My complaint to Sussex Police re their handling of protest at WPUK Brighton Meeting

[WomanBornNotWorn]

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."

@OhDeez the judicial review is because Mr Miller hadn't fallen foul of the law. The police confirmed that. There was no law broken at all. They were calling to 'check his thinking', and a non-crime hate incident was going to be filed, because he'd said he didn't think someone can be a woman just because they say so. Hence the judicial review.

They're asking to be treated as the gender they have transformed to. Transformed? I assume you mean transitioned?

As to why transwomen pose a risk: government statistics say 1 in 50 male prisoners identify as women. 95% of prisoners are men, most violent offenders. Of the 5% of women prisoners, most are financial offenders. More than 98% of sexual crime is by biologically male people and transwomen commit those crimes along lines of biological sex, not gender identity. This should not surprise anyone, who stops to think about it - why would a male suddenly stop posing the same risk as any other male, just because a claim to feel like a woman is made? That's magical thinking.

This matters for a lot of reasons - not only our safety in single sex spaces in the wider world, if we stop being able to challenge males entering because we don't know how they identify, but the safety and dignity of some of the most marginalised women in our society. There are thirteen and a half thousand men in jail for sexual offences, and around 126 women, give or take (that stat was from 2 years ago; two years before that it was 128). Women in jail are almost all survivors of male sexual abuse, more than half of them as children. Yet male rapists, identifying as women, have assaulted them after being moved into the female estate. All the prison charities, plus Rhona Hotchkiss, a former prison governor, say that all women are terrified by any male in women's jails, however that male identifies, and that sexual harassment by such males is rife when transfers on grounds of gender id are permitted. This holds true in every country where such transfers are allowed. There have been several rapes internationally, and yet this policy continues regardless.

Women in rape crisis centres and women's shelters are terrified of male people. It's a trauma response and not something women should, far less could, be trained out of - they are already familiar with gaslighting and being bullied into denying reality. Karen Ingala Smith, who has run a women's refuge charity for over a decade, is very clear that they must be single sex if the women are to be supported adequately. She also notes that it is simply impossible to safeguard and check every person joining a shelter in the very small window of time available, and that the single biggest safeguarding protection possible is to exclude males.

Sport - there is a ten percent average advantage to male puberty, and male hormones. The evidence on that is extremely clear to anyone with eyes. Yet transwomen are now able to compete against natal women. This is clearly unreasonable.

Women have a right to get changed and to sleep in dormitories and to have intimate care provided by females. If you look into the history of single sex provision, you'll find it was a key factor in women's being able to participate in society, and in much of the world, the fight to secure that provision is still ongoing. For many NGOs, it's a key campaign, in fact, for women's dignity, safety and participation. Yet in this country, more and more provision is quietly becoming unisex. In schools especially, this often means girls can't use it. How is that okay? Sex is supposed to be a protected characteristic in the Equality Act, too. Where is that being upheld? And if the GRA is reformed as argued, how can that be properly upheld?

All over the world, women are aborted prior to birth, abandoned after birth, genitally mutilated, married off as children, raped, abused, and trafficked. One in 200 people alive today are modern slaves - hence the blurb at the bottom of large firm's websites - and 71% of modern slaves are women. We are massively underrepresented in government, the senior echelons of the law, business, the media and finance. We earn less, we influence less, and we carry most of the unpaid, invisible labour. NONE of that is down to gender identity. Nobody checks that baby girl's inner sense of whether she's male or female before restricting her life choices. It's sex. And when we're being discriminated against or abused, somehow people know precisely how to tell if we're a woman or not.

Women need to be accurately identified in data sets if we are to have our pay, our representation, and our societal participation correctly recorded. Reducing womanhood to a consumer choice, which seems to be Stonewall's latest umbrella-based argument, eliminates our ability to recognise what a woman is, and provide enforceable protections and accurate data sets. It erases us as a class altogether, and this means our rights and protections become nominal, as they will cease to be enforceable.

There is no evidence at all that there is an innate male brain and an innate female brain. Any differences are just as likely to be from developmental processes around socialisation - the jury on that is completely out. But even if you accept that - that there is a gendered brain type - then you would have to explain away the reality that someone's entire body perfectly builds a male or female body, saturating that body with a complex array of biochemical processes mediated by hormones, yet somehow the brain - the organ directing those processes - managed to be unaffected, and indeed managed to develop with hormones and processes not physically present in that opposite sexed body. Either there's a male and female brain, or there isn't. And if there is, then by definition it could only occur in the body with the right hormones and genetics, unless that person had a DSD (formerly called intersex). There's no overlap between intersex and trans. The evidence there is very plain.

Gender dysphoria is real. People with it suffer, and deserve support and help. But it's also rare. And if you are saying that allowing any male who says, "I am a woman" to access any spaces women use, including communal changing areas, and including the provision of intimate care to that woman/demanding such intimate care from a woman, seems reasonable to you, then that's your view. To me, it sounds bonkers.

Catholics believe, I'm told, that a formula of words transforms the communion wafer and wine quite literally into the flesh and blood of Christ. I respect that belief. I would never dream of saying anything derogatory about it. But it isn't one I can share. It does not, to me, seem to be the truth. And I feel exactly the same way about the suggestion that a man can say, "I am a woman" and then magically transform into one. I have eyes, and I have a mind, and to me, that is quite self-evidently untrue. Yet I am expected to be okay with that male body sharing single sex spaces, providing single sex care, and competing in single sex sports, as a woman.

I have absolutely no animus against anyone trans. I agree that hate crimes against trans people, as with gay, disabled, or BAME people, should have that hate element as an additional factor in sentencing. I agree that it should be a protected characteristic in employment law. I personally support third spaces - prisons, loos, shelters, anywhere where trans people are also vulnerable to male violence, and need protection. What I don't agree is that a male can change into a woman, and that I should be forced to go along with what I regard as fiction. I do not think it is a woman's responsibility to either validate male desires, or protect males from other males, by risking her own safety, dignity and privacy.

If women were motivated by hatred of trans people, there would also be resentment of transmen using women's facilities, spaces and provision. But there is none. It's recognised that transmen are additionally vulnerable as they will face transphobia and misogyny, both. There is no threat to women from transmen, so no objections to their using single sex provisions, when they choose to do so.

The sole argument is against males appropriating women's provision, by a process of declaration. You are a woman if you are female. "Transwomen are women" is not a statement backed by evidence. It's a faith belief. You cannot transform sex by stating as much.

This may be an unpopular opinion, but in the absence of physical assault I'm not sure this is a valuable use of police time. The forces are so overstretched that many crimes are left completely uninvestigated - burglaries etc. I had a brand new sports hatch stolen off my drive after five weeks of ownership and didn't get a visit/call despite having CCTV footage - just an email two days later saying case closed.

"Supposed shock and surprise that a women's meeting is protested by trans people is disingenuous when large parts of the meetings focus on the negatives of the GRA, or supporting de-transitioners."

Well. There we have it, the total toxic mind-warp it in plain sight:

• The entitlement that demands support for people to transition

• a complete lack of empathy, fellow-feeling or compassion in condemning support for de-transitioners.

Why so negative about de-transitioners, SapphosRock? Put your cards on the table - let's see them.

Complete this sentence SapphosRock, "It is wrong to support de-transitioners because . . . "

Or how about this one, "People should protest against support for de-transitioners because . . . "

Most de-transitioners are decidedly gender-nonconforming, ie. under the "transgender umbrella". So much for the fabled "trans community"

In case I have not made myself clear, I think this attitude is beneath contempt and lacking in basic human decency.

What about the rights of de-transitioners? I am not aware that the WPUK meeting dealt with the disgraceful failure of the NHS to even recognise the needs of de-transitioners but good on them if they did.

"De-transitioners Rights are Human Rights" - are you Detransphobic, SapphosRock??

I'm against self=ID and some of the crap being taught at schools atm, but can understand why such a meeting may evoke protest. I'm assuming that the support of detransitioners is intended as a direct rejection of the trans ideology as.there doesn't seem to also be a focus on detoxing drug addicts, recovering alcoholics, etc, for instance.

All this could have been avoided by the police getting in touch with the e first venue and explaining why they must not cancel.

Are you suggesting on a feminist board Bratwurst that your sports car is more important than the abuse and intimidation of women?

The forces are so overstretched that many crimes are left completely uninvestigated - burglaries etc. I had a brand new sports hatch stolen off my drive after five weeks of ownership and didn't get a visit/call despite having CCTV footage - just an email two days later saying case closed.

This may be an unpopular opinion, but in the absence of physical assault I'm not sure this is a valuable use of police time.

The bomb threat was terrorism because it was for political ends.

I saw loads of messages on this so thought I would see what the police response had been.

As someone said early on, there is an implicit message from the police that women are not free to discuss women's rights in normal buildings.

Most shocking was this response from a regular poster.
What I don't understand is why WPUK choose to have these meetings in the centre of Brighton - the UK city most densely populated with trans people?

Shut up women! What are you thinking?

This may be an unpopular opinion, but in the absence of physical assault I'm not sure this is a valuable use of police time.

Popular opinion among Brighton residents. Unpopular opinion on this board. Of course the police have better things to do than deploy multiple officers for an entire evening to manage a spat between WPUK and TRAs, let alone investigate complaints about their own conduct. The force here is extremely stretched.

And yes WPUK supporting de-transitioners is part of the rejection of trans ideology as gender 'is a load of bollocks' - as the speaker in the video I shared kept smugly stating.

I wish there was a place for feminists to discuss the issues respectfully. It's a shame women with more moderate positions (supporting proper application of the EA exemptions for example) are seen as traitors or accused of being MRAs.

And yes WPUK supporting de-transitioners is part of the rejection of trans ideology

Do you not understand that this makes transgenderism and its promotion seem like a cult? Encourage children to think about their 'gender', encourage them to transition if they show any sign of confusion about their 'gender', then if they realise they've made a mistake, cast them out without any support. And finally, vilify anyone who does show them support.

Most shocking was this response from a regular poster

testing

Not shocking at all. Par for the course actually.....

Well this thread has been most illuminating. A gratuitous comparison of WPUK with the KKK. A edict that women should only be allowed to discuss women's rights in Tunbridge Wells. An attempt to blame WPUK for causing the police to divert from serious crimes by having the temerity to hold a meeting at all.

It's a shame women with more moderate positions (supporting proper application of the EA exemptions for example) are seen as traitors or accused of being MRAs.

The EA exemptions sound very good in theory, but are totally unworkable in practice. How can you exclude a man from a woman only space if he has legally changed his sex to female?

SapphosRock, I take it you think it's a waste of time having the police protect the party conference too then? Let's not bother getting the police out to events where there is a credible expectation of public order offences and possibly violence - let's just get them out when it's happened. Great plan.

From all the accounts I read at the time and the video/audio footage I saw/heard, I am in no doubt whatsoever that if the police hadn't been there the people attending this lawful meeting would have been at risk of assault and the meeting would not have been able to go ahead.

It can't be said often enough that gender critical people are not constantly on the alert for ways to shut down debate, nor are they intimidating the gender ideologues with aggressive pickets of lawful meetings. The contrast is very illuminating.

Well this thread has been most illuminating.

Confirmation that not only are women's rights seen as transphobic, but support for detransitioners is also seen as transphobic.

I'm sure the police have better things to do than policing football matches every Saturday for 9 months a year, or investigating non-crimes and checking people's thinking.

If we're talking about what should have happened in 2004, the Tories should have introduced same-sex marriage and the GRA would never have been needed. But being so homophobic as to believe that gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married tends to go hand-in-hand with the belief that men should act like men and women should act like women - so it makes sense that they'd feel more comfortable with giving GNC and dysphoric men the label of 'women'.

Sapphos this board, WPUK and multiple other forums have and are trying to discuss 'proper application of the EA exemptions' and many other nuanced and complex issues.

The problem is that the people - mainly women - having these discussions end up getting railroaded into justifying, defending and explaining why we NEED to get together either online or in person to have these discussions without fear of intimidation or threats of or actual violence.

This thread being a case in point.

If supporting young people who have medically unnecessary surgery on their bodies which they painfully regret and want to hold those who encouraged it to account and raise awareness among other young people who may be considering the same path is 'rejecting trans ideology' count me in.

Do you really not see the huge growth in young people - mainly women - who via the rabbit hole of the internet and easy access to pharmaceutical companies whose raison d'tre is to make profit
are considering making life-changing decisions about altering their bodies as something that needs to be thought and talked about?

'Trans ideology' should be the starting point of discussion and debate not an unexamined belief system.

How can you exclude a man from a woman only space if he has legally changed his sex to female?

The current EA exemptions state that it is legal to exclude trans women from female spaces if there is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The words 'transsexual status' are used so it applies if a person has legally changed their sex to female.

If organisations (particularly those helping vulnerable women) understood and felt able to apply these exemptions then it is a workable compromise. Trans people have their identities recognised and women are protected.

The WPUK speakers have touched on these exemptions a few times and that is why I was keen to attend the meetings to find out more.

Of course the police have better things to do than deploy multiple officers for an entire evening to manage a spat between WPUK and TRAs.

A spat? What happened was that WPUK held an entirely peaceful meeting to discuss issues of interest to them, and a group of violent, aggressive people, mostly men, attempted to intimidate and frighten them.

How dare you, how fucking dare you, pretend that this is a spat between two groups when all the aggression, all the violence, comes from one side?

Confirmation that not only are women's rights seen as transphobic, but support for detransitioners is also seen as transphobic

Quite so.

The current EA exemptions state that it is legal to exclude trans women from female spaces if there is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The words 'transsexual status' are used so it applies if a person has legally changed their sex to female.

But how do you identify such people if all their documents identify them as female? You are relying on them saying 'I was born male'. What if they lie and say they were born female?

If we're talking about what should have happened in 2004, the Tories should have introduced same-sex marriage

DicKerr

In 2004, the Labour govt had been in power for seven years. In 2003, they invaded Iraq.

Calling the meeting entirely peaceful is so disingenuous - of course it's not entirely peaceful. It's a complete rejection of transgender identities and everything trans people strongly believe in along with calls to repeal laws that support their rights.

If there was a meeting about the complete rejection of homosexual relationships and calls to repeal gay marriage I imagine plenty of gay people (myself included) would protest it.

Why don't people just own it and admit WPUK have taken a controversial position that wants to remove the existing rights of trans people? (Nothing wrong with that) rather than all these claims that's it's just a peaceful women's meeting and all these terrible TRAs are protesting for no reason.