Jacky, there's also the new police trans guidance I linked to upthread. It was written in partnership with Stonewall, LGBT Police Network and the Police Superintendent's Association.
medium.com/@JonnnyBest/believe-in-innate-gender-or-else-say-the-police-4237baf692da
www.lgbtpolice.uk/resources
TBH I haven't looked at this guidance since last November when it was first reported but I bet there's some relevant bobbins in there.
I think the 'hate incident' stuff is also relevant. That's what Harry and friends are challenging in their fair cop campaign I believe. It wasn't mentioned in this recording but I bet this is at least part of the reason she was contacted.
Does anybody know the legal standing of 'hate incidents'? Are they part of the hate crime legislation itself or just part of some 'best practice' guidance written at the behest of lobbying organisations?
I was frustrated with this recording because there were some important questions not asked:
Has my refusal to call my abusive ex 'she' been recorded as a hate incident?
Will this show up on a DBS?
Is it a crime to refer to my abusive ex as 'he', regardless of how he identifies?
If not, why was I contacted and 'advised'?
What guidance was the officer following when he did this?
What training have WYP had on psychological abuse, coercive control and stalking?
What guidance do WYP use on how to recognise this kind of abuse and how potential victims should be treated?
Who wrote it?
What does it say about my particular situation?
It's very easy to think what I would have done though when it's not me in this situation. I'd have been terrified if I'd gone through what this woman did.
It's an absolute fucking outrage that all the abusive messages this woman received from this prick were treated as nothing while it was her who was contacted and 'advised'. Especially as the messages were sent in the immediate aftermath of her ditching him and he knows her address. We all know this is an extremely dangerous time for any woman who's had the bad fortune to end up with one of these arseholes.
Something has gone badly wrong.
It's not generally the fault of individual officers (although some seem to relish their role in this shitfest and from what she said, this might be the case here) - their job is to uphold the law, they don't write it. I imagine there are very few opportunities for ordinary officers to even question the guidance they are given.
We absolutely do need to challenge stuff like this but we need to be smart about it and take the time to pinpoint exactly where the problem is. That way we know exactly which bit of legislation or guidance to challenge and can work out the best way to go about it.