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:
SapphosRock · 04/02/2020 17:16

So the current EA wording is clear that organisations can provide single sex services - all good.

Like it or not the GRA exists and is not going to be repealed so trans women can attempt to access single sex services.

Basically the wording needs to make it clearer that single sex does not include transgender individuals. It sort of says this in a roundabout way but it needs to be clarified.

The current wording states trans women who have undergone 'gender reassignment' should be able to use female services apart from under restricted circumstances or if an exemption applies - these restricted circumstances need to be highlighted and potentially expanded in the wording.

The EA exemptions state the circumstances when it's legal to treat women who have undergone 'gender reassignment' differently to adult females and includes women's sport and sensitive job roles - gender reassignment needs to be expanded to include gender identity and expression.

thehorseandhisboy · 04/02/2020 17:22

Yes, I know what you mean. 'Gender' has replaced sex in all sorts of public forums and legislation - the WHO talk about 'gender-based' violence etc.

I was referring specifically to the protected characteristics. Gender reassignment is distinct from sex.

thehorseandhisboy · 04/02/2020 17:24

That reply to OldChrone.

Yes the meaning of 'gender reassignment' and its practical application does need to be reviewed and thought about.

Sex needs to be maintained as a distinct protected characteristic.

SomeDyke · 04/02/2020 17:30

"Therefore WPUK and the protestors hold joint responsibility for the chanting."
I am not responsible for what someone else does, no matter how hard they try to argue that I provoked them, that it is my fault for making them angry/daring to disagree/having the wrong opinion. Disgusting and totally abusive to say this.

Although weirdly you try to claim WPUK is responsible for the chanting, but not the window banging.............

Trans rights are under attack from WPUK, nobody is claiming otherwise Except they are, repeatedly. And you refuse to engage with what rights people want to remove, whilst refusing to acknowledge the removal of womens rights that goes along with it.

This whole issue arises from the basic fact of trying to replace facts with subjective opinions, and the issues when everyone else is required to not challenge someone elses subjective opinion, or pretend that they don't. No surprise if the law gets tangled and contradictory. So, let's just stop doing it then. Stop putting legal fictions on official documents, whilst allowing people to be called what they like, present as they like etc etc. and let them do so without harassment, whilst retaining the facts as to sex for the situations where they are required. Objective facts not subjective opinions.

Thelnebriati · 04/02/2020 17:32

Sex needs to be maintained as a distinct protected characteristic, and no belief based characteristic should be able to override it.

Imo, its like arguing that a doctor should be able to deny a woman access to an abortion, based on their personal belief that abortion is wrong.

TruthOnTrial · 04/02/2020 17:39

Gender based violence.

Gender in this context attributing a social behaviour linked to a particular sex, which is what I always have believed it to mean.

So violence is gendered. As in, men predominantly perpetrate violence against women, therefore predominantly male, so, socially, its 'gendered'

However, speaking to animal breeders about tue gender of their animals would be a nonsense, because the animals are driven by their sex and not socialisation (unless trained specifically to alter their behaviour just like women perhaps )

OldCrone · 04/02/2020 17:40

The EA exemptions state the circumstances when it's legal to treat women who have undergone 'gender reassignment' differently to adult females and includes women's sport and sensitive job roles

You keep saying that, but you still haven't explained how it can happen, when a transwoman with a GRC is legally indistinguishable from a woman.

gender reassignment needs to be expanded to include gender identity and expression.

Wouldn't that make the problem worse? So any old cross dresser could gain access to all women's spaces (because the exemptions are impossible to enforce). I'm assuming gender expression means cross dressing (what else could it mean?)

TruthOnTrial · 04/02/2020 17:40

Or, inebriati claiming you can't have an abortion because you've literally 'changed sex' to male and therefore can't be pregnant.

This is just tying everyone up in knots.

SapphosRock · 04/02/2020 17:42

And you refuse to engage with what rights people want to remove

Erm pardon? The Gender Recognition Act is what WPUK want to remove. We've been discussing it the entire thread.

Imnobody4 · 04/02/2020 17:43

SapphosRock
How do you see the distinction between sex and gender being enforced by single sex services?

OldCrone · 04/02/2020 17:44

Repealing the GRA will not remove any rights from anyone. People with GRCs would be allowed to retain them, but no new ones would be issued. Why is that so hard to understand?

Thelnebriati · 04/02/2020 17:46

This thread is to discuss the policing of the meeting.

The GRA was introduced to facilitate same sex marriage, which is now legal. It is impacting on women's rights, which is not.
Many people want us to stop talking about our sex based rights.

thehorseandhisboy · 04/02/2020 17:47

TruthonTrial yes although the creeping use of gender rather than sex has contributed to the fact that women are now on the back foot as regards the word 'woman'.

We're repeatedly having to argue that sex and 'women' is rooted in biological and material reality, when that should be completely obvious.

We've all become used to the mixing up of sex and gender.

Violence is only gendered if you start from the reality-base of distinct sexes being a biological truth. If that is acquiesced, violence will be a 'spectrum' which can't meaningfully name the the sex class that mainly perpetrates it or the sex class who is generally on the receiving end.

thehorseandhisboy · 04/02/2020 17:48

Thelbebriati hide the thread if it doesn't interest you. Or don't click on it.

Imnobody4 · 04/02/2020 17:50

Thelnebriati
Pregnancy like sex is an immutable biological reality. Beliefs about abortion are personal like views about gender.
You either are pregnant or not, you are either male or female. Your belief is neither here nor there.

wellbehavedwomen · 04/02/2020 18:00

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

Really. You don't think the existing evidence of this phenomenon would suffice?

IHave a google. Use any search terms you can think of. I did, when first exposed to this, because I was sure that if the claim was fault on both sides, then it would be out there, right? Wrong. What I found was the claim that women wanting to discuss concerns on how this might affect us was described as: hatred; bigotry; literal violence; killing trans people; denying trans people's right to exist... and deserving any level of physical violence back as a form of self-defence. For wanting to do anything but centre the wants of transwomen at all times. Oh, and not doing that causes trans people to kill themselves.

Run that little lot through the Freedom Programme sometime. Because it falls squarely within the abuser's playbook. As does blaming women for their own abuse.

TruthOnTrial · 04/02/2020 18:04

Yes, I am saying its the only way in which I hear the expression used accurately any more, in the sense its gendered, social behaviour stereotypically male.

Theres so much ridiculous circling going on on this thread
..still

SomeDyke · 04/02/2020 18:17

gender reassignment needs to be expanded to include gender identity and expression.
Adding more 'subjective opinions' to the law would make the situation worse, not better!

I probably started where most others on these boards started, being 'nice' to those who wanted us to be nice to them and 'pretend' they were what they were not. But no more. And asking the law to do the same to get around what was a different problem (no same sex marriage at the time, etc), but which is no longer a problem in the same sense, is just bad law. The only place in law for subjective opinion is where you are talking about, for example, harassment of people based on their sexual orientation or their perceived sexual orientation.

Have laws that protect people being discriminated against based on their sex, their sexual orientation, or their particular gender beliefs or gender presentation, as well as other beliefs, but don't have laws that require us to believe what they also believe, or pretend that we do. We can already see that trying to maintain that level of dissonance is harming women and girls.

wellbehavedwomen · 04/02/2020 18:46

@SapphosRock the Equality Act is already being ignored. We already have self ID in practice, if not in law. Center Parcs allow self identified transwomen to use the single sex communal changing rooms. No warning to the women and their children that this is now the case. Just a done deal. They were told that was already the law, by a transwoman who went to the press when told to use the unisex spaces. This transwoman appeared here on Mumsnet to gloat, and when I carefully explained how a male body in a woman's space could scare and upset some women, and risked genuinely retraumatising rape victims, because women live in fear of male violence all their lives... and they responded by saying I was clearly obsessed by their body, and it was really creepy. (Which is good, because it's always best when people tell you who they are themselves.) And they also insisted they were female. Not just a woman: female. That's the new claim. Sex is being erased as a category with meaning. Which means, effectively, that so are women's rights.

Did you know that the CPS have issued guidance to schools, together with Stonewall, that creates a hierarchy of protected characteristics? It specifically says LGBT bullying is worse than racist or ableist and more harmful. All facilities must be available to the child in their identified gender, which is against the Equality Act, sure... but the CPS don't seem to care. It also specifically states that lesbian girls may be commiting a hate incident if they reject transgirls (no clarity on what is meant by "rejection"), that girls can't challenge males in loos or changing rooms, and that failure to include also counts as hate. Please bear in mind that as the police presently see things, all a hate incident needs is someone to see it as hateful. Wholly subjective. Yet a report can end up on your enhanced DBS, without your ability to challenge it. Bit of an issue, that, no? Have a look at the threads on that CPS guidance here on Mumsnet. It's eyewatering - as is the fact parents weren't allowed to see it. It was locked to teachers only (they missed the fact that teachers often ARE parents...)

The guidance is silent on hatred for women. Yet one rape on school grounds is reported to the police every single school day of the year, on average. And that's the tip of the iceberg, in terms of misogynistic abuse. But it's not recognised as hate at all, and rape has effectively been decriminalised, if you look at conviction rates. The CPS were silent on the impact on girls of misogyny in schools. Just vocal on how girls couldn't enforce their boundaries. Can't say no to those they identify as male. Can you see an issue with that training?

You may also want to have a google in terms of the experiences of young lesbians, on anonymous talk boards, with regard to transwomen insisting on being lesbian, too, and denial of their validity in that regard is a 'genital fetish' and makes a lesbian who isn't into natal males hateful and bigoted. The Guardian sent two 'lesbians' on a blind date, without mentioning to the woman that the other was a trans. The transwoman then posted angrily on Twitter when the woman cancelled the second date, heavily implying the trans status was why. It's a thing - a transwoman called it the "Cotton Ceiling", because lesbians generally don't want to have sex with natal males, what with being attracted to females, but apparently this is akin to the glass ceiling and needs to be challenged. Cotton ceiling refers to underwear, btw.

I also note that it's unlawful to out someone with a GRC. So how exactly can you prevent single sex provision being available to them, far less insisting that they be made to show trans status? That is to remove the existing rights of those with a GRC - something you're against?

You're where I was when I first stumbled into this, I think. lt seems so crazy that you're fumbling about trying to make it fit into some coherent sense, because surely, SURELY, for this to be the standard progressive stance, it must be akin to race and sex and sexual orientation, and it has to be reasonable really - right?

Unfortunately not. And the more you read, the more upsetting it gets. My mum is really, really upset by this. She fought so hard to build a better world for women. And here we are, seeing those gains silently dismantled for our own daughters. What choice have we, but to speak up?

Thelnebriati · 04/02/2020 19:09

Women are losing rights we already had to fight for once. That should be a lesson for everyone who thinks they are 'winning' now.

LangClegsInSpace · 04/02/2020 22:36

The EA is crystal clear.

Sex is a protected characteristic. Gender is not. Gender reassignment is a protected characteristic. It does not change your sex.

If you have the PC of GR you must not be treated worse, directly or indirectly, than a comparable person who does not share the PC of GR. Tw must not be treated worse than men. Tm must not be treated worse than women.

Additionally you must not be harassed or victimised because of your PC of GR.

The single sex exceptions allow an organisation to keep all males out of female only spaces and services.

The ambiguity comes from the GRA:

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

And all because the alternative was equal marriage. In the 21st century it was considered better to give away all of women's rights than to allow two men or two women to marry each other. It's an incredibly homophobic and misogynist law.

We've got equal marriage now so there's no reason to continue giving away all of women's rights unless you just hate women. The only thing a GRA is good for now is creating ambiguity between sex and gender in the EA.

Of course it should go.

Nevertheless, nobody has ever made this argument from a WPUK platform. I feel confident saying that because if they had we would never have heard the end of it.

LangClegsInSpace · 04/02/2020 23:14

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.

I completely disagree.

The EA is miles long and most of it is about ways in which it's lawful to treat people differently in specific circumstances. It's an amalgamation of numerous older laws like the disability discrimination act, race relations act and sex discrimination act, several iterations of each, each with their body of still valid case law. The EA is incredibly complex and intricate and the way all these rights interact with each other is still being worked out through ongoing case law. Changing any small part of it risks unintended consequences.

Much less complicated to repeal a law that no longer does anything except for allowing someone to change the sex on their birth certificate and prohibiting everyone else from saying anything.

Prawnofthepatriarchy · 05/02/2020 01:00

How very clear your explanation is, LangClegsInSpace. I am lost in admiration.

wellbehavedwomen · 05/02/2020 02:12

Seconded.

OhDeez · 05/02/2020 02:18

How does a woman 'live as' a man?

May I direct you to this video and song........