Stella Creasy says police ‘green lighting’ trolls to target politicians’ children

[nettie434]

The MP Stella Creasy was investigated by children's social care after it received a report from a men's rights activist who was trying to have her children taken away from her. A spokesperson for Leicestershire Police said that the activist was entitled to complain that her 'extremist views' placed her children at risk.

Another example of a person being investigated after a vexatious complaint to the police.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/29/stella-creasy-targeted-by-troll-who-tried-to-have-her-children-removed-report

So the complaint was very quickly dismissed following a safeguarding review and Stella has not had her children removed. It was quickly found that Stella is an excellent mum and we have no concerns for her child.

The problem you will have - if we go down the route of saying that people can not make any kind of complaint to services about children's welfare unless they have definite proof that the child is being effected/harmed - you will have children slipping through the net.

There have been loads of incidents in the past where children have been murdered by their parents because little incidents/events/concerns were not reported. So now we have the approach of just report anything & everything that may concern you and we will look into it.

This has come out of the 'lessons' learned' book that any incidents/events/concerns involving a child should be taken seriously and looked into.

I can't wait to see Starmer offering support to Ms Creasey. Women MPs can rely on him.

This is just so embarrassing.

twitter.com/stellacreasy/status/1652303050831265793?s=46&t=3vhG_KDq77qvuwlnTiE6jg

The replies express all my thoughts on this.

I'm hoping that Stella Creasy will see the parallels, even down to the police seemingly being more sympathetic to the complainant.

"We" @Felix125 ? Were you directly involved in this case or have some other direct knowledge? Bit inappropriate to comment if you have.

Great to know that any crazy man can sic the police and Social Services onto women with children at the drop of a hat with absolutely nothing more than their invented claims. No evidence at all required. Really ups women's trust in the police and due process.

Where is anyone saying that people shouldn’t be able to make a complaint without direct evidence?

This was proven to be a vexatious complaint from someone who as far as I know has never met creasy or her children because they disagreed with her politics about misogyny. Wasting police time and the time of children’s services who could have been putting that time into children that are genuinely at risk. We’re not talking about people who had genuine concerns that may be something or nothing.

It was done as an attempt to harass and you can be damn sure that it wouldn’t have happened to a male politician. It really should be punished to dissuade people from trying to do the same thing because I don’t think this is the first time this has happened to vocal women and we really could do without it becoming a thing.

So they were very clear, because I’ve never seen the actual original complaint he made, it was entirely about my views and the risk to my children of me having what he considered to be extreme views and indeed what the police in Leicestershire said could be considered extreme views … ie being a feminist.

“The consequence of it is that my kids now have a social services record because of this man’s belief that if you disagree with somebody, the thing you do is threaten to get their kids taken away.”

When asked what she thought about the police response, the MP replied: “I think they’ve given the green light to targeting the children of politicians if you don’t agree with them.”

I've found this incredibly worrying. I'm interested in who the next one will be, because there will be a next one. I'm going to wager it won't be a male politician.

And I do hope Casey sees the parallels here. I'm not holding my breathe, because I think it's easier to turn your head away than admit you were wrong before. Or unfair. Especially when you believe you're right and kind. I do hold some hope though.

RoseslnTheHospital
"We" @Felix125 ? Were you directly involved in this case or have some other direct knowledge? Bit inappropriate to comment if you have.

Great to know that any crazy man can sic the police and Social Services onto women with children at the drop of a hat with absolutely nothing more than their invented claims. No evidence at all required. Really ups women's trust in the police and due process.

I was using 'we' in the membership form. I think its a distinct determiner.

This came out of the lesson learned book.

Along the lines of - any report involving the possible safety or future safety of a child must be taken seriously. And its not just aimed at women - men can be the subject too.

It came off the back of children dying because organisations ignored people who had concerns - Social Services, Police, Doctors, Schools etc etc

So now - any slightest thing gets looked at - err on the side of caution

If you want it to go back to how it was before - then write to your MP.

I'm sure your quite aware of how dreadfully patronising you're being, seeing as it's your modus operandi. I'm going to ignore the patronising parts and continue in good faith...

So if you received a report about me, saying my two children were at risk of harm from my extreme feminist views, what would be the exact actions you would take? Say it was an email or an online report to the police and you were the police officer or other appropriate police employee that was dealing with it. No evidence provided in the report of any actual harm or risky behaviour, no claims to have witnessed anything or even to have met or even seen me or my children in person.

So in this example - what is the specific threat that effects your children?

And whilst I'm on - how am i being 'dreadfully patronising' by explaining the position society finds itself?

Isn't this what, "wasting police time" was invented for?

So obviously anyone can raise a safeguarding concern about any child and it will be taken seriously. But if it's vexatious then the person who complained should be done for wasting police time.

Yes - if it can be proven its vexatious.
Wasting police time, making a false complaint.

It might not be taken seriously, but anyone can raise a safeguarding concern about any child

Her views an opinions on VAWG. They are a direct threat and in the complaints opinion the children need to be taken into care. That’s the specific threat that affects the children.

oh Felix
the man doesn't know her or her children or her family and has no connection to them.

He has done this because of her stance on transgender children.

How can you not understand that this is a prime example of vexatious reporting. Why do the men who do this get away with it and the women who are their targets/victims are left to pick up the pieces.

The claim is that the specific threat is the views that I hold about feminism and violence against women and girls. In this case, the same views that Creasy holds, to make it simple. That those views will or have caused actual harm to my children. That's it.

And her children were not taken into care, so his complaint was not carried.

Was it vexatious - it depends on what his actual complaint was.

Brefugee
the man doesn't know her or her children.......

And do you know this 100%

Or what is his actual complaint?

RoseslnTheHospital

For your example - From a police point of view (and probably a SS point of view) the complaint will be dismissed. There is no specific threat, harm or risk towards the children. It has to demonstrated how it is or will effect the children. Her personal views & opinions will not do that - so the children are not effected

There will be no need for any further action

Re: patronising

Along the lines of - any report involving the possible safety or future safety of a child must be taken seriously. And its not just aimed at women - men can be the subject too. [No shit sherlock, of course it can be aimed at men, do you really think that I or the other people posting or reading this think that men cannot be reported for safeguarding??]

It came off the back of children dying because organisations ignored people who had concerns - Social Services, Police, Doctors, Schools etc etc [Again, no shit? Do you think that I or the other people posting/reading here are unaware of this? Do you think we don't know about the many children that have died due to lack of reporting concerns? I could name several and describe the circumstances without having to resort to research. Do you think we don't know about recent developments? Do you think we all live under rocks??]

So now - any slightest thing gets looked at - err on the side of caution

If you want it to go back to how it was before - then write to your MP [Patronising, rude and dismissive]

It's "affected", Felix.

He admitted it was malicious. He’d been harassing her by email for sometime before.

I don’t think it’s usual for children’s services to phone up someone that’s been reported ti them on the basis that they are worried for her safety and find out the best place to report the complainant to. God knows what he put in his email to them.

In several of the most high profile recent cases (if not most if them) things not being reported to children’s services wasn’t the issue.

Understaffed, underfunded and overworked social workers dealing with huge caseloads are an issue. A situation that won’t be helped by what I assume are MRAs using them to harass women. It isn’t something we want to encourage because it will leave less time to dedicate to children who are genuinely at risk.

RoseslnTheHospital

Its "are the views", RoseslnTheHospital

RoseslnTheHospital

Its also "womens' trust", RoseslnTheHospital