Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Linda Bellos prosecuted in private by trans activist **Thread title edited at OP's request**

203 replies

SturdyEarmuffs · 28/08/2018 00:06

DM link here

It's a private prosecution by an activist who wasn't at the talk but watched it online. CPS declined to take the complaint further but this individual decided to take out a private action.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
UpstartCrow · 28/08/2018 12:08

Are there any penalties for bringing a malicious prosecution?

Charliethefeminist · 28/08/2018 12:11

It's a consequence of success. In a way. Would this be happening if the GC rational voice was not gaining traction? I doubt. Fear must be instilled somehow and the public stigma of being GC is starting to fade. Prosecution, that's another thing. Next up will be defamation suits to terrify people into thinking they will jeopardise their home, their children's financial future, if they speak up.

BraveAndStunning · 28/08/2018 12:16

It's pretty stupid. After the Balloo thing you would think the daft fuckers would STFU for a while. But no, they double down on the bullying and intimidation.

Charliethefeminist · 28/08/2018 12:17

Cornered tiger

sexnotgender · 28/08/2018 12:21

What the actual fuck!

I’ll donate to a fund for Linda and Venice if there is one.

I agree terrible timing by the sweaty faced bloke with flowers in his hair.

hackmum · 28/08/2018 12:21

Do we need separate crowdfunders for Venice and Linda, or a single one?

TheCountryGirl · 28/08/2018 12:25

Ugh Tanith - so true! I wonder if they tuck their junk away too. Actually, going by Bradley's example probably not.

TheCountryGirl · 28/08/2018 12:31

Yes I'm for Venice too. These men are sick!

thesharkisanoceanbehindus · 28/08/2018 12:35

Deliberate targeting and harassment of women.
I have no money, but please let me know if I can help in any other way.
This is crazy.

sawdustformypony · 28/08/2018 12:37

Its an alleged s5 POA offence. - If I understand the allegation correctly, its a very minor one at that, with little evidence to hear, so maybe a couple of hours at the very most in front on a magistrates' bench.

Shouldn't need too much crowdfunding to meet that that legal bill for the defence - at guess she should be able to find a good solicitor / barrister to do it for £700- £1,000 tops and then get a cost order when she's acquitted so she can pay everyone back.

RedToothBrush · 28/08/2018 12:38

The more I think about this, the more I think that this is set up to be a massive Lose - Lose scenario for Linda and Venice.

The problem is that this is a private prosecution, so the chances - and the ability and will - to collaspe the case at any point, belong to the prosecutor.

The case looks far more that it is about PR and intimidation. Not getting a verdict; unless its looking like there is a very strong case that Guiliana will win. Which if you consider that the CPS didn't want to go near it, is interesting.

It leds to a situation where the danger is that in effect the emphasis is on Linda and Venice to prove themselves innocent rather than Guiliana to prove they are guilty, even though its up to the prosecution to make the case - because its not really about winning in court, but about winning a propaganda war. It needs to be seen in this framing.

I suspect they will never be allowed to get close to a verdict in which they could win, because of the danger that it might produce a legal precedent or be seen to being akin to one that might go against Guiliana's position.

They will not be allowed - in effect - to clear their names because I strongly suspect that at some point the case will collaspe with Guiliana having done what they have set out to do. Such are the dynamics of the whole situation.

This will leave a cloud of doubt, hanging over Linda and Venice which will be again used against them in a smear.

Are there any penalties for bringing a malicious prosecution?

I think this is the thing. It looks strongly suspicious to me, that Linda and Venice, will be forced at some point in all this to launch a counter case. Which again will be used against them, but it might allow them to actually clear their name in a court of law. But thats risky too. They might not win either because unlike Guiliana, they have to win in court and not on twitter.

Yes it is possible in principle to launch a malicious prosecution case under English Law.
www.dlapiper.com/en/uk/insights/publications/2016/10/banking-disputes-quarterly/claims-for-malicious-prosecution/

I hope that Linda and Venice do get bloody good advice on this, because I fear its not simply about defending themselves and the court case. If this is going to pan out the way I fear, I hope they think carefully about the prospect of a counter case - particularly with regard to the timing. I reckon what they will have to do is, make a point that they want a verdict in this, and if they don't and the case does indeed collaspe then they will persue this line otherwise they are on a real hiding to nothing.

It really is a sucky position to be in. I very much hope I am reading this wrong and that my layman legal knowledge is completely off the piste on this one.

bd67th · 28/08/2018 12:58

This will leave a cloud of doubt, hanging over Linda and Venice which will be again used against them in a smear.

Linda's comments have already been used to smear us by UNISON LGBT. The motion text neglects to mention that the police, after interviewing Linda, decided there wasn't a case and didn't charge her. They didn't even arrest her.

By contrast, how many Green Party politicians have been arrested, not even counting the Challenor child abuse case? Shocking double standards.

sawdustformypony · 28/08/2018 13:03

Dunno, how many ?

KTheGrey · 28/08/2018 13:06

IF the case collapses then a) surely the prosecution can be held responsible for both parties' costs? & b) it opens the door for either a counter claim/prosecution for malicious prosecution or vexatious litigation? Not a lawyer, just what I assume.

Popchyk · 28/08/2018 13:11

If either of these women want publicity (and I totally understand if you don't), then Graham Linehan would probably cover it on social media.

Andrew Gilligan and Janice Turner in The Times would be interested, I'll bet.

As the GRA consultation continues, there will be more and more talk in the media. So this story is very important.

How can the TRAs say women are not being harassed and silenced when they are reported to police, questioned by police, CPS aren't interested, case dropped? And then a private prosecution is mounted against them?

It is outrageous.

RedToothBrush · 28/08/2018 13:12

IF the case collapses then a) surely the prosecution can be held responsible for both parties' costs? & b) it opens the door for either a counter claim/prosecution for malicious prosecution or vexatious litigation? Not a lawyer, just what I assume.

That would be what I would presume.

I don't think a) is an obstacle b) still relies on Linda and Venice winning in court rather than twitter.

Thus they would need to prove a case to legal satisfaction NOT Guiliana. Which would seem perverse if thats what happens.

theOtherPamAyres · 28/08/2018 13:45

I've posted this in Dr RadFem's Prosecution topic.

Linda needs to contact CPS for Westminster Magistrates Court and ask them to intervene, now - before any further distress is caused

CPS has already reviewed the evidence and found that it did not meet the charging standard. They will stop it - but they need to be told about it.

Here's their guidance on handling private prosecutions for crimes (they don't like 'em!)

www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/private-prosecutions

OlennasWimple · 28/08/2018 13:50

What all this does is take away resource from fighting against the invidious creep of self-ID, the response to the consultation, the gathering of women to discuss issues that pertain to them... That's the real cost here, and that's the win for eejits who think that women saying "if I am attacked I will retaliate" is a criminal offence

Prawnofthepatriarchy · 28/08/2018 13:57

I've already posted a very long comment on the parallel thread so won't repeat myself too much.

Just that I was a witness for the defence in a private prosecution for attempted murder. The judge listened very carefully and then told the plaintiff off for wasting everyone's time.

This was ages ago, so I'm sure things have changed. However I was struck by how much the judge relied not on obscure legal precedents but on simple common sense.

No doubt a solicitor or barrister will be along shortly and give better advice.

TimeLady · 28/08/2018 14:10

James Kirkup supporting Linda in the Spectator today

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/08/the-trans-rights-activists-latest-target-corbynite-royalty/

Finished by saying And I ask you to consider this: if Linda Bellos – a black, Jewish feminist lesbian socialist who is practically Corbynite royalty — is being targeted by trans rights activists, no-one is off-limits.

hackmum · 28/08/2018 14:12

Do sub judice rules apply with private prosecutions?

I also hope that Linda and Venice are getting good legal advice but surely there is a gender critical lawyer somewhere who will be able to offer decent advice if not act pro bono.

RedToothBrush · 28/08/2018 14:23

However I was struck by how much the judge relied not on obscure legal precedents but on simple common sense.

I believe the phrase is 'reasonable expectation' and that provides the founding principle for a huge amount of English Law.

Law is incredibly logical for this reason. Its supposed to be, so that people can obey it.

Whats the point in a law, which everyone unwittingly breaks without intending to? The point is the law is supposed to be understandable to stop people breaking it in the first place. No one will believe in the concept of justice, if they are forever being prosecuted for something thats vexaious or beyond the comprehension of the majority. People would have no benefit in following the rule of law, if they felt that they were not served by it.

If the bar isn't 'common sense' then the entire concept of law as being something we mutually respect and adhere to, falls apart.

HavingALittleBabyToolshed · 28/08/2018 14:25

James Kirkup supporting Linda in the Spectator today

This is really ramping up, isn’t it?

R0wantrees · 28/08/2018 14:25

Linda Bellos recent speech:

thread May 2018 discussing the police interview following allegations:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3237264-Linda-Bellos-arrested-Title-edited-by-MNHQ-to-make-clear-that-she-was-in-fact-interviewed-under-caution

WorkingItOutAsIGo · 28/08/2018 14:27

I am happy to contribute to a legal fund if needed too.