Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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:
TheProdigalKittensReturn · 05/02/2020 11:08

Pretty sure anyone turning up now can still extrapolate most of what Deez said based on the remaining posts anyway.

littlbrowndog · 05/02/2020 11:10

It’s like. Oh what is it trying to think.

Oh yeah got it

Women talking

Which is really what this thread was about

nolongersurprised · 05/02/2020 11:14

Pretty sure anyone turning up now can still extrapolate most of what Deez said based on the remaining posts anyway.

Most of the deleted ones consisted of Deez calling the women here “cunts”. In varied ways. And there was a Bob Dylan song that they posted the lyrics to.

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 05/02/2020 11:15

Wait, why delete the Dylan song? I mean, it was daft, but no offensive other in that his voice is irritating.

(Don't kill me, Dylan fans)

ScrimshawTheSecond · 05/02/2020 11:22

Judas!

wellbehavedwomen · 05/02/2020 11:22

"SHOW COMPASSION! Or it's the gulags for you, you cunts."

What a tempting glimpse of the sunlit uplands. Why would any woman protest?

WomanBornNotWorn · 05/02/2020 11:47

Um ... Hello?

I'm sorry to have missed Deez' contributions - they seem to have been mostly deleted before I got back. I imagine they would have been interesting.

Anyway.

Where was I.

This thread is about my complaint to Sussex Police, specifically about the way they chose to police the Brighton WPUK meeting in September. There are many videos online that evidence what happened, and what was said at the meeting, and the attitude and behaviour of both groups, that I hope Deez will take time to watch.

I entirely support both the right to free association / to meet AND the right to free speech / to protest etc.

However, the police initially allowed behaviour that went beyond reasonable protest.

I will be appealing on the basis that:

They were slow to respond to the changed venue - I managed to get there before the protestors, so could they.

Attendees (almost entirely older women) were harrassed going in by protestors (including men), without police control.

Audio from WPUK videos inside show police allowed physical thumping and kicking the plate glass windows for a long time - had the glass broken, protestors would have fallen through a) onto our heads and b) 6' down onto shattered glass.

Julie Bindel's video outside shows police officers doing nothing while the glass thumping went on.

I'll keep you posted.

OP posts:
WomanBornNotWorn · 05/02/2020 11:53

PS if you weren't there - imagine being in a closed semi underground room, with windows 6' up all along one wall, your ears popping with the changing air pressure due to the constant thumping on the glass, the constant fear that protestors and glass might fall through onto us, and also the constant fear of 'how the hell are we going to get out of here and to the station, in the dark, with a crowd in that mood outside waiting for us?'

OP posts:
TheChampagneGalop · 05/02/2020 11:54

"Have you ever had sex" was pretty amazing. No, the average mumsnet user is obviously a virgin.

NonHypotheticalLurkingParent · 05/02/2020 11:55

It’s gone from bonkers to outright bizarre.

I reported my first ever post. OhDeez telling DickKerrLadies that she probably has ASD if she doesn’t know what it feels like to be ‘a lady’.

Now that is a truly bigoted point of view.

I’ll leave this here with no comment.

RoyalCorgi · 05/02/2020 13:11

"Have you ever had sex" was pretty amazing. No, the average mumsnet user is obviously a virgin.

Grin

Yes, the clue's in the name of the site, isn't it. Probably easy to miss if you're terminally stupid.

TruthOnTrial · 05/02/2020 13:21

Thats a phenomenal number of deketions for breaking TGs, but as deez claims it only takes 10 mins to get round MN bans, they'll be back uber soon if theyve been banned.

I am glad many of the comments remained, as I've had quite an insight into some of the thinking behind someone wholly absorbed in transideology.

It makes me wonder why I haven't yet witnessed any similar promoter being able to speak abouttrans rights without resorting to insults to any that disagree, threats to MN of consequences, the requests of other commenters to share intimate info about such things as rape and experience of sex, claiming questions are not being answered, despite the lengthy, well constructed posts explaining in detail all manner of well researched data and biology, being in the vast majority, and very obviously so.

All the claims to being a woman despite being biologically male were based on harmful sexist gender stereotypes.

I did find myself ticking off the list, and thinking of those I've known to show traits from both lists of both sexes, including myself.

I wish, to a degree I'd seen the other deleted messages, but it's fair that they be removed because they'd become so damaging potentially for sufferers of violence and those still living in fear as a result that may be lurking.

The way the experience of being inside that room has been stated on this thread does sound dangerous, and that policing was inadequate, it was more luck that none of those assaults with fists and boots on the glass resulted in serious harm, whilst it didn't happen, that wasn't because of police policing.

This is not how the right to hold a meeting looks.

This is not something anyone of any sex should have to contend with, and absolutely is uncontrolled intimidation.

MuthaFunka61 · 05/02/2020 15:06

I had written out a lengthy post explaining that I've counselled women,men,gay,straight,trans in couple and individual settings. That we all have culturally constructed feminine and masculine aspects to our personality and how to discern thoughts from feelings.
I also wrote about the logical consequences of following through the narrative of the current TRAs and how there's no longitudinal evidence showing that SRS increases MH resilience or quality of life.

I did all this so that Deez could maybe understand why there's not likely to be agreement that theres any such thing as 'feeling like a woman' and why there's no substance to 'being born in the wrong body'.

Then Mn swallowed my fab post including links to research and studies and the culmination of my 30 years of experience as a counsellor.

Dammit!

In the meantime the usual adult tantrums including aggression and threats seems to have happened (yet again) when women disagree with a controlling male.

Ah,well. Maybe next time.

Imnobody4 · 05/02/2020 15:34

WomanBornNotWorn
Glad to hear you're pursuing this. It simply was not peaceful protest. It's intention was to instill fear. Compare to the Anna Soubrey Brexit harassment - men were prosecuted.

ItsLateHumpty · 05/02/2020 15:36

Thanks WomanBornNotWorn Brew

Michelleoftheresistance · 05/02/2020 16:45

The central question would seem that had it been a trans related group inside that room and a non trans related group outside the room kicking on windows, screaming and intimidating, would the police have stood around murmuring politely about people's rights to protest?

Equality before the law?
Non politicised policing, as required by the Police's own regulations?

BringbackLang · 05/02/2020 16:58

I honestly believe that if it was the other way round, Michelle, that the police would have dealt with the situation properly. There would have been a lot of hand wringing plus widespread condemnation in the press and from all political parties.

Michelleoftheresistance · 05/02/2020 17:05

Yes, I strongly suspect there would have been massed arrests and prosecutions.

SapphosRock · 05/02/2020 17:13

Hmmm I'm not sure. Didn't Posie Parker and co protest a Sonewall conference without any arrests and prosecutions?

Did the Police do anything when Posie Parker stormed that trans meeting to confront Sarah McBride?

I agree that TRA banging on the window was a step too far but it seems they acted within the law.

BringbackLang · 05/02/2020 17:21

That was in the USA. We're talking about the UK. Women were asked to leave a conference doing nothing other than sitting on a chair and eating pizza (no threats, no abusive words, no banging on windows, bomb threats). Women have had the police called on them for handing out leaflets so yes I believe that it would happen.

SapphosRock · 05/02/2020 17:28

I see your point but I still think the anti surgery placards from Posie were intimidating. They reminded me too much of anti abortion protestors - perhaps not physically threatening but threatening nonetheless.

SomeDyke · 05/02/2020 17:30

Did the Police do anything when Posie Parker stormed that trans meeting to confront Sarah McBride?

Stormed? Storming a building/room/meeting would usually require more than one woman just walking in. She didn't even walk in in a particularly 'stormy' way, she just walked in and started asking questions? I've been in meetings where someone has stormed in, and meetings where a group has attempted to storm in, but 'woman walking in quietly and then talking and asking questions' doesn't really fit my definition of 'storming'. But then since my definition of woman doesn't fit the TRA definition, nor do they agree as regards the meaning of 'violence', then maybe they differ as regards 'storming' as well....................

But thanks for providing the evidence as well, saved us all time!

Cascade220 · 05/02/2020 17:43

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Cascade220 · 05/02/2020 17:44

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BatShite · 05/02/2020 17:46

A few women have protested a few Stonewall type things. The difference in protest style is huge. Women holding signs and talking to people. 'Trans supporters' (largely older men and some young women) go more for aggression, intimidation, insults and sometimes, actual assault too.

Yet its made out to be a 'both sides are as bad as each other' thing which is total bullshit. The violence and threats, and trying to stop meetings happening at all sometimes..all comes from one side. The one thats mainly populated/controlled by males oddly enough

Swipe left for the next trending thread