Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Linda Bellos arrested **Title edited by MNHQ to make clear that she was in fact 'interviewed under caution'**

354 replies

Terfragette69 · 01/05/2018 16:03

So it would appear that Linda has been arrested and interviewed for saying she would protect herself if the tra's attacked.... What the actual fuck?? This is getting ridiculous we need to act!

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
Rufustheconstantreindeer · 01/05/2018 19:35

Sure. How many women have reported violence to you as a police officer and you've turned a blind eye to, or have seen your colleagues do So?

Oh thats a nice tight question isnt it

BeyondParody · 01/05/2018 19:35

He's quit the Wright stuff, allegedly because of the apology he was told he had to give (and didn't) when Anne hegarty called Paris lees a bloke.

R0wantrees · 01/05/2018 19:36

The edited versions of speeches made by both Linda Bellos and Anne Ruzylo have been circulated and no doubt absorbed by many, especially in the LGBT+ community (especially if they have signed in with good reasons to the mass 'terf blocks'). The accounts that have created and driven the spread of these edited versions have inflamed fears.

DietCoke87 · 01/05/2018 19:37

And an interview is part of the process of that investigation.

Yes, but an interview is expensive and wouldn't have been needed if they spent 30 minutes finding the original footage and took the events proceeding the meeting into consideration. Can you not see how this whole thing is a waste of police resources and an attempt to use the state to shut females up?

BeUpStanding · 01/05/2018 19:40

This is crazy! So all the rape and death threats women receive on social media are just totally fine and legal are they?

I stand with Linda

Ereshkigal · 01/05/2018 19:40

Thanks Beyond.

IIIustriouslyIllogical · 01/05/2018 19:43

It was made out to be a threat by people quoting her selectively and misrepresenting the context, which should have been perfectly obvious to the police given that it's all recorded.

According to the Judge in the "Hitler Salute Pug" case context & intent are irrelevant. He was found guilty.

The same laws apply to the rest of us and that judge in Scotland has set the precedent.

I was outraged when the pug case was in the news but most people didn't give a shit because of the subject matter - that apathy is now going to bite us all in the arse.

Be very careful what you say in public - the precedent has been set & it doesn't matter what you actually mean....

DietCoke87 · 01/05/2018 19:45

@R0wantrees the edited footage of Anne Ruzylo's speech ( vimeo.com/259930524 ) is ridiculously disingenuous. I really hope people watch the full video of her speech on YouTube ( ).

Icantreachthepretzels · 01/05/2018 19:47

If evidence could be gathered that 'terf' is a gendered slur aimed at women (wouldn't be hard) then a 'terf stomper' badge could be viewed as incitement to violence against women - in law as well as in reality.

There's no such law.

There are laws against inciting people to violence. If that incitement is against a protected characteristic then it becomes a hate crime. You are right, 'women' are not one of the groups that are included in hate crime laws... but they need to be.
And in order to get this done - we need some kind of test case.
Our law is precedent based after all. Once someones femaleness is proved to be an aggravating factor in a case, the law can be changed to allow for that... and it will then stand.

Like I said, someone with the time and money to do it could take those 'terf stomper' badges somewhere very interesting. Or any of the other myriad of crimes against women, because they are women, that are somehow not classed as hate crimes. There really is a lot for someone to choose from in order to get sex based crimes classed as hate crimes.

Sadly TRAs, as a group, are much better funded than women, as a group - and so all the current precedents are being set in their favour. Doesn't have to be that way, though... so stop using the internet to try and discourage women from even trying things that might better protect their rights.

BeyondParody · 01/05/2018 19:50

I may be behind with this thought....
If someone edits something you say online and 'if the activists hit me I'll knock them all out' is edited to just 'I'll knock them all out' or whatever, surely the person who is inciting hatred and scaring people who feel it is aimed at them is the person who edited the footage ?

Newspapers aren't prosecuted for ransom notes created from clippings!

OlennasWimple · 01/05/2018 19:54

Perhaps Mhairi Black should report all the abuse that she has received since becoming an MP to the police and see what they do with it - she ? (From about 3:20 mins in)

And presumably the police are actively seeking out Posie Parker to get more information on the list of slurs and threats that she read out at the Bristol meeting?

AnitaLovesVictor · 01/05/2018 19:57

Illustriously - I agree with on the pug thing - but surely reporting an edited video, in a way that the meaning was totally distorted (ie. from something that meant in self defence - to make it look like she was making threats) - wouldn't be seen in the same way.

Icantreachthepretzels · 01/05/2018 20:00

I agree. If you were to be held responsible for any potential editing that might be done to your words then no one could ever say anything in public. After all - even the most innocuous statement about nothing in particular can be carefully edited to look sinister.

I think the difference between editing someone's speech and saying context is irrelevant - and the story of the Hitler salute pug, is that the man in that video really did say 'gas the jews' that wasn't editing - he said that. Which could be read as incitement to violence. 'It was only a joke' doesn't stand up in a lot of contexts - and so it shouldn't, otherwise it would be a get out of jail free card.

But cutting out half of a person's sentence and thus changing their meaning altogether is a completely different kettle of fish.

IIIustriouslyIllogical · 01/05/2018 20:03

but surely reporting an edited video

I doesn't matter if it's edited.

If she said those words no matter what the context or intent at any point in that video she's in the same boat as pug bloke according to law (in Scotland at least).

It's insidious & fucking terrifying quite frankly.

The fact that the police are going along with it and not using their "common sense" is even scarier.

IIIustriouslyIllogical · 01/05/2018 20:04

even the most innocuous statement about nothing in particular can be carefully edited to look sinister.

Again, it doesn't have to be edited if context & intent don't count....

Wanderabout · 01/05/2018 20:08

It will matter if it has been edited.

It is ridiculous.

I believe the no context no intent nazi pug case is being appealed.

Cascade220 · 01/05/2018 20:09

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Icantreachthepretzels · 01/05/2018 20:11

Yes but... if Linda Bellos' full speech was viewed by the police then that wouldn't have been a problem. She fell foul of someone editing her. It is completely different to the pug thing.
I agree that was a stupid and worrying precedent that was set (though I'm not sure -aren't lots of laws separate in Scotland - so not a precedent that should have had any bearing on the Bellos case?) But it is different to having your words edited and your meaning changed completely.
Having your meaning changed, deliberately - by having your words edited, is different to having your meaning misunderstood by an onlooker. It isn't right that the second could get you into serious trouble - but the first is still a different thing.

PermissionToSpeakSir · 01/05/2018 20:14

they chose to pull in a middle aged, BAME, lesbian, feminist for a pointless, but no doubt distressing to her, round of questioning - about words they could have seen for themselves if they had bothered to look.

I think we are seeing show trials and the effect is supposed to be chilling.

The best thing we can do is keep at it, keep saying things we will be reported to the police for, until they cannot justify the ridiculous waste of resources in following up these malicious, spurious complaints.

DietCoke87 · 01/05/2018 20:15

People are free to selectively edit anything, I just think the police should have been able to quickly find the original footage and see that subtitles in square brackets on the edited footage were not what was said/referred to. Also, I think the TRAs know Linda Bellos is not active on social media... She even said during one of the meetings she'd follow Anne Ruzylo on Twitter if she knew how to, so she probably didn't even know where the original footage of her speech was uploaded to defend herself.... Unlike the true fascists, who know to take 2 cameras and legal advisers to events to "cover their backs" while they dog whistle to the masses.

BeyondParody · 01/05/2018 20:23

For the speaker to be responsible for any potential editing as they actually said the thing is crazy.

Imagine you're videoed saying "I'm going to kill them all" - talking about an ants nest out your garden. And someone cuts it and claims you want to murder x protected group. That can't possibly be legally right.

R0wantrees · 01/05/2018 20:25

DietCoke87 thanks for linking Anne's speech. I share your hope that many more people will watch it in its entirety.

HelenaDove · 01/05/2018 20:38

Horrifying. I dont know what else to say.

redrackem · 01/05/2018 20:41

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.