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..."

Caroline, it was solely the Sky News report that stated that SG only made the complaint last week.

Could be a mistake on their part.

But seems an odd thing for them to get wrong.

Of course it is possible that SG made the initial complaint in October and the police did nothing. And then SG made a further complaint (about the inaction of the police) last week. Which then spurred the cops into action this week.

Weird that SG reported it as a transgender hate crime, when apparently she considered herself the victim. She is not transgender.

Hope your solicitor can get to the bottom of it.

Chief Brody
@ChiefBrody19
PLEASE RT. Been contacted by a journalist writing about the schools turning their backs on Mermaids because of its poor publicity. DM me if you can help and please RT if you know anyone who can. Thanks.

There has been discussion that some males are seeking the addition of a surgical orifice without the removal of penis and testicles and that this procedure may become availble to some.

i've seen the pictures. This is true, it has happened.

Only read messages up to 9pm last night, but on the question of female genital mutilation. If, as we are expected to believe, a male born child feels female, then they are in fact female, does that not mean bringing said child to a country to get their penis cut off is in fact FGM according to their logic?

Did the Guardian article posted by Popchyk at 15:06 on 20/3/19 completely change?

Because the excerpt posted by EweSurname at 15:21 on 20/3/19 bears absolutely no resemblance to what I am reading.

Even the title seems to be different from what's in the link, as it takes you to an article called "Mother drops action against woman who said she 'mutilated' trans daughter".

www.theguardian.com/society/2019/mar/20/catholic-journalist-investigated-by-police-after-misgendering-trans-woman

Is this normal? There's no note about changes.

That's completely different

I didn't archive it, more fool me. I hope someone was more diligent.

And this bit wasn't in there - if true, haven't the BBC and Susie Green violated some codes?

Police said for a complaint to be dropped, a withdrawal statement must be made. It is understood that has not yet happened in this case.

Is this the original article?
www.msn.com/en-ie/news/uknews/catholic-journalist-investigated-by-police-after-misgendering-trans-woman/ar-BBV0kdD

Yes! That looks like it. Do you know what's happening?

Tim Pool a US journalist (who also brought up misgendering on the Joe Rogan podcast about Twitter) has covered this story.

I haven't watched it yet but it has over 42,000 views

Just read the Guardian article and, yes, it is completely different! Why would they have done that .

Thanks, OldCrone
I've archived the MSN News/Guardian and the Guardian article as it appears now.
Both are credited to Amelia Hill, and look to be published around the same time.

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20190320235627/www.msn.com/en-ie/news/uknews/catholic-journalist-investigated-by-police-after-misgendering-trans-woman/ar-BBV0kdD" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20190320235627/www.msn.com/en-ie/news/uknews/catholic-journalist-investigated-by-police-after-misgendering-trans-woman/ar-BBV0kdD

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20190320235503/www.theguardian.com/society/2019/mar/20/catholic-journalist-investigated-by-police-after-misgendering-trans-woman" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20190320235503/www.theguardian.com/society/2019/mar/20/catholic-journalist-investigated-by-police-after-misgendering-trans-woman

Just read the Guardian article and, yes, it is completely different! Why would they have done that

Its an illustration of the issues of 24 hour news that articles are rarely investigated and more often built around comments, tweets etc.

As more information becomes available some online articles will be re-written prior to going to press.

No doubt more comment and information will emerge.

It's standard now - re-write it online and it's as if it never happened, unless someone screenshotted it in the first place.

It's standard now - re-write it online and it's as if it never happened Blimey, that was Winston Smith's job in Orwell's '1984'.

Anyway, I digress.....good opinion piece by Stephen Glover in the Daily Mail

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-6832759/What-nonsense-hard-pressed-police-began-investigate-two-women-having-transgender-spat.html

And Lucy Bannerman covers it in The Times

"Trans lobbyist Susie Green drops ‘hate crime’ claim over tweets"

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trans-lobbyist-susie-green-drops-hate-crime-claim-over-tweets-7wsl3q756?shareToken=743adc8d9ec2e363c98eb1e6cdfb54b6

Another interesting legal one.

barbarahewson.org/2019/03/21/free-speech-wars-caroline-farrow/

Wondering if I might get a better night’s sleep in the clink? Probably not.

That Steven Glover article in the Mail needs a BTL comment about Karen White’s offences whilst placed in a women’s prison, because Steven is still labouring under the impression that the risk to female prisoners is hypothetical. 🙄

I find it abhorrent that Susie Green has sought the maximum publicity out of her child's medical treatment over the last decade or do, particularly when it was of such an intimate nature. No wonder Jackie is keeping a low profile these days, now they are in a position to appreciate the implications for their own life by their mother's incessant hunger for the limelight.

Is the CEO of Mermaids a paid position, do we know?

The second Guardian article says that Caroline “wrongly” accused Green of mutilating her child. That isn’t true - and is borderline defamatory, in my view.

Why are the papers now outlining the Tweets that Susie complained about, as if they are a smoking gun that 'proves' that she had an appropriate reason for reporting Caroline other than 'misgendering'

There was nothing illegal in those tweets, no matter how much it 'hurt her feelings' that not everyone falls over themselves to call her a stunning and brave parent for allowing her child to be castrated. Once again, it's all about psychological coercion and control - if people won't go along with one narrative, we will spin and lie until they are forced to comply.

Complaining - well people are asking ‘what did this woman do?’. People will make their own minds up based on facts, not hurty feelings and the aggression of a professional lobbyist.

Green's past actions speak for themselves.

I can't see any normal person reading those tweets without thinking "she did WHAT to her child?"

Yes - there's no denial she did these things, it's just that ^*people aren't thinking about it in the right way.
*^

From those 3 tweets shown off the screen: I think people watching who don’t know the back story will think ‘how outrageous! To accuse a mother of taking her child to have that done to them! What a terrible thing to say! Nobody would ever do that to their child!’

Then people will realise that the tweets describe factual events and will be very shocked. Once you see it, you can’t unsee it.