Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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:
FOIrequester · 04/02/2020 13:21

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

thehorseandhisboy · 04/02/2020 13:50

Sapphos could you link to campaigns and/or individuals who are campaigning to have GRAs already issued repealed, and their passports reverted to their birth sex please?

Also, those who want people who have fully medically transitioned to be compelled to disclose their birth sex to friends and colleagues.

A few thousand GRAs have been issued since 2004. Fewer than the number of young women/adolescence who have applied to the GIDS service during this time.

It's not so much that I can't understand why people want to protest ideas that they don't disagree with, it's the fact that they can't/won't debate them that's a worry tbh.

Bananabixfloof · 04/02/2020 13:55

WPUK want the protests to occur in order to show how angry and aggressive trans people are to women
If this was in fact true (it's not though) all the trans people had to do was "nothing"
No protest, no shouting, maybe even not go to the place to bang on windows and try intimidating tactics. Then, if you really think about this hard enough, trans people look like saints putting up with women talking about women things, and no one is any wiser that some kind of event horizon is happening.
Can you imagine the outcry if Bame were told not to meet to discuss Bame things, in case it makes others look bad?

wellbehavedwomen · 04/02/2020 14:05

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.

They ARE protesting this. Because transwomen are women is seen as literal. This is what WPUK is all about!

GRAs alter sex in law. And in fact, right now, all exemptions are seen as bigotry. As unreasonable and wrong. Are you aware that the ONLY rape crisis centre in Canada to apply single sex provision was recently denied any public funding, on that basis? That dead rats have been nailed to their door? There is no intention to allow ANY sex based provision at all. That is the reality.

Don't you think most of us started where you are? Seeking compromise? Are you aware that Jess Phillips is demonised as a hateful transphobe for saying that? Because saying that acknowledges that transwomen are not female, and that is in itself seen as hateful because it is not what the extremists - who are running the show now - can bear to hear.

A woman lost her fucking job for saying sex is real, and matters. Yes, they lie and say she misgendered at work. That's not true. She tweeted on her own account - respectfully and calmly. Yet she lost her job, and the judge said that the GRA changes sex in law and she was not entitled to ignore that. Women are trying to raise the alarm here because what you are saying is exactly what we are seeking to protect - recognition that sex is real, and has real life implications and consequences.

This is not a drill. Truly. Please read up on the Green Party calling people men and non-men. On Cancer Research deeming those affected by cervical cancer to be people with cervixes (no such delicacy around prostates, interestingly). The very word woman is becoming a hot potato. Why is that not something women should discuss?

Most of the WPUK meeting sessions had nothing to do with trans people at all. They were about women's rights. All of this affects women's rights and that is precisely why there is such violence in trying to stop discussion. Because once you realise what's happening, you're aware that it is an existential threat to being able to identify women, based on biology, at all, in legal and social terms - which leaves us wide open to abuse and oppression, without remedy being possible.

Why do you think this movement has spread so fast and so thoroughly? It's because it privileges males over females, while positioning those males as more vulnerable. All our implicit bias and training in the service of males, coupled with being told this is about human rights and a vulnerable sub-group of women. Perfect storm of misogyny under a woke label.

Bunnyfuller · 04/02/2020 14:05

One occasion by any one individual does not constitute Harrassment in law.

The police cannot suddenly grab more police at no notice to supplement what is needed for a different venue.

The police enforce the law, however much you might disagree with that law.

thehorseandhisboy · 04/02/2020 14:11

And actually the EA doesn't conflate sex and gender.

The (relevant) protected characteristics are 'sex' and 'gender reassignment'.

What sex means is pretty clear ie men or women. Gender reassignment is a much less straightforward term, which does need to be discussed and thought about, but separately from sex as a protected characteristic.

I'd be happy with a third space - men/women/gender neutral, thus maintaining the sex-segregated provision and enabling people to 'opt out' of using sex as a means of categorising themselves while they use that service/bathroom etc.

The provision of third spaces would also be a way for people who - in that particular circumstance - are happy to use gender neutral facilities to show solidarity or because for them sex as a category is less important than gender etc.

OldCrone · 04/02/2020 14:14

And actually the EA doesn't conflate sex and gender.

The GRA does, though.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/9

Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman).

BovaryX · 04/02/2020 14:15

Why do you think this movement has spread so fast and so thoroughly?

One of the reasons why is because most people don't know what is happening. The tactics of this lobby have been to operate sub rosa. No debate. No public scrutiny. No media coverage. The CPS are giving guidance to schools which suggests there will be legal consequences if schools don't allow trans children to access the toilet of their choice. Harry Miller is visited for a crime non crime and freedom of speech is facing an existential threat. This radical agenda has been promoted without public debate or public consent. And its proponents are absolutely determined to silence any dissent

thehorseandhisboy · 04/02/2020 14:24

OldCrone yes I know. My post was a late reply to a discussion up thread.

Manderleyagain · 04/02/2020 14:44

One of the ways this has happened so thoroughly is that much of the change has happened purely in the realm of language. Some terms shift slightly. People continue to use terms, but don't realise the concepts behind them have shifted.

People understood that transsexuals wanted to be seen as the sex they identified as. They were also fully signed up (rightly, on the whole) to treating people with respect and how they want to be treated. So when the understanding that 'transexuals are male people who identify as women' slipped to 'trans women identify as women' and then a tad further to 'trans women are women' they just saw it as a kindness. They didn't know that actually, behind the scenes, their understanding was now deemed transphobic, and that other people were now claiming that trans women Are women and meaning it literally, because 'woman' now meant 'person who describes themself as a woman'.

The effects of the linguistic games are only seen when there are practical consequences.

Its not the whole story, but part of it.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 04/02/2020 14:59

WPUK want the protests to occur in order to show how angry and aggressive trans people are to women

If so, (and I don't believe this to be the case, I'm just indulging you) it was very good of the TRAs to be so very obliging, wasn't it?

OldCrone · 04/02/2020 15:01

Its not the whole story, but part of it.

The story of the GRA is also important.

It was enacted so that a fully transitioned transwoman could marry a man. To avoid passing a law to allow same-sex marriage, the government created a legal fiction for such a person that they should be able to change their legally recognised sex. It was expected that only about 5000 people might obtain a GRC. That figure was surprisingly accurate.

It was decided at the time that the law could apply to people 'living as' the opposite sex (which is an extremely sexist idea) even if they hadn't had genital surgery or hormone treatment, since this was seen as unfair to those people who for medical or any other reasons were unable to have this treatment. Which in turn meant that no medical treatment could be required of anyone.They just have to 'live as' the opposite sex (sexist), which has no legal definition, and currently seems to involve nothing more than changing the name on utility bills.

We now have same sex marriage. The GRA is no longer of any use whatsoever. And it enshrines the sexist concept of 'living as' the opposite sex in law.

How does a man 'live as' a woman? How does a woman 'live as' a man?

BovaryX · 04/02/2020 15:13

Which in turn meant that no medical treatment could be required of anyone

You know what's interesting? At the time, the prohibitive cost to the NHS was cited as a reason to not require any supporting medical documentation. A version of the same argument was cited in the Irish case.

Michelleoftheresistance · 04/02/2020 15:23

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

I have never, anywhere, seen this suggested. Look up 'grandfather clauses'.

The only thing GC women want is for female needs and rights to be respected. If the gender identity extremist political lobby hadn't set out to damage women's rights groups like WPUK, FPFW and FWScot wouldn't exist. They never would have needed to. There would be no need to meet. Most GC women would be vigorously supporting the LGBT movement as most of us did before that lobby began to do such awful and uncaring damage to others.

And FWR would be as quiet as it was a few years back.

SapphosRock · 04/02/2020 15:46

Michelleoftheresistance exactly. Therefore repealing the GRA will make absolutely no difference. Trans women with a GRC will still legally be women.

Michelleoftheresistance · 04/02/2020 15:55

Grandfather clauses.

Which would mean that those who have GRCs retain them but no further are issued. Repealing the GRA would make a difference.

Bananabixfloof · 04/02/2020 15:58

Well this is up for debate, but being legally obliged to declare trans status would be a start
What? Isnt this whole sentence transphobic?

Imnobody4 · 04/02/2020 16:16

SapphosRock
Well this is up for debate, but being legally obliged to declare trans status would be a start.
Now I'm totally confused - so you're advocating challenging people with female identification on their documents, driving licence passports etc but don't think that the documents should actually have their trans status on.

Datun · 04/02/2020 16:21

Incoherent

SapphosRock · 04/02/2020 16:29

Not sure what is so hard to understand?

It would not be complicated to clarify the wording in the Equality Act so sex and gender are distinct from one another. And keep the existing EA exemptions that allow organisations to provide single sex services.

Much less complicated than trying to repeal 16 year old legislation without the backing of a single politician.

thehorseandhisboy · 04/02/2020 16:31

This is how it always goes isn't it?

Once the discussion gets beyond 'feminists want to deny trans people their right to exist' or 'WPUK are opposed to trans people, no wonder they protested' and try to examine the arguments, there's nothing there.

NEVER have I seen it suggested that people with an existing GRA should have it revoked and their legal documents amended to show their birth sex. Never.

thehorseandhisboy · 04/02/2020 16:33

SapphosRock The Equality Act already has sex and gender as distinct from each other.

The (relevant) protected characteristics are 'sex' and 'gender reassignment'.

Sex is straightforward ie men and women. Gender reassignment less so, and the practical applications of which do need to be thought about.

But that can be done as well as, rather than instead of, maintaining sex as a protected characteristic.

OldCrone · 04/02/2020 16:36

And keep the existing EA exemptions that allow organisations to provide single sex services.

Not possible when people who get a GRC become the opposite sex in legal terms.

OldCrone · 04/02/2020 16:42

The Equality Act already has sex and gender as distinct from each other.

I was just going to post something similar, but I've just had a look at it, and it's not as clear as I thought.

It talks about the 'gender pay gap', 'gender-affected' sports and 'acquired gender' in the section on marriage of people who have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. But I'm not sure if this is what Sapphos is referring to.

Imnobody4 · 04/02/2020 17:05

SapphosRock
The problem with legislation is that it must synchronise with the means to apply and enforce the law. The fact that there is no means to clarify if someone is or is not trans at the point of decision making is the problem. Presumably you think the person's word must be taken. If they declare they are female how at the point of gatekeeping do you falsify that?
Are you suggesting that there should be access to the service and then a check with a central database followed by prosecution or that every single sex service should be able to check before access is permitted.
I'm interested in how you see this being applied because the simplest way is to retain identification documents by sex, or sex and gender. This is anathema to trans people who believe they are actually the opposite sex.