Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Kelly-Jay currently being arrested in Leeds

999 replies

BettyFloop · 20/09/2020 12:31

She's live streaming on YT

OP posts:
Thread gallery
25
MillyMollyFarmer · 21/09/2020 11:02
  • Are you the thread police/thought police Milly? Can I only join in the discussion if I'm a fan of Posie?*

Of course you can. I’m pointing out your own comments on this thread! You’ve said you’re not interested in Posie, but you’re commenting a lot on the thread anyway. Posie is trying to raise awareness of certain issues. She’s been very successful clearly, even someone who repeatedly said this was irrelevant and Posie didn’t interest you, is still here talking about Posie. Don’t you realise how silly and hypocritical you look on this thread?

Butterer · 21/09/2020 11:03

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Kazakaren · 21/09/2020 11:03

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

Sorry, I won't be going back and checking all your posts. They're really not that important to this debate imo.

CaraDuneRedux · 21/09/2020 11:03

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

Source for this claim, please. Because if you can't supply documentary evidence, I stand by my earlier judgement that you're making shit up. To what end, I do not know, nor will I speculate. But unless you can substantiate this sort of claim, you should withdraw it.

SorryImKnew · 21/09/2020 11:04

@CaraDuneRedux

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.)

I'm sure Dominic Cummings fully agrees with you! Grin
CaraDuneRedux · 21/09/2020 11:06

Ah, the good old "guilt by association" card.

Do you have anything substantive to say about the political philosophy of the conditions necessary for a free and democratic society, or are you just going to resort to ad hominem attacks?

(Actually I'm pretty sure DC wouldn't agree, because DC actually wants the freedom to lie with impunity without any come-back, rather than showing any evidence of deeply held political convictions. Funnily enough, that seems vaguely familiar as a tactic.)

SorryImKnew · 21/09/2020 11:07

Source for this claim, please. Because if you can't supply documentary evidence, I stand by my earlier judgement that you're making shit up.

The video evidence of the policeman stating that he had spoken to the organisers (Claire presumably) and that whomever they had spoken to had never stated that this was a political organisation. Then you have Claire stating that she had spent 2 hours on the phone to police over the weekend. You and your cronies have actually done me the favour of transcribing the exchange a few pages back!

SorryImKnew · 21/09/2020 11:08

I think it's an interesting debate. Law interests me.

Smallsteps88 · 21/09/2020 11:09

@CrossPorpoises

We all now know exactly what women are allowed to do and not allowed to do on the streets of Leeds.

Shame on the place that gave us Jimmy fucking Savile.

Yep.

Women in Leeds exist to be purchased by men and that’s it. They must not speak.

CaraDuneRedux · 21/09/2020 11:12

Women in Leeds exist to be purchased by men and that’s it. They must not speak.

As someone who used to live in Leeds and loves the city, I can't tell you how much this enrages me.

TheFleegleHasLanded · 21/09/2020 11:16

Yet again the media portray women's rights as 'controversial'. Now, where have we heard that recently?

www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/politics/controversial-demonstration-leeds-has-been-cancelled-police-disperse-campaigners-2977771

MilleniumHallsWalledGarden · 21/09/2020 11:24

This is not a good look for Leeds. I only live a short train ride away, but there's no way I would want to work or even go shopping there now because it seems such an anti-woman city with its 'managed zone', wyp's repeated shenanigans, along with the council there cancelling the booking for the women's meeting with no notice. I don't want to give any support to such misogynists.

CrossPorpoises · 21/09/2020 11:27

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

Yay!

Signalbox · 21/09/2020 11:32

The video evidence of the policeman stating that he had spoken to the organisers (Claire presumably) and that whomever they had spoken to had never stated that this was a political organisation. Then you have Claire stating that she had spent 2 hours on the phone to police over the weekend

2+2=5

CrossPorpoises · 21/09/2020 11:33

I choose to believe it's a man which is my right.

CaraDuneRedux · 21/09/2020 11:34

That word "presumably" is doing a hell of a lot of work, isn't it? Grin Though I detect a slight back-tracking from the earlier use of the word "must." Wink

CharlieParley · 21/09/2020 11:39

Claire must have told the police that it wasn't a political protest - hence the police being able to state that they broke the rule of six. Presumably Claire stated that to avoid similar to the JKR poster decision, but it was a bit of an own goal.

She didn't do anything of the kind. As she tells it in all three videos, she very patiently explained what their political goals are, who Standing for Women, Leeds Spinners and Leeds Resisters are, and that they were political campaigning organisations formed to oppose a change in the law (this is the official, legal definition of a political campaigning organisation which I quoted earlier in this thread).

The only reason you are allowed to currently have gatherings of more than six people are:

-weddings and funerals
-significant religious rites of passage
-support groups
-sports
-education
-the criminal justice system
-work and
-political protests

Claire phoned the police precisely because she knew only a political protest would be allowed under the rules and in order to inform them that is indeed what they were planning. So it makes zero sense to assert that she must have told them it wasn't political as this would have immediately invalidated her claim to be holding a lawful gathering.

Or that they would have read the required regulations that tells the organiser which measures to take to comply with the rules in holding a lawful gathering of more than six people (such as doing a risk assessment) and then followed those to a T but ignored the very same regulations when they first specify precisely which events are allowed as exceptions to the rule of six. It's one set of regulations. One.

The police lied not about having spoken with the organiser, but that the organiser said it wasn't a political protest.

P.S. Just for those who don't know how this works. An event like this one, where one women's rights group is holding a series of events around the country, always has two sets of organisers: one from the local group that hosts the travelling group and one from the travelling group.

The job of talking to the police or any other local persons one needs to talk to about an event falls usually to the local group, who typically identify the best place to hold the event, get any necessary permits etc.

Both sets of organisers liaise throughout (KJ refers to this in her video when she says that her phone was down at dinner the night before, when they couldn't reach her). Claire eventually informed KJ about the whole conversation she had with the police and that they had said to Claire it would be better for everyone involved if they didn't hold their protest.

The police can of course say this, but I wouldn't have let that put me off holding a protest focusing on the right of women to exercising their freedom of expression in public either. Because that would have been rather self-defeating, wouldn't it?

I hope this has now cleared up your confusion.

Cascade220 · 21/09/2020 11:41

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

OldCrony · 21/09/2020 11:45

... You and your cronies

Are you deliberately hilarious?

SorryImKnew · 21/09/2020 11:48

Claire phoned the police precisely because she knew only a political protest would be allowed under the rules and in order to inform them that is indeed what they were planning. So it makes zero sense to assert that she must have told them it wasn't political as this would have immediately invalidated her claim to be holding a lawful gathering.

So you're saying that the policeman was lying when he stated on camera that nobody had advised them that it was a political organisation?

CaraDuneRedux · 21/09/2020 11:49

@OldCrony

... You and your cronies

Are you deliberately hilarious?

I'd missed that! 😂😂😂

(I've now decided to invoke the virtual "hide poster" button and just scroll past contributions from posters that I think are not contributing in any interesting way to the discussion.)

littlbrowndog · 21/09/2020 11:50

Awesome Spartacus. 💪

SorryImKnew · 21/09/2020 11:51

Thanks for clarifying that SFW are categorically stating that the police are lying on this occasion. Interesting.

SorryImKnew · 21/09/2020 11:52

I've now decided to invoke the virtual "hide poster" button and just scroll past contributions from posters that I think are not contributing in any interesting way to the discussion

Free speech you say?

Kazakaren · 21/09/2020 11:53

Free speech you say?

You have the freedom to speak.

Others have the freedom to choose not to listen to you.