelings to the thinskinned?

This worries me.

So why aren’t they going after all the trans right activists threatening women with actual physical violence, Stompy? Sex is a protected characteristic, after all.

Biology facts and dictionary definitions aren’t violence, literal or otherwise.

YADNBU

The world has gone mad. I want to step off this fucking merry-go-round, what a joke.

Freedom of speech used to be one of Great Britain's rights given to all. Police need to stay out of politics and get back dealing with actual crime.

Sudocreme I remember a time when in was commonly felt that it was a biological fact that sexual relationships should only be between men and women. We now understand that was a bigoted position, and there is nothing wrong or abnormal about being gay.

Stompy, that was never biological fact. That was always belief. I think you know this.

Except he didn't say that all trans people should be killed or that trans people are animals @stompythedinosaur so your anaologu doesn't work.

*analogy.

Comparing the rights of trans people with the rights of gay people is false equivalence stompy
The Gay Liberation movement was for equality for people, regardless of their sexual orientation. The trans ideology is not for equal rights, they already have equal rights. The trans ideology is for taking other people's, women's rights away from them.
The Police are making themselves look incredibly stupid by trying to police peoples thoughts and for trying to strong arm people into not tweeting biological truths

Forgot to add this Op, you are definitely not being unreasonable

Stompy, that was never biological fact. That was always belief. I think you know this.

Of course I don't think it is a fact! I was trying to point out that just because you currently believe that it is a "fact" that trans people not real doesn't mean you are correct.

Queen ok, I accept that a better analogy would be whether it is ok for people to tweet "gay people don't exist". I don't think it is, and I think the officer in the op's example is try to nicely influence someone who is being deliberately provocative into less antisocial behaviour.

But again, did he actually say that trans people don't exist? Because if he didn't then it's still a bad analogy.

A better analogy would be if he said black people aren't white or gay people aren't straight.

So not offensive. Just a fact.

stompy
Stop making things up.

Harry was tweeting the truth.

There simply isnt any excuse for the inspector's actions, no matter how many unsuccessful analogy attempts anyone might attempt to make.

Is it absolutely certain that the unknown person ringing up and harassing Harry the Owl in his home, who claimed to be an inspector in the police, actually was a policeman? Is he really "Inspector Wilson" from "Humberbeat", and how do you show identification over the phone?

Wow, this thread eventually took off!

Stompy, I thought I'd made it pretty plain in my OP that whatever your views on transideology there's a huge free speech issue here. Why should people be rung up by the police for stating out loud a scientific fact?

I see from Twitter today that Harry's chat made it into the Crime section of his local paper, with his photo. Information allegedly supplied by the police. He runs a business in that area and many of his clients and suppliers will have seen it. Is that OK? He hasn't committed any crime.

It's nothing like saying two people of the same sex should not have a sexual relationship. That's opinion, belief at a push. I agree with you, there is nothing wrong or abnormal in being a gay man or a lesbian or bisexual.

There are, however, a lot of people who do have that opinion or belief because it's what their religion tells them or it's their moral position. Religion is a protected characteristic in the Equality Act 2010. So is belief. Here's the whole list:

^The following characteristics are protected characteristics—
age;
disability;
gender reassignment;
marriage and civil partnership;
pregnancy and maternity;
race;
religion or belief;
sex;
sexual orientation.^

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/4

So, much as you and I might deplore it, if someone states out loud or in writing that they believe being gay is immoral, as far as I can see (as a layperson) the police could do nothing about it. One protected characteristic clashes with another one. This is tricky and my preference would be for the police to be involved as little as possible in spats from social media.

@@stompythedinosaur what Harry said would be equivalent to saying "black people have different coloured skin to white people"

i.e. an actual fact, not a hate crime

All the shit actual women put up with on social media, actual threats of being RAPED for their views... and the police call up someone because someone else might have a hurty feeling for stating a biological fact? Sickening.

Stompy Of course I don't think it is a fact! I was trying to point out that just because you currently believe that it is a "fact" that trans people not real doesn't mean you are correct.

Queen ok, I accept that a better analogy would be whether it is ok for people to tweet "gay people don't exist".

Harry is NOT saying either anything remotely like that or your other wild analogies and neither is anyone else.

Why is there always this fatuous fall back on the "don't exist" mantra? What do you mean? Why is it always parroted without clarification? It's the most nonsensical, absurd method of trying to close down any debate or criticism.

I agree, RedDogsBeg.

Stompy, I thought I'd made it pretty plain in my OP that whatever your views on transideology there's a huge free speech issue here.

The point I was trying to make was that I'm not sure you are talking about free speech. You feel strongly that people should be able to speak freely about a minority that you dislike, but you don't think people should be able to speak freely about groups you are ok with.

No one is suggesting that transgender people should be protected instead of women. There is not one police officer making a choice about whether to investigate a rape or challenge someone inciting bigotry against transgender people.

On mn I often get the idea that people feel that transgender people are trying to take something away from women, and I don't think they are.

Where was the bigotry in what Harry said, stompy?

Yanbu If no crime has taken place then there is absolutely no need for police involvement nor was Harry obliged to speak to them.
It’s not a crime to be offended and no one yet has died of it

Queen are you saying you think he was tweeting a trans-exclusitory definition of a woman just coincidently? Do you think it wasn't a statement about how trans-women aren't really women? Why else would he have tweeted that?