Anyone seen woman arrested for saying f****t in a private text message?

[Whywhywhyyyy]

This is completely bizarre. The news is thin on the ground so to see it I would have to link the mail or other obscure sites; but they are talking about this on Sky News abroad so assume it’s legit.

Apparently woman was arrested by 10 officers and dragged naked from a bath tub because she called a person who hospitalised her from assault a faggot in a message ranting to a supposed friend who reported her for using that word.

What is going on in this country?!

Yes sure that’s unpleasant. But is that really illegal? And if she has been hospitalised by this person then do I really care if someone uses bad words - even if they are hateful.

YABU - that’s a perfectly appropriate use of the law
YANBU - WTF is going on in this country!

But her abuser broke the law and her skull and didn’t get prosecuted.

That's not the case, it's been explained to you multiple times.

The crime was malicious communication, the f word was an aggravating factor.

Which part are you struggling with?

And that changes her offense how?

It is going to be mitigation certainly, because of the circumstances I imagine.

I listened to the podcast with Piers Morgan.
I felt for her, she was genuinely physically hurt but the bad word was more important.

Why were they not prosecuted do you know?

Again

It's not about a single word used. That word was an aggravating factor on top of the crime of malicious communication

His offence was so much worse so it shows there’s no justice.
She was a victim hospitalised after being attacked by a man who broke her skull and she ends up the bad guy because she called him a word and it wasn’t even to his face.
He didn’t go through anything like what she did and she was the one punished.
This world is sick.

I totally agree, it’s utter madness.

It wasn't because of a word. It was malicious communication with that word as an aggravating factor.

You seem to be unable to grasp this.

Hopefully at some point the attacker will be charged. Has there been any reporting as to why it's not happened yet? Lack of evidence etc

"I thought the point of this thread was that the word fagg*t was used and the woman was crininalised for it because the recipient took offence."

Oh no, you're mistaken then.
This could have saved so much time.

I'm describing the offense factually. It wasn't ongoing harassment, it was a single episode of unpleasant behaviour. And the whole point of contention is whether it is a good law. I don't think it is. You seemingly do.

Has she even claimed she reported the attack to the police and was that confirmed.

It was a barrage of messages. Describing it as a single episode misses this detail out. Why would you do that? Why deliberately miss out an important fact?

It’s madness. Also how does malicious comms apply if she’s talking to someone else not directly?

You're framing it in the wrong way. No I wouldn't be 'happy'. But I still don't think it should be a crime. I think it's really important in a democracy that the state doesn't interfere in behaviour that is simply unpleasant or socially unacceptable, because that can very easily become totalitarian depending on who decides what is unpleasant and socially unacceptable. I think most of the time we should rely on the consequences being socially-imposed (e.g. blocked and no long friends) rather than state-imposed.

That depends on the content of the messages. Which hasn't been made public. The cps decided to prosecute with all the facts. You're commenting without them.

Given Op update that this was an ex friend with her ex there was probably bad blood anyway and her blaming the attack on ex friend causing issues - so accusation bit does make more sense - also bad idea to try and engage with them at all.

However her biggest mistake was to text - if she ranted down the phone or face to face it's much less likely she'd have faced much of any come back.

One of the empolyment truibunals being watched on FWR boards had at one point group chat between friends going back years being used to discredit the complainer as she once said something that could be construned as nasty to a minority group which wasn't directly related to her complaints.

Commication vai text or apps - does appear more natural to my teens - but I've had to make them very aware it's written commication and there are more rules.

Clearly the attack wasn't considered a mitiagting factor - nor is there any explination about why the man that hospitized her wasn't proscuted.

It is odd as I know a shocking high number of women who've had years of abusive texts and app messages and threats and have found their police forces claim to be powerless to help them - that this case go so many resources and got a conviction - but it could be down to police force involved or something else.

Because it matters for the offence. If it was ongoing she would have been charged with harassment, which I don't believe she was.

So she didn't harass, she still carried out malicious communication in a barrage of messages.

Read the reports.

Why are you starting threads stirring up outrage based on scandalous news reporting with no understanding of the actual circumstances?

"You seem to be unable to grasp this."

Another one of the Mumsnet Sages who seem unable to grasp that Other People May Disagree with them. It's the same embarrassing phrase again and again.

You seem well informed. When are couple of posts earlier you said the facts were not known.

It's quite clear.

The full information such as the content of the barrage of messages aren't known.

However what is known is that she was charged and plead guilty to malicious communication. The jp described the homophobic word as an aggravating factor to this crime.

You keep repeating that she was arrested over a single word. This is not the case. And it won't be the case no matter how many times you repeat yourself.

Why are you pushing misinformation?