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:
Datun · 04/02/2020 12:15

ANYWAY the point of the thread is that women even discussing it in their home town, are being bullied and intimidated.

It's daft to think they will actually challenge someone face to face.

littlbrowndog · 04/02/2020 12:16

Yeah and the census. Which is important to plan the future

How have we got to this so fast and what seems so secretly

And people outside Scotland can vote on the Scottish governments proposals

Which will affect the people of Scotland

littlbrowndog · 04/02/2020 12:17

Yeah datun

Michelleoftheresistance · 04/02/2020 12:17

You're wholly unaware of your own double standards as you argue this.

It's a complete rejection of transgender identities and everything trans people strongly believe in along with calls to repeal laws that support their rights.

This was a meeting of female people looking at the issues of a complete rejection of FEMALE identities and everything FEMALE people strongly believe in along with ACTIVE POLICIES AND POLICY CAPTURE WITH THE repeal of laws that support their rights IN PROGRESS.

If there was a meeting about the complete rejection of homosexual relationships and calls to repeal gay marriage I imagine plenty of gay people (myself included) would protest it.

However you really don't approve of a meeting about the complete rejection of what female is and the active removal of sex based rights and single sex spaces, and don't agree with the plenty of female people who want to discuss and protest it.

Why don't people just own it and admit WPUK have taken a controversial position that wants to remove the existing rights of trans people?

Why won't you own that the 'controversial position' you say WPUK is nothing more than female people having rights? And resisting the removal of their existing rights?

ScapaFlo · 04/02/2020 12:18

*It's daft to think they will actually challenge someone face to face
*
Especially a gang of masked shouty angry people.

wellbehavedwomen · 04/02/2020 12:18

@SapphosRock your link doesn't mention being employed in a role. It says:

a service provider provides single-sex services. If you are accessing a service provided for men-only or women-only, the organisation providing it should treat you according to your acquired gender. In very restricted circumstances it is lawful for an organisation to provide a different service or to refuse the service to someone who is undergoing or has undergone gender reassignment.

That protects only eg rape crisis centres from group therapy including a transwoman, for example (though again, Sussex Rape Crisis told one survivor that they wouldn't engage with her hate, when she protested about such a group. I didn't believe it when told so went to look at their Facebook page - it was there. They were indeed declaring her hateful for not wanting males to access her discussing her rape).

In Scotland right now, it's being declared that there's no issue with this so there's no need to retain single sex provision, and therefore any concerns are misplaced. Rape crisis centres and domestic abuse shelters are fine with transwomen accessing their spaces in all roles - client and provider. Despite Karen Ingala Smith saying that harms the client group, and prison charities and a former Governor of a women's prison saying it's catastrophic for women. But the mantra is that Transwomen Are Women so you can't discriminate.

A wokester told me a couple of weeks ago that women's voices are already being heard because transwomen are women, and therefore WPUK are hateful because they deny that women's voices also mean trans voices. Apparently the only voices allowed to speak in all this belong to those born with penises.

Funny, but it sounds awfully like some sort of system we've heard about before.

BringbackLang · 04/02/2020 12:19

I'm still wondering what extreme views WPUK allegedly hold.

SapphosRock · 04/02/2020 12:21

OldCrone this has been discussed on here quite a bit but the Equality Act conflates sex and gender. This is the most critical issue for me.

Despite it being lawful to exclude trans women from certain jobs and sports under certain circumstances I can see your point that the EA makes the law ambiguous.

To make the EA exemptions work better in practice then there needs to be a clear distinction made between sex and gender and organisations able to apply the exemptions based on sex.

wellbehavedwomen · 04/02/2020 12:22

What @Michelleoftheresistance said. Perfectly.

We're all so fucking well trained. My position was @SapphosRock's own until a couple of years ago. I thought we should be nice and understanding, and surely both sides had a point?

Then I started reading up and realised that thinking both sides had a point was seen as transphobic and hateful. Only complete submission was allowed.

wellbehavedwomen · 04/02/2020 12:25

@BringbackLang

I'm still wondering what extreme views WPUK allegedly hold.

Just the radical one that women are human beings.

SapphosRock · 04/02/2020 12:33

Sussex Rape Crisis told one survivor that they wouldn't engage with her hate, when she protested about such a group. I didn't believe it when told so went to look at their Facebook page - it was there. They were indeed declaring her hateful for not wanting males to access her discussing her rape).

This is the stuff that really matters. This is what women are rightfully outraged about, and what no TRA can reasonably protest.

So my position is how can we ensure women are protected in these situations.

I don't think the solution is repealing the GRA and trans women shouldn't be able to identify as women at all.

I do think provision of single sex services is the answer with the EA exemptions correctly applied.

Datun · 04/02/2020 12:35

To make the EA exemptions work better in practice then there needs to be a clear distinction made between sex and gender and organisations able to apply the exemptions based on sex.

Which is exactly what repealing the GRA will do! Dont you get that?

SapphosRock · 04/02/2020 12:41

Datun repealing the GRA altogether is unrealistic and is a clear removal of existing trans rights. It's on no political agenda.

Updating and strengthening the EA exemptions to make a distinction between sex and gender is realistic and is actually on the agenda of politicians.

Datun · 04/02/2020 12:44

Sapphos you're contradictory. You want exclusion to be based on sex, not gender, but don't want to address the law that makes that possible.

Other than changing their legal sex to the opposite one, what rights does the GRA give?

SapphosRock · 04/02/2020 12:48

Datun it's two different approaches to achieving the same result.

Repeal the GRA or modify and strengthen the EA exemptions.

One is aggressive and unrealistic, the other totally within reach.

Datun · 04/02/2020 12:50

This is so circular. How can you base exclusion on sex, when people can legally change sex? Seriously?

Are you hoping that someone can just tell by looking? Because that will go well.

SapphosRock · 04/02/2020 12:59

Exactly Datun - the current EA does a half arsed job of making a distinction between sex and gender.

If this was updated to make a clear distinction then at least a concrete law would be in place rather than the current ambiguity.

Using the rape crisis centre as an example - all the existing trans women with GRCs could still try and access these single sex services even if the GRA was repealed. There would surely be no question of removing existing GRCs.

If the EA was amended to make a clear distinction between sex and gender and the current exemptions correctly applied then trans women would have access to specific transgender services and not be able to access single sex female services.

BovaryX · 04/02/2020 12:59

This is so circular. How can you base exclusion on sex, when people can legally change sex? Seriously

You will not get a coherent answer to this question. Because there isn't one. There's a reason debate is a slogan. Its proponents can't debate

OldCrone · 04/02/2020 13:03

To make the EA exemptions work better in practice then there needs to be a clear distinction made between sex and gender and organisations able to apply the exemptions based on sex.

So are you now agreeing that trans people shouldn't be able to change the sex marker on their birth certificate?

I would go further and say that they shouldn't be allowed to change the sex marker on their passport either (which doesn't currently require a GRC). Since passports are more likely to be used as ID, I would say that this is equally important.

Datun · 04/02/2020 13:04

How would you apply the exemptions?

SapphosRock · 04/02/2020 13:06

How would you apply the exemptions?

Well this is up for debate, but being legally obliged to declare trans status would be a start.

BovaryX · 04/02/2020 13:07

If this was updated to make a clear distinction then at least a concrete law would be in place rather than the current ambiguity

Can you please explain what you mean by a clear distinction, when previously on this thread you refer to people with male bodies who identify as female? Do you understand that for many people that is oxymoronic? Are you aware that one of the intentions in the drafting of the GRA was to deliberately upend the relationship between sex and gender? Most people regard biological sex as hardware, gender software. But thanks to a deliberate attempt to subvert the meaning of words, gender has been used instead of biological sex. This is a war on language. Inter alia

OldCrone · 04/02/2020 13:08

If the EA was amended to make a clear distinction between sex and gender and the current exemptions correctly applied then trans women would have access to specific transgender services and not be able to access single sex female services.

How would you stop them accessing these services if their sex (in legal terms) is female? It's the GRA which allows this fiction (changing the birth record), not the EA.

Changing or repealing the GRA so that trans people can no longer change their birth record is the only solution.

The law that allows them to change the sex marker on their passport (no GRC required) should also be changed.

OldCrone · 04/02/2020 13:10

Well this is up for debate, but being legally obliged to declare trans status would be a start.

So what would be the point of a GRC? The GRA was brought in partly so that a transwoman didn't have to declare their trans status (they didn't want to be outed at work).

The other reason was so that a transwoman could marry a man. With same sex marriage this is no longer necessary.

SapphosRock · 04/02/2020 13:13

OldCrone what is your solution to all the people who already hold a GRC? It's been law since 2004 so there must be a few.

Must they immediately have their passports and birth certificates reverted to their birth sex?

What about those who have had full medical transition and aren't out to friends and colleagues? Must they be forced to reveal their birth sex?

Can you not see why this thinking is problematic for trans people and why they may protest at such ideas?