Police interviewing Caroline Farrow under caution and threatening to arrest her for "misgendering"

[Pimmsnlemonade]

twitter.com/CF_Farrow/status/1107787009614065664

And, as she says in the thread:

"Meanwhile a group of people have terrified and harassed my family. Doxed my children, made violent and sexual threats, signed me up to porn accounts, did the same to my husband, threatened to visit here. And tumbleweed..."

Comments in The Times are great.

Over 300 of them.

Gender is not a protected characteristic, nor is gender identity. Gender reassignment is, as is sex.

Yes, gender reassignment and sex are protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.

Good discussion of finer legal points in recent thread on school toilets.

Gender is not a protected characteristic.

Is gender a protected characteristic? Or is it sex that is a protected characteristic?
India Willoughby stated that the former is law, but I thought it was the latter.

Sex is one of the 9 protected characteristics, 'gender reassignment' is another. Gender / gender identity are not protected characteristics although many TRAs and trans rights charities and organisations including Stonewall have been focussed on making this change.

see thread by James Kirkup July 2018 collating evidence:
Some facts about the events that preceded the Government statement here that the coming consultation on the Gender Recognition Act will be narrowly drawn and not affect the Equality Act’s single sex exemptions.
I offer these facts because some are claiming “there was never any question of removing/amending EA exceptions.” Those claims are either mistaken or dishonest.
August 2015
Stonewall submission to the Women & Equalities Select Committee says MPs should amend the EA to
“remove exemptions, such as access to single-sex spaces” (continues)

concludes:
In sum: MPs and others told govt to amend/remove Equality Act single-sex exemptions. Govt considered doing so. Then govt ruled it out. / ends"

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1004635839480164352.html

If the tweets were about Susie Green and Mermaids pushing policies that led to "child abuse" then why were the police involved? Clearly the answer is that if you can find something that should be the subject of civil proceedings, ie libel, and add a trans aspect to it, you can get the police to do your bidding.

In what other situations can civil disputes be turned into criminal ones by sprinkling them with the right kind of glitter?

Says she reported because she felt morally compelled. Then withdrew the complaint to stop giving Caroline a platform.

Caroline now has a platform.

Thank you to all who have clarified my question. It wasn't challenged or explained on GMB, which, to me, just illustrates the fact that the waters are muddy and therefore it is easy for certain people to muddy them further.

Posie has said.

Bring it on as she waits for cps to make descion

It's all a bit of a mystery, isn't it? The police told Caro that she was being investigated for "misgendering". Susie Green claims her original complaint was about Caro accusing her of castrating her child. Two very different things (though neither should be the subject of police investigation, of course).

I think the best response to accusations of misgendering is to say: "I wasn't misgendering, I was correctly sexing." However, probably too late in this case.

HumberElla

Susie Green's child is now in their 20s.

twitter.com/VictoriaLIVE/status/1108316671595278336?s=20
Hope that link works. Susie Green has been speaking to the Victoria Derbyshire show about this, Caloline Farrow said on twitter that the also invited her to speak but the called at 7am to appear at 10 am, she has 5 kids and a school run to do. She also said she can't really make a comment on it as it is an on going investigation.

This is very worrying. This could be an orchestrated pincer movement. Take gender reassignment as the protected characteristic, allow Green to make the complaint and then publicly withdraw it so that it is not a scenario of a standoff between two women. It then becomes the state against the gender critical journalist (and a Catholic to boot and we all know how popular we Catholics are!) -and by extension all gc people- as the police and the CPS proceed with the investigation, spreading fear as they go. I hope that I am wrong.

It's about time that Susie Green was served an injunction to desist from making further claims about hate crimes or encouraging others to do so.

This is a mess isn't it?

Police act on behalf of a "victim" and threaten an "offender" for "misgendering", the "offender" gets media interest on the basis of what the police told them, so the "victim" withdraws their complaint but then turns to the BBC to use as a platform to present a different version of the complaint (not matching that stated by the police), and the "offender" learns for the first time from the BBC provided platform why the police went after them.

Are the BBC determined to lose funding by the licence fee?

Interesting piece on bbc news today: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47633339 about rape and abuse victims being 'let done' by the (very busy and otherwise occupied, obviously) police force.

Caroline, I'm sure you are on this and have good advice, but, if you need to, it might be worth contacting Andrea Williams at Christian Concern - they have a lot of experience dealing with the state. I know this is a long way from being a strictly Christain issue but they might be a source of advice and support - we both probably know the Catholic Church hierarchy won't be!

It's about time that Susie Green was served an injunction to desist from making further claims about hate crimes or encouraging others to do so

god yes

Well it was interesting that the BBC were able to refer to the tweets that appear to be the catalyst for all this, when it has been so unclear until now.

Caro I agree with everything you said in those tweets. I would certainly be prepared to state that publicly and on Twitter. I do wonder what would happen if so many of us did so - could a complaint be made against every single one of us?

I would also like to the think that the general public watching, who might have been unaware of this issue up to now, would indeed also be shocked and horrified by these tweets - by the behaviour and actions of SG detailed in them! Certainly not shocked by the person revealing this behaviour - who should be applauded.

It's awful that your courage in telling the truth has caused so much stress and upset for you caro. I do applaud you, I think the sound of applause from here is deafening actually.

I definitely think there's a distinct possibility this is child sexual abuse masquerading as "being supportive" it makes me think of those weird parents inc mums who were "supportive" of their 16 year old daughters becoming page 3 girls!

She reported 17 and 8 were investigated? Who the hell has she got in her back pocket that she's getting this level of attention from police?! When other ordinary people can't get the police to attend burglaries and ACTUAL assaults, it's seriously fucked up!

I am NO Julia Hartley-brewer fan normally but on this she's spot on

"Are you, Caro, a union member? If so, surely your union should have something to say about the attempted silencing of journalists?" Excellent point plus I'd happily donate to help you fund suing on the basis of defamation or whatever applies. Actually if Caroline is a union member why haven't they supported her before now?

But I'm very heartened to see the common sense rebuttals of this nonsense in the comments on Twitter and below the line sections of newspapers of all "qualities" (yes I know they're all tabloids in disguise but their readers don't all know that) and I'd say that gives a pretty good indication that most people inc people who are part of minority and actually oppressed groups are saying

"enough is enough stop this utter nonsense now!"

It's like a wave of #peaktrans is occurring across the land

Is their anything in those tweets that is untrue?

Or does SG just have hurty feelings?

It seems the likely troublesome tweet is being shared today by transactivists. I won't post it here as probably be deleted but anyone on twitter can look at @ Ali_umnus RT and see it framed as about a child/youth.

I agree with the earlier posts about the need for really good investigative journalism to shine a light on this and show the people who are driving this for who they are.

A bit of a side issue, but I came across this FT article from Psychotherapist Philippa Perry explaining that Children are not projects.

www.ft.com/content/574de956-3fa0-11e9-9bee-efab61506f44

It seems the likely troublesome tweet is being shared today by transactivists. I won't post it here as probably be deleted but anyone on twitter can look at @ Ali_umnus RT and see it framed as about a child/youth.

Well, while Jackie Green is no longer a child, let's not lose sight of the fact that the horror of what Susie Green did is amplified by the fact that Jackie Green was a child/youth when this was done.

That tweet is upsetting. Because what happened in the case of Susie Green's child was upsetting. And it was illegal.

Jackie Green is pretty quiet on social media generally. There certainly isn't really any activism that I can see, compared to Susie. Interesting. I hope that Jackie is happy and able to get on with their life.