Kelly-Jay currently being arrested in Leeds

[BettyFloop]

She's live streaming on YT

Well nobody here seems able to define what a political organisation is either.

Why are you here speculating so wildly?

I could hazard a guess, but not being blessed with the gift of telepathy, I could of course be wrong.

Still, at least the wild-straw-grasping is keeping the thread bumped.

And it's pretty clear to anyone who watches the videos - even if only the shorter of the two rather than all of Posie's life feed (in the OP) that something is very, very wrong with this as a piece of policing.

Anyway, worth posting the shorter of the videos again (only 3 minutes 16 long)

so that people who are interested can watch it and make their own minds up.

And remember: even if you disagree with Posie's views, the question you should be asking about is do you want your rights to express a political opinion suppressed in this way? Because that's the thing about the law and about policing - they should be applied, impartially, in the same way to everyone. So if the police think this is okay wrt to Posie's demo, they should think the same way about all demos.

SorryImKnew

You’re commenting an awful lot for someone that had no interest in this earlier.

Still, at least the wild-straw-grasping is keeping the thread bumped. Says the one who thinks that getting arrested by the police and not being allowed to speak was Posie et als master genius plan all along!

The other thing worth bearing in mind is that English law has always typically shied away from proscriptive lists of things - the distinction between "behaviour is banned unless we explicitly say it's okay" and "behaviour is okay unless we explicitly say it's banned." English law has always tended towards the latter. And vast screeds have been written about this tendency being a good thing because insofar as mistakes are made, they err on the side of over-tolerance rather than knee jerk repression.

So I think the principle in English case law, as it has traditionally been seen, would be that coming up with a list of what counts as acceptably political would be a bad thing because it would default towards intolerance and repression, rather than defaulting towards tolerance and openess.

Yes, that is definitely (sic) an equivalent action.

I've no interest in transwomen and 'women's spaces', but I find this interesting for other reasons. Mainly as a lesson on how not to round up a posse.

Are you the thread police/thought police Milly?
Can I only join in the discussion if I'm a fan of Posie?

You’re commenting an awful lot for someone that had no interest in this earlier.

Indeed. And if he wanted to know what the definition of a political organisation is, then Google is his friend. But no, demanding responses here from women instead seems to be more preferable. Possibly for screenshot purchases.

Here they are

If it is a case of keep bumping the thread, I like this picture that Lily Maynard made.

Police using power of law, without foundation, to prevent protest and posting here are definitely similar actions.

* SorryImKnew*
Organiser, or Claire who appears to have been the one liaising with the police, should have clarified that they were exempt from the Rule of Six and got it in writing from the police. Then they could have waxed lyrical ad nauseum.
Why are you here speculating so wildly?

Cause they're not interested and it's not relevant of course.

That is shocking really. On a shallow note, I now really want a thought criminal tee.

And if he wanted to know what the definition of a political organisation is, then Google is his friend

It's irrelevant what the dictionary definition is or what google says. What's relevant is how it's defined in the legislation.

And as I've said earlier, I'm a she. You're all very paranoid that women who don't follow your views with cult-like reverence are men lol.

'Tis all a conspiracy.

@PronounssheRa

Just re-posting your link:
mobile.twitter.com/AdamWagner1/status/1307749369505083394

Adam Wagner is a human rights barrister. He is also (if memory serves me right) of the opinion that Posie's political views are wrong. He still thinks the police are legally in the wrong on this one.

Well nobody here seems able to define what a political organisation is either

I think someone already linked this but here it is again...

mobile.twitter.com/AdamWagner1/status/1307749373586087937

Cross-post Signal

It's irrelevant what the dictionary definition is or what google says. What's relevant is how it's defined in the legislation.

Google is also able to provide this information

And as I've said earlier, I'm a she. You're all very paranoid that women who don't follow your views with cult-like reverence are men lol

I have no idea what sex you are. I can't see through your screen. I chose he but I could have just as easily chosen she as well. And as I'm not hanging on your every word I didn't see your post identifying yourself as a female.

as I'm not hanging on your every word

How are you replying to me then?

Replying to you does not have a requirement that I go back and check every single one of your posts. Hope this clears things up for you.

I think the problem lies with Claire who according to the police, never stated that they were a political body/organisation when speaking to them. Then you've the one who states it's like Speakers Corner.... which again is not a political organisation. It's a soap-box for people who like the sound of their own voices. Not a political organisation though.

Well read the thread Kaza before accusing me of being a man/troll-hunting.

Posie was the organiser. She clearly stated to the police that it was a political organisation. The problem is that the police decided, incorrectly, to ascertain that a political women's rights organisation is not political.

Let's stop and think for a moment what a proscriptive list of permitted political organisations, or a legal set of criteria as to what counted as legitimate political organisation would look like.

The list, or the criteria, would have to have been drawn up by someone. In order for it to carry the necessary legal clout, that someone would have to be a someone already with political power - so a someone with a vested interest in permitting certain opinions to be voiced and not others.

In other words, insisting on a permitted list or an exhaustive set of criteria to be met would pretty much guarantee an intolerant society and the criminalising of political dissent against those already in power.

It's not the sort of society I would want to live in.

(Perhaps courses on political philosophy should be compulsory in secondary schools. I'd put Mill, Solzhenitsyn, Jung Chang and Vaclav Havel on the reading list for starters. With perhaps a screening of "The Killing Fields" as well.)

Bit late in the game stating they were a political organisation when she was about to be arrested!