Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

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

675 replies

TheCatsServant · 09/02/2019 23:13

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
34
CatandtheFiddle · 10/02/2019 14:40

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

Yup, this is part of what the transactivists (TRAs) want.

It’s a rapist’s and murderes’ Charter.

ToeToToe · 10/02/2019 14:42

55K shares now - the top Meghan Markle story only has 4K shares.

People are rightly angry about this. There's no putting this genie back in the bottle.

Police held a breastfeeding mother in the cells because of something she wrote on Twitter. That's the bottom line. That is not how I want policing in the UK to look like, and I don't think I'm alone.

TransposersArePosers · 10/02/2019 14:53

I'm not on Twitter so have no idea what sort of vile abuse SH is getting.

But if it is along the lines of men can't become women, humans can't change sex repeatedly (and I'm not so naive to think more abusive language isn't being used) then is it more along the 'sue me paddy' approach?

In other words, is SH really going to go after large numbers of people for misgendering SH, or is that course of action saved for a few?

LangCleg · 10/02/2019 14:57

I had a look. A load of Americans are making a point about them having the First Amendment while speech is restricted in the UK by typing MAN as many times as they can in one tweet, so far as I can see.

littlbrowndog · 10/02/2019 14:59

From what I seen on twitter ppl are really outraged that a breastfeeding mum can get put in the cells for 7 hours for tweeting

Internationally they are like what sort of police state is UK. Now

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 10/02/2019 15:00

Is it really wrong of me to hope that our Steph sues the Mail? That is a court battle I would like to see.

CaptainKirksSpookyghost · 10/02/2019 15:01

Is it really wrong of me to hope that our Steph sues the Mail? That is a court battle I would like to see.

No it's not wrong.

CaptainKirksSpookyghost · 10/02/2019 15:01

Is it really wrong of me to hope that our Steph sues the Mail? That is a court battle I would like to see.

No it's not wrong.

GCAcademic · 10/02/2019 15:02

Clearly it’s one the Mail is prepared to see also. Bring it on. The sooner this is all given sunlight the better.

Beerincomechampagnetastes · 10/02/2019 15:02

SH isn’t getting abuse on Twitter because she’s a trans woman. SH is getting abuse on Twitter because she’s a controlling bully of women and anyone else she thinks she can push around.

I like Linehan very much.

CatandtheFiddle · 10/02/2019 15:03

Stop press! I've just been called a chap by a disabled man and his carer in the queue at Sainsbury's

ooh FlyingOink that is LITERAL violence.

CaptainKirksSpookyghost · 10/02/2019 15:04

Clearly it’s one the Mail is prepared to see also

Yes they've obviously got what they think is a good legal case, otherwise they wouldn't have printed the story.
Good to see the press still has a backbone.

Iused2BanOptimist · 10/02/2019 15:09

Clearly it’s one the Mail is prepared to see also. Bring it on.

The Mail has deep pockets for law cases.
How deep are SH's?
Would organisations/charities which sometimes support important legal cases financially really want to support a repeat vexatious litigant?

How many calories in a sack of popcorn 🍿?

Needmoresleep · 10/02/2019 15:12

Yes...if the Mail want to fight the concept of injunctions more generally, I assume they prefer to face our friend rather than a Philip Green type with a room full of expensive lawyers.

But great to have the Mail to take something on that would otherwise require someone brave, some sympathetic lawyers and a lot of gofundme.

hackmum · 10/02/2019 15:14

The sort of person who says that the police are expected to behave responsibly, therefore they actually do behave responsibly, reminds me of Lord Denning who, refusing the right of the Birmingham Six to appeal, said:

"If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.”

Needmoresleep · 10/02/2019 15:17

Optimist, yes. At one point it looked as if that other litigant, the one who launched an action against Venice and Linda would have the support of a high profile Chambers, but this disappeared and they were left representing themselves. Though in the past LM and JB seem to have had access to expensive legal support.

Almost sadly I think this could play out as a story of relative power and pockets. Mail trumps lawyer who trumps mum. Justice eh?

OvaHere · 10/02/2019 15:21

This story has been picked up across the pond now.

nauticant · 10/02/2019 15:22

Why would an injunction obtained against a particular individual be useable against the Mail? I suppose that could be the case if the individual and the Mail were in cahoots to act in breach of the injunction but I can't see why it would apply to the Mail acting on its own account.

Iused2BanOptimist · 10/02/2019 15:23

Ah. I was wondering about that other case Needmoresleep

I don't think the NUS was too keen to give Carter Ruck a blank cheque in the end.

I hope we get enough notice that I can book a day off work and join the audience. Grin

BettyDuMonde · 10/02/2019 15:25

A test case to clarify whether privacy for transitioning people trumps the right for the public to know about a person’s criminal history would be very useful.

SunsetBeetch · 10/02/2019 15:34

Stephanie has been caught out sending threats to herself...

Sky News just featured story appearing in tomorrow's Sunday Mail
nauticant · 10/02/2019 15:35

It's interesting isn't it BettyDuMonde? Imagine there's a high profile transwoman, they've put stuff into the public domain for years about being trans and then one day they decide they were always a woman, so never trans, and they withdraw the stuff they put online themselves. They're now a woman and have always been one.

Would they have a right to prevent anyone referring to what, until recently, had been public domain information, and particularly information that the transwoman had made public themselves?

Let alone them doing this and as a result making a criminal past disappear.

FlyingOink · 10/02/2019 15:56

Two women a week are murdered. By men. And police spend their time on this sort of vexatious complaint.

I think it needs the victims or their families to sue. As I've mentioned before, there has been a deliberate decision to ringfence funds to pursue hurty feelings "crimes" instead of actual crimes.

ToeToToe · 10/02/2019 15:57

Stephanie has been caught out sending threats to herself...

Whoops.

HawayMan · 10/02/2019 16:08

Btw: Graham Linehan is a Mumsnetter, so I think that referring to him as a “POS” breaks the talk guidelines?