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:
LangClegsInSpace · 03/02/2020 20:39

Thanks Sappho, it was lovely to watch Helen Saxby's talk again Smile

She has a huge talent for getting right to the heart of things in very clear language. It's a great intro video for anyone wondering what the fuss is about. She also has a blog:

notthenewsinbriefs.wordpress.com/

I couldn't find the bit where she said the GRA should not have been passed and I think if anybody had said that, from a WPUK platform, in early 2018, we would all have heard about it. She talked about why the GRA was passed and what the expectations were at the time and how things have changed since 2004.

And of course TWANW and Helen Saxby explains clearly in this video why it's important to not just politely pretend that they are.

Women are adult human females. Transwomen are not. Sex is a protected characteristic.

SapphosRock · 03/02/2020 20:40

It's sad that there has been so much tension (twice) at the WPUK meetings as Brighton is generally the place where women and trans women peacefully co-exist.

All the public swimming pools have gender neutral changing rooms with lockable cubicles. Pretty much every pub, club and entertainment venue has male, female and gender neutral toilets. Brighton is actually at the forefront of providing the third space that women are asking for.

littlbrowndog · 03/02/2020 20:47

Tension. Lols. All of them sapphos

You mean aggression towards women meeting

Jeez

littlbrowndog · 03/02/2020 20:48

You still never said where women should meet ?

vickyjgo · 03/02/2020 20:50

Just so that you are aware the bomb hoax at Hastings was made by someone in the USA not from the UK.

LangClegsInSpace · 03/02/2020 20:51

That sounds potentially good Sapphos, why not start a thread on how third spaces are working out in practice in Brighton? I'd be interested.

This thread is about the police response to the heavy intimidation faced by women attending a left wing women's rights meeting on the fringe of the labour party conference.

You say you like Julie Bindel and Kathleen Stock. You can't like them that much if you think it's fine for them to have to face this sort of shit wherever they speak.

LangClegsInSpace · 03/02/2020 20:54

WomanBornNotWorn have you been given any info on how to escalate if you want to - 'If you are not satisfied with our response ...'

vickyjgo · 03/02/2020 20:56

It does look like the police had a difficult task with this meeting being moved as it was. The police look to have had a good hold on the situation at the Odeon but were only told about the change 30 minutes before the meeting started. I would ask why the organisers left it this late to inform the police?

Given more time the police may well have been able to organise a better response although it sounds like the venue and the room were right up against the public street so there was little chance of them being able to police the protesters away from the venue without breaking the law giving them the right to protest.

TruthOnTrial · 03/02/2020 20:59

I think it's best you start by reading the thread vicky as all the answers have already been discussed and resolved.

Goodness me! Did you want the whole thread to start all over again because you didn't?

BringbackLang · 03/02/2020 20:59

It doesn't matter where the bomb threat was made from, Vicky. It's the fact that it was made in order to prevent women from meeting to discuss our sex based rights.

OldCrone · 03/02/2020 21:00

I would ask why the organisers left it this late to inform the police?

How much notice did they have that the original venue had cancelled? Did the Odeon cancel for the usual reason (because of threats from protestors)?

TruthOnTrial · 03/02/2020 21:01

Straws

WomanBornNotWorn · 03/02/2020 21:02

I'm considering my response. There is an appeal process which I can take so I think I will. I do accept their point about the right to meet and the right to protest both being upheld - I actually wouldn't push to have stopped anyone protesting. My issue was with allowing the behaviour to continue as it did for as long as it did, both captured on video & audio. Also I managed to get to the new venue in a taxi from town centre after getting the email, before the protestors were anything more than a distant noise in the horizon, so the police could have done it way faster. I've convinced myself, I'm going in.

OP posts:
littlbrowndog · 03/02/2020 21:04

💪 go woman

littleslummygirl · 03/02/2020 21:12

I made a complaint too and got the same response. Have mulled it over re next steps. As I recall and will go back to check, protest could have been marshalled to stand on corner opposite venue entrance.
And yes, express opinions, loudly. But it was intimidatory

pombear · 03/02/2020 21:28

Sappho

Here you go @LangClegsInSpace - the first speaker from the 2018 meeting, how the GRA shouldn't have been passed and how trans women are not women*

As others have pointed out upthread:

  • thanks again for sharing Helen's fantastic speech, clear, to the point, nailed it! There's been so many great talks over the last few years, it's great to go back to some of the earlier ones. Ta!
  • how the GRA shouldn't have been passed Erm, did you watch the link before you posted it? Every single person who chooses to watch the link you posted surely will also go 'huh'? At no point does she say this. Are you hoping we read your words without looking at your link?
  • and how transwomen are not women How very dare she!
ScrimshawTheSecond · 03/02/2020 21:29

I think you sound very reasonable, OP. I would like someone from teh police to acknowledge that women have the right to meet free of harassment and intimidation.

CallofDoodee · 03/02/2020 22:06

Having read this thread, I'm stunned that someone would think that a satisfactory answer to the question 'what is a woman' is

'A person who feels like a woman'

😂

Floisme · 03/02/2020 22:15

Not Daimbars or Bespin either. This is going to drive me nuts Grin
She described herself as a young lesbian mum living in Brighton and what I also remember - apart from her habit of, claiming she had a cake to ice (it was Christmas) and disappearing whenever she was losing the argument - is her inviting us all to join her for a pint in her local so she could show us what a peaceful and tolerant place it was, and how safe it was for women, which seems pretty ironic now in the light of more recent events.

AnyOldSpartabix · 03/02/2020 22:20

Just so that you are aware the bomb hoax at Hastings was made by someone in the USA not from the UK.

The UK police searched a nearby house shortly after the threat and discovered bomb-making materials. It was never stated whether these were linked, but seems suspcicious. The threat was made via Twitter, so easy to use a proxy to disguise the source. Or do you have a credible news outlet confirming the threat genuinely came from outside the UK?

LangClegsInSpace · 03/02/2020 22:40

It was never stated whether these were linked

I find it interesting that it was never denied.

There was never any statement from the police that said 'we have no evidence at this stage that the bomb making equipment we have seized is connected with the recent threats made against WPUK' They didn't offer any alternative theories about who was making the bombs and who they were intended to harm.

Usually the police can't wait to make a 'we have no evidence' statement in these circumstances, just to stop people panicking. Usually if bomb making equipment is seized they can't wait to give some sort of statement about how we are all safer now and what sort of plot they have foiled.

AnyOldSpartabix · 03/02/2020 22:44

It was the same date:

Police tweeted that they were investigating:

twitter.com/hastings_police/status/1007627071122759681?s=21

Then the local newspapers reported on potential explosives found:

www.hastingsobserver.co.uk/news/bomb-squad-called-st-leonards-1021558

www.theargus.co.uk/news/16294758.potentially-explosive-materials-found-in-house-in-bexhill-road-st-leonards/

OhDeez · 03/02/2020 22:55

Ever enter your heads that they are not linked and were related to terrorism?

OldCrone · 03/02/2020 22:58

OhDeez Bomb threats are terrorism.

Aesopfable · 03/02/2020 23:15

Hi OhDeez! You seem to have forgotten to answer my question:

What do you this is the cause of oppression that women face?