14yo Miss B - free speech in schools

[ErrolTheDragon]

There's a piece in the Times this morning about a 14 yo concerned about 'hate speech' incidents being recorded against schoolchildren which may be of interest.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/girl-14-takes-on-police-over-pupils-right-to-free-speech-v9ht8pwck?shareToken=cd6bf922aaf257ecdb39f502e02af95d

I saw this. It is horrific. When did we get to a place where a child who is confused about sex and gender being conflated gets noted as being a criminal? There is so much double speak by this movement that even adults are confused.

An incident may be the precursor to more serious actions or crime and, while not all incidents will escalate this way, it is only by recording concerns that police can assess the seriousness.

So the police will record incidents that have no criminal element whatsoever because they think a crime might be committed in the future? Don’t that keep them incredibly busy?

I believe there is some horticultural activity needed...

Jesus this is extremely chilling. I cannot believe how far down this road we've come in such a short time.

Miss B, a 14-year-old pupil with auditory processing disorder and dyslexia, is gender critical and believes that sex is distinct from gender identity

Just like any one who isn’t a massive sexist then

Since when did it become illegal not to be a sexist pig?

They're listing contempt and unfriendliness as possible motivations for hate incidents? Thought crime in its purist form.

This subject came up at the dinner table the other night after the news about Keira Bell, and I found myself telling my DP that he shouldn't discuss it with the children in case they mention it at school.

That there is a chilling effect, in action. Certain topics are so sensitive I worry about my children even being aware of them, in case they say the wrong thing. Although of course the school are bound to discuss using one certain narrative with certain chosen terms and attitudes.

This is how ideologies are forced into people.

It's like an exercise in how easy it is to suppress critical thinking and control the masses.

(I did immediately realise what I'd said and took it back and encouraged the family to discuss, btw, although by then discussion had moved on to Minecraft.)

We shouldn't have ideas that are sacred cows. Its unhealthy and undemocratic.

I found myself telling my DP that he shouldn't discuss it with the children in case they mention it at school.

Certain topics are so sensitive I worry about my children even being aware of them, in case they say the wrong thing.

I worry about this a lot Arabella, particularly with my eldest. I want her to be comfortable with herself and her body, so we have lots of conversations around that. Even with that, the most anodyne of subjects I worry that nowadays there are things she might say that could be misconstrued.

The comments under the article are good-people don't want this ideology.

@FamilyOfAliens

An incident may be the precursor to more serious actions or crime and, while not all incidents will escalate this way, it is only by recording concerns that police can assess the seriousness.

So the police will record incidents that have no criminal element whatsoever because they think a crime might be committed in the future? Don’t that keep them incredibly busy?

We have finally entered the world of Minority Report

As a positive - it's so good that these issues are being taken to the courts - although personally expensive in the absence of all the mythical religious right wing funding for all this.

I agree Persistent. It is all for the the good. The fake funding controversies however are such a bind for organisations doing good work. TRAs know this. Look at WPUK. Relentless accusations of receiving funding from the far right are hurled at them, they publish their accounts and an organisation which supported them financially then feels like they must condemn them to appease TRAs. There are accusations under the tweet shared here about far right funding, it's the same thing over and over.

Terrifying

My son has Aspergers and doesn't understand trans or non-binary. I have had to tell my son not to discuss in case he makes a mistake. He has never had a discriminatory thought in his body, he wasn't brought up that way. He's never had difficulty understand the rights of gay people, or BAME or sexuality, but that isn't the issue, it's what he might say inadvertently that might be construed as hate speech, especially as one of his co-workers is non-binary

I never thought in the UK I would have to do that. I am hoping the tide is truly turning otherwise we're all in deep shit

I agree. This is not what should happen in a free and democratic society. Also isn’t it the same issue as the Harry the Owl case? - Something not illegal being recorded as a hate incident and remaining on record? It’s ridiculous - there’s no objective evaluation of a “hate incident”, just whether a person considers it to be.
My son is studying 1984 for GCSE. We were talking about parallels that exist, and we discussed briefly the language control of gender ideology. I had to warn him NOT to bring it up at school. It’s ridiculous.

Interesting to see how many of the comments are by people who think this is the fault of the police, not the changes and extensions to hate crime legislation which happened under a Conservative Govt.

This comment under the article

Why do you wish to support this confused and vulnerable 14 year old (or her guardians) in her right to repeatedly upset her transgendered classmates?

They did this when it was announced the teenager was challenging Stonewall's involvement in schools.

Apparently, teenagers are too young and vulnerable to be taking court action, and adults must be using them as puppets, whilst at the same time we're expected to believe that 10year olds are not vulnerable, and are in fact mature enough to understand how they'll feel as infertile adults with no sexual function

Funny how these people only worry about the vulnerability and maturity levels of children when it threatens their own agenda, isn't it?

As if a judicial review and consenting to permanent, life changing procedures are in any way comparable.

So the police will record incidents that have no criminal element whatsoever because they think a crime might be committed in the future? Don’t that keep them incredibly busy?

If someone was hanging about outside your house acting suspiciously and you had a word with the police how would you feel if they refused to even write your concerns down because no crime had been committed?

I don't know how people think the police could investigate anything if they had to establish a crime had been committed before they wrote anything down on record. The safeguarding implications alone of trying to prevent police form recording non crime information are chilling.

I suspect this is a losing battle. The Home Office have had a fetish for retaining data - regardless of how it was gathered, or indeed the legality of gathering it.

About time the whole hate crime offence was abolished . Whilst there are some horrible bigots and troublemakers out there they can be dealt with by considering hate notification when sentencing for other offences . Let the police spend their time on violent crime , people trafficking , domestic violence and sexual exploitation. The police shouldn’t be there to police hurt feeling and many of the real bigots that cause hate problems are likely to fall foul of other offences anyway

About time the whole hate crime offence was abolished

Except the problem isn't people being convicted of hate crimes. It's people not being convicted - of anything - suddenly finding their names on a "list" that the police will use in investigations.

This is where the idea about "soft intelligence" that goes into DBS checks leads you eventually. The complete acceptance ny society that it's OK to "keep an eye" on people just in case.

One comment that stood out to me was the fact that the Scottish Transaliance (or similar) encouraged students to report Adult Human Female stickers as hate crime, then used the stats as evidence of hate crime and got 200K from the Scottish Government.
I am fairly cynical so I wonder about the origin of those stickers but "Honi soit qui mal y pense".

But what is next, will it be a hate crime to say "I don't believe in God" when in conversation with a devout Christian (even if you don't know they are?).

They're listing contempt and unfriendliness as possible motivations for hate incidents? Thought crime in its purist form.

I may not always come across as overly friendly as I can be very direct and (dare I say it?) German. I tend not to mince my words and have been accused before of "not being kind".
Also, what is being classified as "unfriendliness"? If I were on the Tube after work, completely in my bubble, earphones in, staring on my phone while playing Candy Crush to pass the time or ahead/up/down of me completely unfocused, could that be classified as a pre-cursor of "hate crime"?

I am from a country where they did put you in prison (at best) during a certain period if you dared to voice your opposition to the government at the time. Many people who dared resisting the government or take more dramatic action were killed.

Resist the beginnings.

@jj1968

So the police will record incidents that have no criminal element whatsoever because they think a crime might be committed in the future? Don’t that keep them incredibly busy?

If someone was hanging about outside your house acting suspiciously and you had a word with the police how would you feel if they refused to even write your concerns down because no crime had been committed?

I don't know how people think the police could investigate anything if they had to establish a crime had been committed before they wrote anything down on record. The safeguarding implications alone of trying to prevent police form recording non crime information are chilling.

how would you feel if they refused to even write your concerns down because no crime had been committed?

That happens to women all the time. Misogyny is not a hate incident or crime, and men tend to think street harassment is a minor thing, a compliment.

It happens to women when an actual crime has been committed against them.

I like how that article is structured. It's like they gave the College of Policing the last word, and it turned into a punchline.

The idea that a disabled teenage girl who thinks that sex is different from gender and is afraid of offending people by talking about it, is a risk for escalating to a crime... that says it all.

You only have to look at the stories of women killed by partners or ex-partners that were highlighted around the publication of the Femicide Census Inebriati. It reminded me of Shana Grice who was murdered by an ex-boyfriend after he had stalked her, the police didn't take her complaints about his behaviour seriously and fined her for wasting police time. It always amazes me police forces have time to spend on these hate incidents when they routinely get it wrong when it comes to stalking and DV because they don't take women seriously.