Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Janice Turner today on making misogyny a hate crime

80 replies

ErrolTheDragon · 26/09/2020 08:34

In the Times today.
As usual, a clear piece, and anticipating whining comments from men re wolf whistling etc which hopefully they'll heed (I've not looked at them yet)

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/misogyny-is-much-more-than-a-wolf-whistle-378scc9x5?shareToken=7fba47b50fc9d5cb411ff37f1a5fdc3b

OP posts:
persistentwoman · 08/10/2020 18:11

Good to see that this thread has been bumped. Janice's article is well worth reading as are many of the comments underneath.
And great to raise the issue of Harry as his incident has done so much to highlight the insane levels of regulatory capture to the public in general alongside the hilarious outcomes of some of the "training" courses provided for the police by some very odd lobby groups - ie the infamous "I’ve been on a course and what you need to understand is that you can have a foetus with a female brain that grows male body parts and that’s what a transgender person is".
Let's see how long we can keep this one going as the more sunlight, the better - for both misogyny and Harry.

Fernlake · 08/10/2020 19:58

@WhereYouLeftIt

Nice bit of speculation there *@jj1968*. Remind me, is it slander or libel when it's in writing? Or have you covered your arse with your 'possible' and 'wouldn't surprise me'? Either way, I despise mud being flung randomly in the hope of some sticking.
I think this person tends to use words like possibly and I think, or it wouldn't surprise me if, an awful lot.
MoleSmokes · 13/10/2020 08:12

If I recall correctly, the rationale for recording “non-crime hate crimes” aka “hate incidents” on a person’s file is “preventative policing”, ie. to prevent “escalation” to an actual crime motivated by “hate”.

In Harry’s case, this was the explanation given by the police for their active intervention. The same with Maggie Nelson, when she wrote about bones in her archeology blog, saying that sex could be determined from skeletal remains.

However, the police are not routinely using “hate incidents” to try to prevent “escalation”. This is detailed by Sarah Phillimore ( @spero ) who only discovered that the Police had logged a “hate incident” against her by making a Subject Access Request:

“I have been recorded by my local police as hateful”

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3982831-I-have-been-recorded-by-my-local-police-force-as-hateful?pg=1

This is a completely different issue to the recording of allegations of sexual assault that would show up on an Enhanced DBS Check. The recording of these sorts of incidents is the safeguarding measure arising from the Ian Huntley “Soham Murders” case.

The “hate incident” recording arises from recommendations in the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, as a measure that is supposed to result in police intervention to try to prevent “escalation” to a Hate Crime.

I have tagged Sarah and hope that she, being a Barrister, will confirm or correct my understanding.

If I am correct, then the Freedom of Speech issues in Harry’s case have no bearing on the Safeguarding measures put in place after the Soham Murders.

As far as Hate Crimes and Hate Incidents are concerned, it seems to be a case of the road to hell being paved with good intentions.

I am not convinced by Janice Turner’s article. Is there any evidence that Hate Crime legislation has actually resulted in a decrease in physical assaults or murders of people with characteristics that are currently covered by the Act? Or of other crimes aggravated by “hostility”?

What are the costs of benefits, if there have been any? Not just diversion of criminal justice resources but particularly the criminalisation or tarring of reputations due to perceived “hostility”?

There are horror stories like the woman who beeped someone to get a move on when they were faffing around at a petrol pump and holding up the queue - resulting in a “racist hate incident” on her police record. Darren Grimes has just been interviewed on Triggernometry and mentioned how he has been routinely targeted for homophobic abuse - but if he were to be punched in the face he wouldn’t care why , that it should be enough that it is a crime to punch someone in the face.

The fantastic work of “We Can’t Consent To This”, to get a ban on the “Rough Sex Defence” for murder, is a much better example of a new law, dealing with a loophole that has enabled men to get away with murdering women.

No need to attempt to add “aggravated by misogyny” - murder is murder and a woman’s life should not be valued any less depending on whether a general “hostility to women” could be proved.

wecantconsenttothis.uk/press

Siablue · 13/10/2020 09:18

This is interesting. My ex is recorded as having a non crime abuse incident when the police came to our house. I had been to the police but the said it would be very hard to press charges.
If non crimes are wiped from police records it will be harder to protect my child from him if he takes me to court for contact.
I don’t know what to think about this but a man can absolutely destroy his partner’s life and not be prosecuted for any of it. It feels wrong.

Spero · 13/10/2020 16:21

Thanks Molesmokes for tagging me.

I can indeed confirm that 12 pages of my tweets now sit on the data base of the Wiltshire police to say I have 'posted hatred' about Jewish and transgender people. Of course, I have not and if anyone wants to see the 12 pages I will send you the PDF and you can make up your own mind. DM me your email address.

I only found out about this as a Twitter account - set up to harass me in September 2019 - boasted about it in June. I therefore made a Subject Access Request in July and a complaint to the Information Management Team. They have rejected my request for deletion but agreed to record a 'disputed information marker' against the record. I have therefore complained to Professional Standards who are ignoring me so it seems likely I will have to go for judicial review.

The basis of my complaint is
They have ignored the evidence of malice
They have recorded 12 pages of repeated and anodyne tweets (including comments about my dog likeing cheese)
They have refused to tell me to whom this information will be disclosed and in what circumstances
they have refused to tell me what crimes they suspect I will now escalate to commit
They have recorded this 'offence' against a large amount of personal data without informing me

I think the chilling effect of this is immediately obvious. I pose zero risk of 'hate' crime against anyone. But I am not going to stop making public comment on the laws of this country as it is my protected Article 10 right to do so.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.