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!

@randomchap

Your trust in the fairness and even application of the current criminal justice system is touching.

She also pleaded guilty. So the matter was never tried.

Again, you're going off topic. Why are you claiming she was arrested and charged because of a single word? Why the misinformation?

@randomchap

She was originally reported to police over the word "fagg*t" . She was then in front of the beak where she was accused of a homophobic hate crime by "causing to be sent by public communication network an offensive, indecent, obscene or menacing messages".

She pleaded guilty so there was no trial. So none of us know what she said to see whether the JP was applying the law correctly.

Also I think you suggest that the sentence was uplifted because of homophobia with the underlying offence being malicious communication. The texts appear to have been homophobic in nature hence the alarm to the recipient and why they were reported to the police. Ie the word "fagg*t". However you cant just pull a malicious communication out of thin air. The essence of the "crime" are the words themselves and in this case appear to be the f word.

Hence the whole point of this thread. That words are being criminalised.

"She was originally reported to police over the word "fagg*t" "

Source?

She was then in front of the beak where she was accused of a homophobic hate crime by "causing to be sent by public communication network an offensive, indecent, obscene or menacing messages".

." The texts appear to have been homophobic in nature hence the alarm to the recipient and why they were reported to the police. Ie the word "fagg*t"."

Source that this was the cause of the alarm?

" The essence of the "crime" are the words themselves and in this case appear to be the f word."

Source as to the use of this term being the deciding factor?

You acknowledge in your post that nobody knows the content of the messages but go straight in to also deciding you know that this one word was the reason it was reported, the case of the alarm and the essence of the crime. It's all complete supposition on your part.

The F word was an aggravating factor on top of the malicious communication.

The crime was malicious communication.

It's not criminalising words.

It says that the sentence was increased due to the homophobic reference, so she would have likely been convicted anyway, which means the rest of it must have been pretty choice.

You seem to have just made most of this up. Since when were people 'accused' at the point at which they're 'up before the beak'?

And yes none of us know what she said. So like everyone else, you have no idea what it was about the messages that resulted in the conclusion that they met the threshold for prosecution.

The recipient of the texts accused her. And the police. Presumably she had to be charged with something to be before a magistrate. Thats usually how things work?

And Ive repeatedly said none of us know what was in the texts because she pleaded guilty. And in the current climate that's probably just as well. Im not sure what your point is other than going over old ground.

She was completely humiliated by 11 police officers 10 of whom were men who burst into her naked and got her out the bath and stood there while she was naked giving her no privacy to get dressed.
Thats disgusting and makes her vulnerable, no way should they get to see her naked just because they have power, she should have been given the respect to get dressed before 10 men stood there gawping at her.

Interesting if true

You’ve said “she was reported over the word f-t”. You don’t know that. You only know that the use of that word was cited as an aggravating factor.

You’ve said once in front of the beak she was then accused of malicious communication (my emphasis). It wasn’t then, that was always the charge. A charge that having seen the evidence (which you haven’t) the CPS thought worth pursuing. She and her legal team knew what she was charged with and she was advised to plead guilty.

I think you are getting bogged down in semantics. Law school was a long time ago for me (before wrong speak was a thing) but Im pretty comfortable with how the magistrates court operates. If that was what you wanted to clarify for me?

If you read the media reports (if you believe them) the police arrested her due to the use of the f word. Which is a bad development if true.

Again..not sure what new information you want to tell me?

Which media reports claimed the police arrested her due to the use of the slur? rather than arrested her for barrage of messages which included the slur?

Not getting bogged down in semantics at all. You keep insisting that "she was reported over the word f-t". You don't know that. As you say, the only source for that are the media reports if you believe them. "A bad development if true". You seem to be allowing a lot of 'ifs' do a whole lot of heavy lifting there.

We do however have a direct quote from the prosecutor which talks of "abusive and homophobic text messages" (again my emphasis) as oppose to "abusive, homophobic messages" See the difference?. They were abusive without the word.

I think my wording shows I am not making any definite statements. I'm just musing on the implications of what may or may not have happened. Which is all we can do. Otherwise the thread is pointless (as Ive already pointed out). You're on this thread too so presumably are content to discuss potential implications too.

Rather than semantics, Im more interested in the current state of the two tier legal system in the UK and whether this case is relevant to that (which as Ive already pointed out upthread none of us know). Prosecutors tend to have a bias....and there seem to be a few activist judges at the moment. In my opinion only of course.

Again, what new thoughts do you have that havent already been discussed at length pages ago?

Musings then to have qualifiers before them. I think.. what if.. it could be...

"She was originally reported to police over the word "fagg*t"

It's nothing if not a definitive statement.

"two tier"

Well, that just shows you're talking absolute bollocks and pushing a right wing narrative

I googled it. The 'search assist' gives the figures at the top of the page.

"Pushing a right wing narrative"

Again we have the same sort of phrases trotted out. The Guardian has a lot to answer for. In my opinion.

I cannot make myself clearer. (That we don't know the facts. If you feel you need to comment try not to pick up fag (if I can say that) ends and read all the posts Ive made.

I think we are talking about Elizabeth Kinney? So the newspaper reports state that she was arrested for using a slur word. You may know better than the papers though.

Anyway that's all for me for now.

"I cannot make myself clearer. (That we don't know the facts. "

Yet you're happy to offer up facts repeatedly with no basis.

"So the newspaper reports state that she was arrested for using a slur word"

Which ones?

"In your opinion?"

Your opinion has no value as you are not basing it on facts, just supposition and bullshit.

Mine did this a well. She never cursed, so I don’t think she regarded it in any way as a slur. Oddly enough, it was in a kind of affectionate way. ‘Little’ was used in front of it. Like ‘Oh, you little rascal’. She was bilingual, with her native and first language being Irish. So, maybe she hadn’t adopted any American use of it being used as a slur against gay men.

Kind of surprised to see so many posters in favour of criminalising hate speech on here. You know for sure one of the first groups in the firing line will be those who disagree with sacrificing women's rights for trans rights.

It won't matter whether or not humans can change sex. What will matter was that you said it to somebody who you know may experience distress as a result. It's already happening.

FWIW, I don't think the N word Is acceptable. I'm also not sure whether the recent thread 'All men are filthy losers' with the majority of votes agreeing with OP isn't hate speech.

What I do think is that context is key. If somebody beats you up badly enough to put you in hospital with brain swelling and gets away scot free, then referring to them with a nasty word might be more understandable. I've called somebody the C word before. More than once. Would I use it normally? Generally not.

Also, people will generally just use the most obvious attribute when reaching for a insult. An overweight person might get called a 'fat c*nt' "or a redhead a 'ginger prick'. Most times I doubt the person using the insult really has an issue with ginger people.

But it'll reach a breaking point IMO. There's huge pushback against the woke. Trump getting into office repeatedly. Reform probs being our next government. The success of people like Andrew Tate.

I think the issue is that the type of people who want to police offensiveness/control society through wokeness are not usually very 'strong' individuals in the traditional sense. In the long run, those that are resilient won't be pushed around by those that aren't.

I mean 'strong' in both senses. Non woke people that are able to be confrontational/aggressive when needed and might choose roles like the military. Also, people like Trump who (whether you love or hate him) are able to shrug off criticism and attain significant power and resources by not giving a fuck.

I'm not saying people should acquiesce to these types, but when you pick a fight with them you'd better be able/prepared to see it through to the end because you lose the option of an uneasy coexistence, which is more or less what we've had until now.