I think the issue comes when the lines get blurred between offensive posts on social media and simple opinion.
It's difficult. People are more free and easy with their opinions behind a keyboard but who is deciding what constitutes a hate incident( as opposed to hate crimes which should be dealt with.
coppercolouredtop There are specific issues with regards trans-rights' policies and training which are specifically impacting safeguarding frameworks intended to protect children and vulnerable adults, particularly women (adult human females).
When some male transpeople are using coercive control pattern behaviours including using police as a proxy against women, it is surely for the Police to investigate just as for the MoJ with regards prison policy.
Francis Crook executive director of the Howard League for Penal Reform "said that she was worried that ‘some men with a history of extreme violence and sexual violence against women have found a new way of exercising aggression towards women’.
‘These men are not transitioning because they like women and want to be a woman, but in order to exert a new kind of control and dominance over women, a sort of infiltration."
source:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5798945/Trans-women-convicted-men-attack-vulnerable-inmates.html
James Kirkup Spectator:
Why are the police stopping a 74-year-old tweeting about transgenderism?
(extract)
There are many practical and factual questions that arise from cases like these.
Why are the police acting in this way? What training have officers received in relation to transgender issues, and from whom? Are some people or organisations deliberately and vexatiously exploiting some police forces’ stance on this issue to instigate police action against people who say things they do not like? Could such police actions exert a chilling effect on the expression of opinion on transgender issues? Isn’t it possible that some people will now think ‘I’d best not say what I think about sex and gender, or the police might get involved?’
There are also some questions of principle.
Is it the job of police officers to act in such a way? To police private, lawful expressions of opinion, simply because some people complain that they find those expressions of opinion upsetting or unkind? What are the police for?
When Sir Robert Peel instigated the creation of the modern English police in 1829, the first Commissioners of Police of the Metropolis issued all constables with nine ‘General Instructions’ which are still in use today, underpinning the concept to ‘policing by consent.’
The first three principles are:
To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
I wonder what cases like that of Margaret Nelson do for ‘public approval’ of the ‘existence, actions and behaviour’ of the police? I also wonder when the politicians responsible for the framework of law in which the police exist and operate will start to ask whether cases like that of Mrs Nelson and Mr Miller require some scrutiny, and see that those questions above need some answers." (continues)
blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/02/why-are-the-police-stopping-a-74-year-old-tweeting-about-transgenderism/