Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

My complaint to Sussex Police re their handling of protest at WPUK Brighton Meeting

668 replies

WomanBornNotWorn · 03/02/2020 11:01

I was at the WPUK meeting in Brighton in September.

It was targeted by a group of protestors rather bigger than Saturday's London bunch - well, that one was just a little posy ...

They kicked and punched the windows for several hours, while Julie Bindel's video shows police officers staring into space:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7497869/Anger-crowd-transgender-rights-protesters-intimidate-meeting-womens-rights-group.html

I submitted a complaint that the officers allowed it to go on for a long time (watch the WPUK videos on You Tube and you'll hear it).

I've now received the detailed response from the police:

"Following your complaint, made regarding the actions of Sussex Police in dealing with a protest at a Woman’s Place UK meeting in Brighton on 23 September 2019, I have now completed my enquiries.

In your complaint you explained that you were unhappy that the officers who attended the incident at the Woman’s Place meeting took no action to prevent the disruption from protesters and stood by while protesters were shouting and banging on the windows of where the meeting was taking place.

Chief Inspector Sproston was the Public Order Silver Commander during the event, he held full responsibility for the actions of the staff who reported to him and he provided a report following the event.

The Bronze Commander was Inspector Lovell who was on the ground with the Public Order teams, he provided me with an account of the event.

Chief Inspector Sproston was fully aware of the problem caused by protestors at a previous WPUK meeting in the city and the requirements for public order policing. He and Inspector Lovell held a briefing prior to the event and formulated a plan to manage the protest against WPUK using the Protest Liaison Team (PLT).

The agreed venue, which WPUK had arranged for the meeting, was at the Odeon cinema. This afforded complete security with no access to the protestors once inside the venue. However on the evening of the event, the Odeon management declined to allow WPUK to hold their meeting there and the venue was changed. WPUK organisers had already identified a secondary location which Sussex Police were unaware of until they were informed of the venue changed half an hour before the meeting was due to start.

Inspector Lovell deployed his staff to the new venue at the BMECP Centre in Fleet Street using the same plan as was intended at the Odeon. Protestors were already at the venue and a public order team were sent to the front of the building. There were also four security staff employed by WPUK at the front, controlling entry to the building. The initial approach had been to use the PLT to try and engage with the protestors and they deployed as soon as they arrived at the new venue.

As the meeting progressed, part of the protest group went to the rear of the premises where the windows to the meeting room were at ground level. The protestors began banging on the windows and the PLT asked them to stop. When the banging escalated Inspector Lovell sent two Public Order Teams to form a cordon in front of the windows.

The protestors continued shouting and chanting at the front and the rear of the premises. Residents from the flats above threw water down onto the protestors, which also covered some of the Police Officers, but it could not be ascertained exactly which flat it had come from.

Chief Inspector Sproston had considered a number of things when making his assessment. The venue had been moved, with no notice, to a location that police had not been able to carry out a reconnaissance at. Their public order assessment had been for the Odeon cinema which had one manageable entrance and resources available to deal with that. Chief Inspector Sproston is confident that had there been a consultation on the new site, it would not have been recommended by police.

WPUK have the right to hold a meeting and not be subject to serious disorder, damage or disruption to the community. The protestors have the right to protest under articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Human Rights Act. Freedom of Expression under article 10 is applicable to the expression of views that may shock, disturb or offend the deeply held beliefs of others. This does however, have to be balanced against the rights of WPUK.

Chief Inspector Sproston considered imposing section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 as the banging on the windows could have been interpreted as being intended to intimidate WPUK members with a view to compelling them not to hold their meeting, which they had a right to do.

Section 14 would have allowed the senior officer present to stipulate the location, duration and numbers of people allowed to protest. There was no suitable place to direct the protestors to as any place which would not have affected the venue of the meeting, would have meant the protestors would have been completely out of sight of the venue. This would have effectively stopped the protest and not just restricted its effect which is not in the spirit of articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Humans Rights Act. In turn this would have not stood up to scrutiny or challenge.

Although the protestors were loud, the meeting did go ahead and there were no reports of serious disorder, serious damage to property or disruption to the life of the community.

Public nuisance under common law was also considered. However this offence constitutes injury, loss or damage to the public in general. Undoubtedly the protestors were a nuisance by their presence but they did not commit this offence.

Inspector Lovell reported that there was no effort on behalf of the protestors to damage or enter the building. No one was prevented from entering or exiting the building and the meeting was able to go ahead.
There were 6 phone calls to police between 18:30 and 21:00, four from people inside the venue and two from third parties who were not in attendance.

The first caller was at 18:37 expressing concerns over people outside shouting. During the call they told the call taker that police were arriving on scene.

The second caller was at 19:15 concerned about the banging on windows. During the call they advised the call taker that police were now inside the building and helping.

The next two callers were also from inside the venue who expressed concerns about the banging on windows. One was at 19:24 and another at 19:27 who said that she was scared to leave the venue due to protestors smashing on the glass.

The last two callers were from third parties who had been in contact with people inside the venue. They were alerting the police to the banging on windows. One call was at 20:32 and the other at 20:54

There was only one call from a local resident at 21:20 complaining about the noise from the protestors. However Sussex Police were aware and monitoring the social media posts.

I have viewed Body Worn Video footage from several officers at the event. I have also viewed the video footage obtained by the Public Order Evidence Gathering Team (EGT).

At 19:09 the EGT footage showed a small group at the rear of the building with a few of the protestors banging on windows with their hands. The PLT were speaking with the protestors.

At 19:27 the EGT footage showed a larger group gathering at the rear and many of them were banging on the windows with their hands. The public order teams formed a cordon in front of the windows and the officers were physically pushing the protestors away from the building in order to prevent a Breach of the Peace.

At 19:30 BWV footage showed the officers getting between the protestors and the building to form the cordon, preventing the protestors from banging on the windows. Although some banging could be heard in the background, it was unclear where this was coming from. The footage continued until 20:20 and showed the officers with their backs against the building. The protestors formed a line in front of the police, with their backs to them whilst they continued to shout and chant.

At 21:09 BWV footage showed a protestor telling the group to go to the front of the building as the meeting was coming to an end. She told the protestors make sure they filmed the police and got their ID numbers.

At 21:11 BWV footage showed the police cordon between the protestors and the building, leaving a clear walkway for the attendees to leave the meeting. The protestors continued shouting until everyone had left the building.

The protestors were creating a lot of noise and their chants were not only against WPUK, they included obscenities aimed at the police. The footage supports the reports made by Chief Inspector Sproston and Inspector Lovell. There was no violence and no serious disorder.

Using the core principles, and legal framework set out by the College of Policing in their Authorised Professional Practice, I am satisfied that the event was policed lawfully, proportionately and appropriately.

The Professional Standards Department will retain a copy of your complaint and the local resolution outcome."

OP posts:
BringbackLang · 04/02/2020 11:25

Can you inform us which views are 'extreme' in regards to WPUK?

wellbehavedwomen · 04/02/2020 11:31

@SapphosRock how can you compare being gay with taking medication with lifelong health risks, that can cause permanent harm to bodies, including increased risk of cancer, reduced heart function, serious bone density loss and infertility?

Detransitioners aren't people who changed their minds on clothing choices. They're people whose bodies have been irremediably altered, when they were too young to really know what the choices they were making meant.

Do you actually understand what the euphemistically termed 'bottom surgeries' entail? That they have to completely remove testicles, surgically operate on penis/clitoris in a way that will inevitably risk continued function as a source of sexual pleasure, and completely reconfigure the urethra - that ongoing continence problems are wholly likely? And even 'top surgeries...' did you know that one in three women who have a mastectomy suffer from Post-Mastectomy Pain Syndrome, because of the severed nerves? There's more than one reason that when a woman has breast cancer they try to remove the lump, not just take out the breast and reconstruct.

And puberty blockers, in delaying sexual maturation, can mean young male bodies, in remaining pre-pubertal, never reach sufficient maturity to develop libido, far less capacity to orgasm.

De-transitioners aren't opposed to gender fluidity. They're opposed to medical interventions on previously entirely physically healthy children.

GIDS at the Tavistock say that almost half of the girls they see - and the majority of patients are now girls - fit criteria for autistic when assessed. Over a third are diagnosed - you know how often diagnosis is missed in girls, right? Were you aware that puberty is recognised as far harder even than the average for autistic children? That for a cohort who feel more intensely than the average, who hate changes, struggle with the process of transitions, struggle more with pain and discomfort, struggle more with mess and sensation, the practical aspects of puberty might be hard? Then there's the fact that autistic girls are more likely to be gender non-conforming, due to inability to join the adolescent hive mind that that intense stage of socialisation represents. Autistic people in general are also far more likely to be gay than the general population - and in adolescence, they're also far more likely to feel different, other, unable to settle in their own bodies, and to seek a binary, definite, one-size-fits-all solution to that feeling.

Almost every adult autistic woman I know (and I know a lot, because on the principle of nothing about us without us, when raising autistic children my research involves primary talking with autistic people) says that she is now happily adult as a woman, but expresses relief that she wasn't young now, because she'd have really gone for the idea she was actually a man - and most are parents. Many are very happily lesbian mums. How would removing those options by taking testosterone and seeking surgery have been as reversible as perhaps meeting a man, and deciding that this relationship was for them?

I'm also nonplussed that you think disagreeing with gender as a real thing is an attack on people who do believe in it. Are you aware that what schools are now encouraged to do in our area, as modern feminism, is to draw two lines on a board, with 'boy' and 'girl' on either end, tell kids that they are sex and gender identity, and that they should place who they are on both lines - that they can be a girl who is a boy inside, and vice versa, and then discuss how courage, and independence, and climbing trees and liking trains makes you a boy inside, while being gentle, and sensitive, and liking dolls and crying easily makes you a girl? This shit is on the LA website as a linked resource for SRE. How is that not a modern, updated version of sexism, by telling kids they conform to gender inwardly if they don't by lines of sex?

Are you also aware that some of the whistleblowers at the Tavistock have said that modern treatments of gender-questioning kids there feels like conversion therapy for gay kids? Because without puberty blockers, almost 90% of kids reconcile themselves with their sex, and most grow up as happy gay adults. With puberty blockers, 100% transition medically.

I'm not sure how you can relate that to being gay. Being gay doesn't adversely affect your body in the slightest way, far less permanently. And I don't see why you think it's so outrageous for someone to argue that gender is a social construct and a straitjacket, and a boy and man should be free to proudly embrace who he is as a man, just as a woman should a woman, however that presentation means to them. Men should be able to wear what they want and feel as they want without that meaning they're a woman, and women should have the same without it making them a man.

Gender dysphoria is different. There are people truly disgusted by their birth bodies, and for whom no amount of support and intervention can assauge that, and they will need help to manage that sense that may include medical and surgical. But that's rare, and not the vast majority of the group Stonewall now categorise as trans.

I have two autistic children. I'm going to love and embrace whoever they are. But neither are gender dysphoric, so if their autism makes them at risk of ROGD, you bet I'm alarmed. I don't care how they present, or what sexuality they are. I do care if they meet with social contagion - and anyone who thinks that's impossible knows no teenagers - at an age where they are not mature enough to understand the choices they are making. If, as adults, they transition, of course I'll support and love and accept them, even if I think it's a shame our conception of gender is so rigid, they feel that is what they need to do rather than embrace gender non-conformity side by side with sex. But I am really not okay with healthy young bodies being poisoned when they're not old enough to have sex or vote. And we know the brain develops well into the 20s, so how is extreme, irreversible action then wise?

My mum always told me never to do anything I couldn't change my mind over before I was 25. She meant kids - and she was wise. I agree with her. Detransitioners have a right to be heard because their bodies, and their health, were dramatically affected while still young. How can you compare that with being gay? There is no comparison.

BovaryX · 04/02/2020 11:31

Allowing detransitioners to speak in public is aggressive and divisive? Wow. How do you propose to silence them? Do you have any concept of freedom of speech?

SapphosRock · 04/02/2020 11:32

Datun general work environment then it doesn't matter if a person is trans or not so no need for it to be divulged.

Sensitive job roles involving contact with vulnerable women then it does matter, hence why is is legal to exclude trans women from applying for these roles.

Datun · 04/02/2020 11:34

Datun general work environment then it doesn't matter if a person is trans or not so no need for it to be divulged.

Of course it does. Working in a rape refuge, a prison, as security who have to pat people down.

Datun · 04/02/2020 11:35

hence why is is legal to exclude trans women from applying for these roles.

How? Seriously. What do you actually say?

Thelnebriati · 04/02/2020 11:40

Speaking truthful words about your own life experience is aggressive and divisive? Where have I heard this before, it sounds familiar.

OldCrone · 04/02/2020 11:40

Sensitive job roles involving contact with vulnerable women then it does matter, hence why is is legal to exclude trans women from applying for these roles.

What happens when someone applies, has documentation (birth cert etc) saying they are female, but when you interview them, you think they might be a transwoman?

What then? Do you ask them? Is there any authority you can request information from (since the public record of their birth has been changed/falsified)?

Or do you just accept that they are who they say they are (and perhaps find another reason not to employ them)?

How does this law work in practice?

SapphosRock · 04/02/2020 11:48

@wellbehavedwomen where have I advocated for surgery? Many trans people now choose not so have any surgical intervention due to all the many reasons you list.

This raises its own problems - people who identify as a women still have male bodies.

It should be possible for these people to wear what they want, call themselves Barbara and have woman listed as their legal gender as long as the EA exemptions are correctly applied and there is a clear distinction made between these people and adult human females.

WPUK want there to be absolutely no legal recognition by society of gender identity which I imagine is why the protests happened.

If WPUK was a respectful discussion on the scenarios where it is important to make a distinction between women and trans women I don't think there would be a protest. There aren't protests at every feminist lecture and meeting in Brighton and there are plenty.

LangClegTheBeardedVulture · 04/02/2020 11:49

I live in Brighton. I have children in school here. I use council run swimming pools. Am I not allowed to go to meetings in my home town to discuss the impact of council policies and self-identifying into womanhood on me and my kids?

Imnobody4 · 04/02/2020 11:51

SapphosRock
In reality most people fall somewhere in the middle and want to find a solution where women are protected and transgender identities respected.
How's about you discuss that with the people who have declared 'no debate' and are now trying to enforce that by aggressive intimidation.

PaleBlueMoonlight · 04/02/2020 11:53

There is no reason why people cannot support both women and trans people. There is no need to pick a side and declare the other wrong and evil. Agreed, which is why "no debate" was such a disappointing position.

OldCrone · 04/02/2020 11:54

It's an aggressive and divisive tactic. There is no reason why people cannot support both women and trans people. There is no need to pick a side and declare the other wrong and evil.

Allowing detransitioners to speak is not the same as saying anyone is wrong and evil. Why should detransitioners, of all people, be denied a platform to speak about their experiences?

BovaryX · 04/02/2020 11:57

This raises its own problems - people who identify as a women still have male bodies.

Yep. That sure does raise many problems. Linguistic, philosophical, practical and legal problems.

wellbehavedwomen · 04/02/2020 12:00

@SapphosRock those are the detransitioners speaking, and that is what they are speaking against. So why cite them if that isn't what you mean?

And how can you exclude transwomen with GRAs if you aren't allowed to refer to their previous legal status? Can you explain how precisely that would work? You do know that the existing Equality Act provisions for sex are not just being ignored - the CPS has issued guidance for schools, saying a girl who challenges a man or boy in single sex spaces is hateful? In your own local NHS trust, a lesbian survivor of rape wrote to ask that intimate care be provided only by a natal female, as is her right. That letter was used in training by your local Trust as an example of wholly unacceptable prejudice. How can you so blithely insist that the law will protect women, when the law is already being ignored? When males are being told that if they identify as women they can access communal changing rooms at will? Why are you okay with this, knowing how many women will find that distressing and frightening, and how many survivors of assault will find it actively traumatising? I'm genuinely asking: why are you not concerned about women's rights here? Even a little bit? They ARE being eroded. It's happening.

Why are women threatened with rape and murder, assaulted, and subjected to intimidation, for daring to meet to discuss how the removal of single sex provision, and the wholesale alteration of what woman means as a definition, affects them? And to seek to work together to ensure that we survive as an identifiable class, so we can ensure our provisions and protections also survive?

You don't see that freedom as one the police should be protecting. That women trying to meet to talk about this should be allowed to do so, instead of the meeting being prevented altogether. But apparently recording incidents that aren't against the law, and sending police to talk to people who hold views they disapprove of, is a good use of police time?

I don't understand your views. I say that sincerely. Women have a right to a view on this. We have a stake in it. That's not hate.

SapphosRock · 04/02/2020 12:00

I live in Brighton. I have children in school here. I use council run swimming pools.

Me too. So you will know that both the King Alfred and Prince Regent (council run pools) have gender neutral changing rooms with lockable cubicles.

Am I not allowed to go to meetings in my home town to discuss the impact of council policies and self-identifying into womanhood on me and my kids?

Of course. But how is the council inflicting self-identifying into womanhood on you and your kids given they have provided private gender neutral spaces?

OldCrone · 04/02/2020 12:02

It should be possible for these people to wear what they want, call themselves Barbara and have woman listed as their legal gender as long as the EA exemptions are correctly applied and there is a clear distinction made between these people and adult human females.

How can you make that distinction, if they are allowed to change their legally recognised sex to female?

There is no such thing as 'legal gender', only legally recognised sex. If they wanted to have a 'gender' of transwoman, there would be no problem, but 'woman' is already taken, and refers to adult human females.

I agree that people should be able to wear what they want and call themselves by whatever name they want. But people can't change sex, and we have created enormous problems by the enactment of a law which suggests that they can.

BovaryX · 04/02/2020 12:04

I agree that people should be able to wear what they want and call themselves by whatever name they want. But people can't change sex, and we have created enormous problems by the enactment of a law which suggests that they can

Well said

SapphosRock · 04/02/2020 12:07

I agree 'no debate' was a terrible position and have lost all respect for Stonewall.

There is a productive conversation to be had but there seems to be zero empathy from either side on the other position.

Datun I feel like we've had this conversation before... The EA exemptions mean it is legal to exclude trans women from sensitive job roles.

See the circumstances bit : www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/gender-reassignment-discrimination

wellbehavedwomen · 04/02/2020 12:08

Me too. So you will know that both the King Alfred and Prince Regent (council run pools) have gender neutral changing rooms with lockable cubicles.

Are you aware that the vast majority of sexual assaults, sexual harassment, and voyeurism incidents in such places are in mixed sex changing areas - despite those areas being a minority, amongst all provision?

Provision is moving more and more away from single sex, and towards unisex. Despite that being provably less safe for women. Again, this is being done in the name of inclusion, yet it's harming women in very clear ways.

littlbrowndog · 04/02/2020 12:09

Now in my country when you commit a crime. You can decide how you want it to be recorder. I mean by what gender

So now crime statistics are irrelevant

It’s bonkers

OldCrone · 04/02/2020 12:09

The EA exemptions mean it is legal to exclude trans women from sensitive job roles.

In theory, but how can this work in practice?

PaleBlueMoonlight · 04/02/2020 12:10

But there is tonnes of empathy (you for a start).

Datun · 04/02/2020 12:13

Datun I feel like we've had this conversation before... The EA exemptions mean it is legal to exclude trans women from sensitive job roles.

It is, but it's unenforceable.

Also, women are learning very quickly not to question any man.

BovaryX · 04/02/2020 12:13

Now in my country when you commit a crime. You can decide how you want it to be recorder. I mean by what gender So now crime statistics are irrelevant It’s bonkers

littlebrowndog

It truly is. The census has been framed in such a way as to render its data meaningless. And with every encroachment of this ideology, freedom of speech is threatened. It truly is Orwellian

Swipe left for the next trending thread