Sky News just featured story appearing in tomorrow's Sunday Mail

[TheCatsServant]

Apparently a woman spent 8 hours in a cell/being interviewed by the police for a "transphobic" Tweet along the lines of TWAW. Can't bring myself to buy the Mail tomorrow to check the details, but it may be taken up by other papers.

Sorry for the Daily Fail link

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6687123/Mother-arrested-children-calling-transgender-woman-man.html

Everyone's favourite litigious trans woman strikes again.

I think it might be unwise to link to threads here or on twitter unless the woman named in the article does so herself.

Could be construed as outing.

I am tempted to call the police tomorrow and tell them that transwomen are men. I will give my name and address and invite them to come arrest me for questions about how I can be sure of this

If it weren't for the fact that the police really are overstretched and it could end up harming innocent people, we should all do that, Trousering.

What we need are some ideas for great civil disobedience actions, like in Sweden in the 70's when homosexuality was classed as a mental illness, people would ring in sick to work, saying they felt a bit gay.

Steph is going to be hopping mad that, despite an injunction against Mrs Scottow naming her in public, the Mail journo was able to find out from court documents

Fucking hell, that thread! Two police cars and a van to arrest her. What a fucking joke policing in this country has become.

The public will be against it.

They are, it will get to the point where the government will either backtrack on all of this, or more than likely, not and look as currupt as they are and the public will not follow the laws put in place around this topic.

I'm reading this 2 days after a particularly brutal murder of a woman local to me. Her boyfriend has been arrested and the case already referred for investigation as she had had contact with the police about him

I despair.

I'm coming off most my social media this shit is appalling

This same Steph Hayden?www.rollonfriday.com/news-content/exclusive-transgender-lawyer-suing-graham-linehan-was-convicted-threatening-man-golf

They seem like a delightful individual

This whole situation is alarming. Who knows who will be picked off the street next and put through the mill because someone doesn't like that they ask questions or aren't as convinced about something as someone wants them to be and they decide it offends them.

The present is scary enough, imagine what the future could look like

Hats off to the Daily Mail (again). They've managed to surreptitiously include all the 'facts' that the complainant was complaining about

This is utterly chilling

“who has also been served with a court order that bans her from referring to her accuser as a man”

The article has been shared over 21000 times though!

Steph is not happy about the story:

Today @martinbeckford has ran a story about me in the Mail on Sunday, which is factually disingenuous and flouts an injunction. It also prejudices ongoing criminal proceedings. I was not made aware of the story. I was offered no right of reply. #transgender t.co/Z5gxRyn6mv

This is yet another example of disgraceful #transphobic reporting by the #transgender hostile UK press. Beckford had a professional obligation to alert me to this story and offer a right to reply. He failed to do so .

In the circumstances The Mail on Sunday and Beckford can expect a strong legal response as the injunction applies to anyone acting on the subject’s behalf and/or with their encouragement.

Beckford’s irresponsible reporting has led to an overnight torrent of transphobic abuse. This is what happens when a #transgender hostile journalist misuses his position to peddle his personal hatred towards a section of society with which he disagrees.

And now it's out there and known by the masses.

Active criminal proceedings? Not civil? What possible criminal offence has taken place here?

as the injunction applies to anyone acting on the subject’s behalf and/or with their encouragement.

Doesn’t apply, surely? The press are not acting on Kate’s behalf. Kate declines to comment and thus cannot be said to encourage them. Reporting on the issue by the press could be argued to be in the public interest (police arresting a woman for stating what appear to be facts.)

The mail have deep pockets and a track record of using them, and actual lawyers, to protect their right to report.

Pass the popcorn.

Malicious Communications Act 1988
1988 CHAPTER 27
An Act to make provision for the punishment of persons who send or deliver letters or other articles for the purpose of causing distress or anxiety.

1. Offence of sending letters etc. with intent to cause distress or anxiety

(1)Any person who sends to another person a letter or other article which conveys a message which is indecent or grossly offensive; a threat; or information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender; or any other article which is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature,is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should, so far as falling within paragraphs above, cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated.

So, if a court can ban people from referencing someone’s ‘former male identity’, could it then follow that in cases where a crime was committed by a male who now ‘identifies’ as a female, then that crime can not be linked to the perpetrator? FFS

Reading that, it seems the material must be false, indecent or grossly offensive FIRST.

It’s like the hate crime legislation - just offence alone isn’t what it was supposed deal with, there has to be a crime first.

Or am I interpreting wrongly?

This whole area needs some case law and a proper exploration of what constitutes “grossly offensive.”