Woman questioned under caution and banned from leaving the country for criticising Mermaids

[HereComesTheSun1]

www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/tough-millwall-cave-in-to-transgender-bullies-nltnkpv3d

Relevant section:

Meanwhile, a woman who criticised a transgender charity on Twitter has been questioned under caution by police and told she will be arrested if she tries to leave the country. Kellie-Jay Keen- Minshull accused the group Mermaids of “suppressing free speech”.

She had accused Mermaids, which calls for children to be allowed irreversible sex-change treatment the NHS currently prohibits, of “prey[ing]” on gay teenagers and of “mass child abuse”. Mermaids declined to comment.

If men do become women in law (based purely on their say so), then these men acquire the rights of women plus additional hate crime rights.

And, of course, they retain their male privilege to barge in to women's spaces and their male bodies to take over women's sports.

They've got everything covered.

They certainly have Pop

the elevation of a crime into having an aggravated factor of hate should not be on the perception of the victim but on the evidenced motivation of the perpetrator.

For the prosecution to be successful, the evidence has to be there. It’s not just - oh, you’re guilty of assault, and because your victim felt it was racist/homophobic then it’ll
be aggravated... but for it to be considered as a hate crime, the victim’s perception is a reasonable starting point, I think. It’s difficult to see discrimination when you’re not the target of it - men often don’t ‘see’ sexism, white people don’t ‘see’ racism - not because it’s not there, but because they’re priveliged to not be the target of it. Discrimination can be insidious. So to start with the perception of the alleged victim, and then to look for the evidence to secure the prosecution (words used, context etc) is reasonable IMHO.

Maybe I've missed something, but isn't she guilty of libel?

What for stating a fact.
Facts aren't libellous

Even if she were, libel is a civil defence not a criminal one.

But it being a factual statement (or even "fair comment" if it wasn't) is a defence against libel anyway

*offense, ffs

**Offence !!!

Doesn't abuse have to be proven?

What Susie Green did to her son is a matter of public record - from interviews that Green herself has given. And if abuse had to be “proven” (do you mean in a court of law?) before anyone is able to publicly name it as such then half of the posts on here would be illegal!

Posie’s tweets were her description and opinion of what Green has publicly stated she did to her son. That Posie is being investigated for naming what Green has done, and Green has not been investigated for what she has done, is absolutely appalling, in my opinion.

Castration is factual.
And calling a procedure that is (and was) illegal in the UK and was carried out regardless "abuse" is hardly a stretch.

In your opinion, is it abusive for a parent to take their child for FGM?

I'm wondering whether the offensive word in Posie's tweet was not 'castration' but 'son'.

Susie Green is very much of the view that this is her daughter, and presumably the young person in question feels the same way. What's done to that child is done, and for their own mental heath they are probably better off NOT viewing it through our eyes.

I've received this update from Posie Parker, via Crowdfunder.

It seems the TRAs are 'working their magic' on Crowdfunder's administrators......

Thanks to mass reporting by trans activists Crowdfunder, who approved and actively promoted my campaign, are now suggesting that I may be in breach of guidelines to do with "criminal investigation" and so they may close my project. I am not being investigated, I have not committed any crime.

Link to Crowdfunder page......

www.crowdfunder.co.uk/fighting-for-free-speech-in-uk?utm_source=automated&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Project-Update-Email-project-name&utm_campaign=Project-Update-Email

Bump

But you can't castrate a daughter

Bloody hell, the TRAs are really going in for her. Jesus.

Is it to do with Katie Hopkins retweeting the crowdfunder?

Bloody hell.
I read that SG disliked the word castration, because, she says, that in her mind that's what happens to sex offenders.

I am not aware that we do that in the UK

Katie Hopkins did what?

What's happening?
Are crowdfunder threatening to take it down?
Does Posie still need the money, if she hasn't been charged?

twitter.com/KTHopkins/status/980601978316312576

Katie Hopkins has tweeted her support of PP, apparently KH was in some bother with Notts police too.

But you can't castrate a daughter
Cut someone’s balls off then it’s castration no matter if you call them your daughter, cousin, sister or great uncle Gerald.

I can’t believe Crowdfunder are making her pull this.
The TRA have got everyone running scared and that they might be on the wrong side or history.

twitter.com/KTHopkins/status/980613723139297280