My feed
Premium

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:
Report
littlbrowndog · 03/02/2020 15:03

Edinburgh off the list.

Julie Bindel was physically attacked there for being so cheeky as to attend a meeting at Edinburgh uni

Can’t have women meeting can we. ?

Women attacked in Seattle for being so cheeky as to attend a meeting talking about women’s rights

Can’t have women meeting can we ?

Report
OhDeez · 03/02/2020 15:03

Transphobia on the other hand is giving women a bad name.

Report
TruthOnTrial · 03/02/2020 15:04

I am genuinely wanting to know how the words quoted above of 'objective reality' is provocative, in any way atall?

How is objective reality provocative ?

Report
TruthOnTrial · 03/02/2020 15:05

I think its TRAs that like to give women a bad name isn't it

Report
littlbrowndog · 03/02/2020 15:05

Say the name ohdeez

Do you care about women being physically attacked ohdeez.

Or is that ok ?

Report
OhDeez · 03/02/2020 15:06

Objective reality is suggesting that trans people are imagining things. Don't be disingenuous with me.

Report
OhDeez · 03/02/2020 15:07

Women being attacked did not happen here. It was a protest.

Report
thehorseandhisboy · 03/02/2020 15:09

Sappos as far as I can see, WPUK want to protect women's rights ie sex-segregated provision, the right to have a word to describe our sex class etc.

There may be some tension with the rights of some trans people who are most welcome to put forward some coherent arguments to explain why women's rights should be removed and how the physically weaker and more oppressed sex class could sensibly function with these rights removed.

It's been a number of years now and we're still waiting...

Report
littlbrowndog · 03/02/2020 15:09

Do you care about women being attacked ohdeez ?

Report
OhDeez · 03/02/2020 15:11

Yes, I care about anybody being attacked.

Report
thehorseandhisboy · 03/02/2020 15:12

OhDeez but it's now about your rights is it? Nor mine, for that matter.

It's about the rights of women as a sex class to have privacy from the class who routinely assaults, sexually abuses and harasses them when they're in vulnerable states eg receiving medical treatment, getting undressed, fleeing domestic abuse or violence, in hospital, using the toilet etc.

If you don't value these, that's up to you, but your values (nor mine) don't define the parameters of the values and needs of half the population.

Report
thehorseandhisboy · 03/02/2020 15:13

OhDeez then you'll understand why the group of people most likely to be attacked esp sexually need some space and privacy from the group of people most likely to attack them then.

Report
OhDeez · 03/02/2020 15:15

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

TruthOnTrial · 03/02/2020 15:15

I am not being disingenuous and completely disgusted that you accuse me in this way. Thats a massive thing to say to someone.

Reality is reality, are you policing my words that are in everyday use. Compellibg my speech is what you are doing.

Are you aware of the law of coercive control, of the crimes of threat and intimidation?

Does a man have to hit a woman for there to be a crime ohdeez ?

You speak as if these laws and crimes don't exist and so long as he hasn't hit her, its ok?

Is that really what you are saying?

Report
littlbrowndog · 03/02/2020 15:16

Ohdeez should women be physically attacked and intimidated for attending women’s meeting to talk about women’s rights ?

Or told where they can have these meetings. ?

Report
OhDeez · 03/02/2020 15:16

I suggest you direct your hatred or fear to men, rather than to transgender people.

Report
TruthOnTrial · 03/02/2020 15:17

OhDeez. Read the OP and explain how exactly you are not derailing this thread please?

Report
BringbackLang · 03/02/2020 15:17

Women were intimidated, harassed, abused. Yes they were attacked. Attacked for exercising there right to meet and discuss issue that relate to them. But our feelings don't count now do they.

Report
littlbrowndog · 03/02/2020 15:18

Horse never said that ?

What are you talking about ?

🤷‍♀️

Report
OldCrone · 03/02/2020 15:18

What evidence have you thehorseandhisboy that trans people are the most likely group to attack women?

They're not. But men are.

Report
OhDeez · 03/02/2020 15:18

Nobody was physically attacked. Stop exaggerating.

Report
LangClegsInSpace · 03/02/2020 15:18

... or supporting de-transitioners

Wow. What a revealing thread this is.

Report
BringbackLang · 03/02/2020 15:19

Bit rich to say no one was attacked when words are literal violence Hmm

Report
OhDeez · 03/02/2020 15:19

I'm discussing the thread. If you wanted only anti-trans people to post, perhaps specify that in the thread title.

Report
TruthOnTrial · 03/02/2020 15:20

So long as nobody was physically attacked it seems all others behaviours are completely acceptable. What an insightful statement you've made there about your behavioirs deez

Report
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.