Woman's Place UK meeting threatened with "device"

[hungryhippie]

twitter.com/Hastings_police/status/1007627071122759681

What the actual f*ck?

Southfields
J4nice said she would be protesting "peacefully with other women" at the WPUK Hastings meeting.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3266542-Where-do-we-draw-the-trans-line

This needs a thread on AIBU or chat I think!

Local press doesn't seem to have picked up on this - or they just don't think it worth reporting

Retailation? A bomb threat because woman are talking. They can Fuck Right Off. To the far side of fuck and then some more.

Where are all the usual posters who are so quick to condemn posters here for use of language that they don't like? Why aren't they here strongly condemning threats of physical violence and terrorism like this?

Because they think GC women deserve to be terrorized, is the rather clear impression that I'm getting, and I suspect that I'm not the only one.

(Ahoy there, lurkers.)

A tweet can be from anyone though. A lot of mischief can be created by opening an account and making explosive statements to stir things up. If threats have been made by all means report to twitter or the police if you really think it’s a viable threat.

Does it have to be a viable threat for it to be considered making an actual threat? Surely the point is that it's not possible to tell how serious they are, so it has to be taken seriously until it can be established they're a sad little fantasist.

I'm reminded of the guy a few years ago who ended up being investigated, prosecuted and losing his job over a flippant tweet to say he was going to blow up an airport if [his girlfriend's?] flight was late/cancelled.

How can it be seen as anything other than terrorism?

It wont be considered terrorism. We're women. We dont matter.

hastingsonlinetimes.co.uk/hot-topics/campaigns/wpuk-debate-or-hate

Really amazing how male violence seems to remain so persistently.

I hope that the police come down hard on these mentally ill arseholes who threaten bombs. I hope that like other kinds of extremists, these lot are being properly monitored under the radar.

I wonder if the MP that wrote to MN on behalf of a Trans person, will condemn this?

What do Jess Phillips, Jeremy Corbyn, Teresa May, Owen Jones, Vince Cable and others have to say about this?

So is the Hastings Times going to speak to someone to rebut Natasha’s comments? Or are they not bothered about balance?

Yeah, hoax bomb threats are illegal in themselves. CPS says imprisonment is likely as a punishment:

www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/explosives

I think we need to start asking some serious questions about why this isn’t being classed as terrorism

Women threatened with an (explosive) device = meh

TRAs told the truth about sex and biology = actual violence

...fuck this misogynistic shit.

What were the historical threats made to venues booked by GC or rad feminists in the past?

Well for all the rhetoric about "literal violence" we now have threats - yet again of actual violence.

Punch, kill, hit, spit on a Terf - all apparently acceptable.

Now bomb threats.

All at the same time @MNHQ starts moderating language.

Where's the balance here?

Women's rights, nay even the very definition of womanhood and women's experience's are under attack and we can't even express by whom.

The Hastings Times had a member of the reality based community write a piece before they gave Natasha a platform to declare women's rights to be transphobic and any discussion of women's right to be hate speech.

What were the historical threats made to venues booked by GC or rad feminists in the past?

Historically men have threatened the safety of the staff at the venues to get them to revoke Feminist meeting arrangements.
When faced with the cost of security and the risk of vandalism they venues usually submit to the terrorists demands.

So bitter and twisted. What sad lives some people lead.

AssassinatedBeauty

"Where are all the usual posters who are so quick to condemn posters here for use of language that they don't like? Why aren't they here strongly condemning threats of physical violence and terrorism like this?"

1. Because they think we deserve it. Violence towards women is condoned if the women did something out of line.

1. Because mildly offending a male is a far worse offence than a man raping or murdering a woman.

Bottom line: women are the lowest of the low. We don't count. Our lives, dignity, safety, privacy, are of no significance or worth.

Hastings Online Times piece before Natasha Scott's one link.

"Where are all the usual posters who are so quick to condemn posters here for use of language that they don't like? Why aren't they here strongly condemning threats of physical violence and terrorism like this?"

Ironic really, how peaceful threads like this turn out to be.

I think we need to start asking some serious questions about why this isn’t being classed as terrorism

This is the UK definition of terrorism.

Terrorism is the use or threat of action, both in and outside of the UK, designed to influence any international government organisation or to intimidate the public. It must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause

Terrorism is the use or threat of action, both in and outside of the UK, designed to influence any international government organisation or to intimidate the public. It must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause

What behaviour have we logged, that has intimidated the public?