Police speak to woman about "transphobic" stickers

[stumbledin]

Bit of a confusing story in the Mirror, as its not clear if the police spoke to the woman because of the stickers or because she posted on facebook supporting them i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article22562697.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/0_Trans-phobic-stickers.jpg

Just thought I would post as a record of what seems to be the willingness to interview women based on allegations of transphobia.

Even if they are clear why they are doing it!

“I asked what crime was committed. They said they weren’t sure, but it was to do with stickers on the seafront. I thought they’d have enough on their hands maintaining social distancing on the crowded beaches.”

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mum-hate-crime-probe-after-22563314

@Roswellconspiracy

Surely they would ask the nature of the complaint and wheh fold a sticker on a lamp post said keep prisons single sex, then they could just say " not a crime" and be done with it.

Surley they don't show up with no idea whether a sticker is a crime or not?

That isn't how modern policing works.

These days, even if no crime has been committed, they need to show they take the complainant seriously. So it's off to the perpetrators house (or ideally place of work, if you can get them the sack) to discuss their "thinking", just to make sure they aren't going to commit a crime in future.

Or so Humberside police tell us is how it should now work.

Personally I'm thrilled they dealt with all the real crime to make space for non crime. I would counsel all police forces in the UK to pay particular attention to how Humberside managed it, as there really must be lessons for us all there.

If police want to speak with you without arresting you, are we still allowed to say 'no comment'? That would be my preference. Let them spend the time and money gathering evidence and putting a case together and proving that you've committed a criminal offence. Or, you know, just drop it.

The worry is that "non crime hate incidents" show up when you ask for a police check.

So that woman in the Mirror article can now forget about becoming a school governer, guide leader, helping out with her school's reading project, getting accepted onto training as an HCP, teacher or classroom assistant.

Groundless and malicious complaints about things that aren't actually even against the law and certainly never make it as far as court can nonetheless have serious impacts on the accused person's life.

Harry the Owl's written about this (IIRC.)

These days, even if no crime has been committed, they need to show they take the complainant seriously.

Unless it's a serious crime which oddly seem to be taken less seriously. Guess they need to make sure they don't lose their Stonewall ranking they pay so much for.

If police want to speak with you without arresting you, are we still allowed to say 'no comment'?

If you're not under arrest why on earth would you say anything to them at all ? Unless they ask the time. Or directions. Otherwise don't bother. I know I wouldn't.

Obviously if you've been indoctrinated from an early age that all police are nice and friendly and if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear, or an equivalent bumper sticker then it won't come naturally. But for anyone who has had a bad experience with the police, it's sort of a default position.

I think you have to give them your name and address. But I would ask them to clarify what I have to say under law and then say no more than the bare minimum. I would just answer 'no comment'.

I think you have to give them your name and address

Nope. Not unless they are exercising powers under one of the anti terror bills (I really can't be arsed to delve into the random dumber machine for the section).

The paradigm is that you are minding your own business, proceeding along the public highway on foot, and you are stopped by a police officer who is not exercising any of their powers. In which case you make your excuses and leave. And they can whistle after you.

Of course if they "have reasonable cause" to suspect you of an offence, then it's a different ball game. But they have to show you theirs first and tell you. And if they don't you can ask "am I under arrest ?". If the answer is "no" then you can proceed on your merry way.

All of this changes if you are in a car (especially driving) or on private property that is not your own. Which covers stations and airports etc. In those cases the police have more power.

Reading this thread I am reminded of the 2002 film called Minority Report. I thought it scary and far fetched at the time.

Why did they have to name her son and show him in the picture too?.

@AvocadoBathroom

Why did they have to name her son and show him in the picture too?.

Because they can.

So what if the woman said, "oh yes, I love JKR, her books are fab, my children love them, she's so talented, I just wanted to endorse how much we love her work etc'?

@Divoc2020

So what if the woman said, "oh yes, I love JKR, her books are fab, my children love them, she's so talented, I just wanted to endorse how much we love her work etc'?

It doesn't matter. It's how the action or words were received that are key here. Even if true, if a person or person are upset enough, it could be viewed as a hate crime.

In Scotland, very soon, it will be viewed as a hate crime.

A lot of frothing going on, but really all people have to do is keep their view to themselves, and they'll be OK. Or at least that is what I interpret the intent behind all this to be.

I hope to be corrected - indeed am looking forward to it - with cites to legislation.

This woman is a member of a GC Facebook group I'm in, and talking about the report. She says that We Are Fair Cop are looking after her.

What if you say that the reporting was vexatious, hateful and not being able to support/ protect the rights based on your own sex was discriminatory to your identity as a woman?

Or is that laughable 'cos men always come first? Whatever guise they present under. Even men who demand you regard them as women. Once Galileo was persecuted for saying the earth went around the sun. Do we all have to recant, too? Are certain self-evident truths denied and censored now?

What if you say that the reporting was vexatious, hateful and not being able to support/ protect the rights based on your own sex was discriminatory to your identity as a woman?

Well if you can afford to go to court, let us know when you find out. Otherwise tough titty, suck it up and wear it like a badge of pride.

Why on earth should anyone have to go to court for saying they think men are not women? Do you go to court for non-crimes? This sort of sinister reporting of people who don't give any credence to 'the sun going around the earth' 'stasi and gestapo like*' groupthink of the times are being reported to police without having to go to court.

*These are not my words but the quoted words of a judge.

Ah bless, poster got titty, suck and pride into a sentence!

@Cailleach1

Why on earth should anyone have to go to court for saying they think men are not women? Do you go to court for non-crimes? This sort of sinister reporting of people who don't give any credence to 'the sun going around the earth' 'stasi and gestapo like*' groupthink of the times are being reported to police without having to go to court.

*These are not my words but the quoted words of a judge.

Ah bless, poster got titty, suck and pride into a sentence!

Well why should anyone have the Long Arm of the Law turn up at their place of work to "check their thinking" over what - by the polices own admission - wasn't a crime ?

No amount of logical contortion can make the facts of the Harry The Owl (and other) cases fit into a rational society.

There was a very real opportunity for people to use the Harry The Owl incident to flood Humberside police with reports of non crimes, and demand non crime numbers and non crime follow ups. I'm sure there are plenty of Facebook Pages about Humberside that would have provided hours of material.

But it seems to me, getting older, and further away from memories of the 60s and 70s that as social media grows and grows, the organisation of political protest has decreased in proportion.

Well who knew that West Country seaside stickers were such a big problem for the police?

No doubt they'll be interested in these ones I saw at the seaside in Weston-super-Mare. The twitter account advertised on the stickers shows self-described 'cross-dressing TV tart' 'Davina' committing acts of indecent exposure:

twitter.com/DavinaDiva/status/1265642434052214789

On second thoughts, the police would probably want to investigate me for knowing what sex Davina is. Seeing as the police proudly fly the very same pink and blue flag that's on Davina's stickers:

twitter.com/ASPoliceLGBT/status/979340240925192192

The photo upload failed - hope this works

I genuinely think Baroness Lawrence is the person to go to for this. The concept of “hate incidents” were brought in after the murder of her son to try and document the constant drip of racism faced by young black people.

Instead it’s being used to direct police towards women speaking facts and supporting other women that do the same. I think it’s racist, to use something designed to help combat racism for an entirely different purpose.

I agree NotBad. But also think - God, Baroness Lawrence doesn't need the trans lobby coming for her after everything she has been through. Half of the shouting NB kids probably don't even know who she is.

That is an interesting perspective. One which is independent of it being used against people who don't believe Trans ideology.

I think it also raises the point that the premise of simply adopting an identity of something makes rather a joke it being a protected characteristic.

Can you simply id your way into another immutable protected characteristic? Something which is a matter of fact.

Race is of course not the same as sex as it is not a binary function.

It's also standard for this movement that they never build anything themselves, they just co-opt things that other people built. Women, LGB people, and as raised here, measures originally brought in as a response to racism. The anti-racism organisation in bristol now pushes trans ideology.

The anti-racism organisation in bristol now pushes trans ideology

I always find this surprising tbh. The odeology places BAME women at the bottom of the pile. Below even the most despicable human beings like KW or JY.

The way which being unable to undress infront of unconsenting women is akin to the way black people are treated. And the way black women are used, insinuating that they cloud the definition of woman so much that adding males to the definition is the next step. Its BAME women more likely to be of a religion or culture where the lack of single sex facilities prevents them from participating in life.

And yet they still combine the two. It doesn't make sense at all.

@anotherFOIrequester

I agree NotBad. But also think - God, Baroness Lawrence doesn't need the trans lobby coming for her after everything she has been through. Half of the shouting NB kids probably don't even know who she is.

I think that’s reasonable, but she’s a member of the House of Lords now. She has an important role in legislation of the country. I’m sure she’s up to the task of protecting the real reason the concepts of “hate incidents” were implemented. Would be interested to know if she’s aware of such abuse of the system.