Speakers Corner: Woman attacked with a knife.

[Childrenofthestones]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57965251

A woman has been slashed with a knife at Speakers' Corner in London's Hyde Park, police have said.
The 39-year-old was taken to hospital after the attack on Sunday afternoon at the site, where people gather for public speeches and debates.
The Metropolitan Police said she received a minor slash injury to the head, which was not life-threatening.
Footage shared on social media shows someone dressed in black approaching a woman wearing a Charlie Hebdo T-shirt.

I do not doubt that this woman was attacked, however the only videos I have seen (there may be others I have not seen) do not show a knife, or if they do it is not easy to see.

It may be that she was stabbed and the knife was not visible (assaults happen quickly and knives are often difficult to see unless very large).

This woman's associates shout that she has been stabbed, however I have no idea what kind of assault this was and, whoever the assailant, whoever the victim and whatever the sex of the people concerned I think it is always prudent to avoid sharing unsubstantiated details until they have been confirmed.

If you have seen a video I have not where she is clearly being stabbed I would be interested to know about it (I wouldn't share such a video for obvious reasons).

So, again, for the avoidance of doubt, I am very opposed to anyone assaulting anyone else, whatever their sex or religious beliefs.

There are activist groups operating in London (all over the world in fact) that are attempting to incite hatred and divisions between people. I am concerned that we should be cautious not to fall into their traps.

This is why there is a need to be extremely cautious about what actualty happened and the context. IMO

The context and what happened is that a woman was physically attacked with a knife by a man at Speaker's Corner, Hyde Park London.

What possible caution is needed? There is no mitigation.

"Speakers' Corner is a traditional site for public speeches and debates since the mid 1800's when protests and demonstrations took place in Hyde Park.

Speakers' Corner is located on the north-east edge of Hyde Park, nearest Marble Arch and Oxford Street.

Historic figures such as Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin and George Orwell were known to often use the area to demonstrate free speech.

In 1872, an act of parliament set aside this part of Hyde Park for public speaking. Even today, on a Sunday morning, it's not unusual to find crowds gathering at Speakers' Corner to listen to enthusiasts expounding their views. Anyone can turn up unannounced to speak on any subject, as long as the police consider their speeches lawful." (continues)
www.royalparks.org.uk/parks/hyde-park/things-to-see-and-do/speakers-corner

Riight.

Well, for the avoidance of doubt, I'm not buying into any narrative that excuses or minimizes male violence against women, whatever the motive, and I absolutely take no part in 'caution' that requires investigating claims of 'false flags' or hoaxes because I'm really struggling to see how that's any different to the bullshit around WiSpa.

My response to this incident is to unequivocally condemn this because it's wrong and doesn't need any extra caveats to say I don't think it should be used as an excuse for more violence because that's covered by my firm statement that it's wrong to assault people for believing different things.

And now I'm going to log off, because I'm actually more than a little sickened by the internet today on a number of levels. Men shouldn't attack women, or indeed each other. No caution or qualification necessary. Good grief.

BBC report

(extract)
"A knife was found after the attack in Hyde Park, but no arrests have yet been made.

Officers based in Westminster are working with the specialist Met unit which patrols the royal parks to investigate and try to find the person responsible.

The Met said officers were called just after 15:30 BST to reports that a woman had been assaulted.

A statement said she was treated by the London Ambulance Service before being taken to a central London hospital.

Det Supt Alex Bingley, of the Central West Command Unit which covers policing in Westminster, said: "This was clearly a very distressing incident for the woman involved and officers have spent time with her, whilst she was being treated for her injury, to get an account of what happened.

"We know that this assault was witnessed by a number of people, many of whom captured it on their phones. I would ask them, if they have not already done so, to contact police.

"We remain in the early stages of our investigation and are working hard to trace the person responsible.

"I would ask people not to speculate on the motive for the attack until we have established the full facts."
www.bbc.com/news/uk-57965251

This.

Is.

Speakers.

Corner.

I'm sorry, to be clear here, you utterly condemn the violence,

yes

but you think it's important we have the backstory that the victim is a Christian who wants to convert Muslims, just like all the Muslims there want to convert people to Islam, because that's the nature of proselytising religions, and passions run high when people are sharing deeply held beliefs?

It is not her prothelytising that is the important issue, it is the fact that she has been removed by police on at least one previous occasion for behaving in a provoking and inciteful way around Muslims.

She is wearing a Charlie Hebdo T Shirt.

She was not just standing on her own soapbox but was attacked in the immediate vacinity of a group of Muslims having a debate about religion.

The group she is associated with are a provocative and inciting group, in some ways their tactics resonate with the Westboro Baptist Church.

You might find the following tweets interesting - they are about the former MMA fighter James Zikic

twitter.com/barthsnotes/status/1394552208063086594

Kikic has worked as a bodyguard for David Icke, the notorious fake police whistleblower and SRA conspiraloon Jon Wedger, the scamming fake SRA survivor Jeanette Archer and also to Hatun Tash (Tash is a fan of Tommy Robinson and can be seen treating him to Ferrero Roche chocolates in a photo further down the thread).

Now I'm not a fan of Tommy Robinson.

I am not a fan of violence or stabbing people, I am simply very curious as to what happened on multiple levels as this is a complex situation where people should be cautious to avoid speading fake news.

Fake news being a specialty in the networks that Hatun's associates move in, Zikic being a prime example.

Speakers

Corner

For those who do not fully understand: research.

A woman speaking words was stabbed. At SPEAKERS CORNER.

What else is relevant? What else can anyone say that makes this in any way worthy of 'caution'?

Male violence against women speaking words is never justified. Never.

She is wearing a Charlie Hebdo T Shirt
Wow. Well that’s a new take on asking women ‘But what were you wearing when you were attacked?’. FFS.

The context and what happened is that a woman was physically attacked with a knife by a man at Speaker's Corner, Hyde Park London.

What possible caution is needed? There is no mitigation.

Was she stabbed? Are you sure?

I do not doubt that she was assaulted. Maybe she was stabbed? I would not like to share an account of a women being stabbed unless I had either seen the stabbing or the police had confirmed that the assault involved a knife.

I especially would not want to share such an account if the people shouoting that she had been stabbed were a known controversial group that use provacation to try to incite divisions and hatred.

"Speakers' Corner is a traditional site for public speeches and debates since the mid 1800's when protests and demonstrations took place in Hyde Park.

Yes, I do know what Speakers' Corner is.

It is not her prothelytising that is the important issue, it is the fact that she has been removed by police on at least one previous occasion for behaving in a provoking and inciteful way around Muslims.

She is wearing a Charlie Hebdo T Shirt.

She was not just standing on her own soapbox but was attacked in the immediate vacinity of a group of Muslims having a debate about religion

Really?
Male violence against women speaking words, whatever they are wearing and wherever they are standing is never justified. Never.

Det Supt Alex Bingley, of the Central West Command Unit which covers policing in Westminster, said: "I would ask people not to speculate on the motive for the attack until we have established the full facts."

Wow. Well that’s a new take on asking women ‘But what were you wearing when you were attacked?’. FFS.

I am not suggesting that she deserved to be attacked. How many times do I need to spell it out?

I am suggesting that wearing a CH T shirt to prothelytise at Speakers Corner is a) unlikely to result in converting Muslims to Christianity and b) is likely to incite public disorder. Presumably this kind of behaviour os why she has been removed by the police before - not because they dispute her right to hold opinions, but because they want to prevent disorder, which can and often does include people getting hurt. As happened on this occasion.

It is not her prothelytising that is the important issue, it is the fact that she has been removed by police on at least one previous occasion for behaving in a provoking and inciteful way around Muslims.

From this link which R0wantrees posted earlier:

Anyone can turn up unannounced to speak on any subject, as long as the police consider their speeches lawful.

If anyone is speaking in a way which someone else believes is unlawful, the correct action is to inform the police. Not to attack them with a knife.

She is wearing a Charlie Hebdo T Shirt.

Is that now illegal?

Det Supt Alex Bingley, of the Central West Command Unit which covers policing in Westminster, said: "I would ask people not to speculate on the motive for the attack until we have established the full facts."

I am not specuating on a motive for the attack. Merely pointing out that the group the woman operates has form for inciting public disorder and that her associates have form for being involved in inciteful protests and spreading fake news

I suspect that Det Supt Alex Bingley, of the Central West Command Unit would also ask people not to speculate about whether or not the woman had in fact been stabbed or attacked with a knife until such time as the police have had time to investigate what actually happened.

@hoodathunkit

Wow. Well that’s a new take on asking women ‘But what were you wearing when you were attacked?’. FFS.

I am not suggesting that she deserved to be attacked. How many times do I need to spell it out?

I am suggesting that wearing a CH T shirt to prothelytise at Speakers Corner is a) unlikely to result in converting Muslims to Christianity and b) is likely to incite public disorder. Presumably this kind of behaviour os why she has been removed by the police before - not because they dispute her right to hold opinions, but because they want to prevent disorder, which can and often does include people getting hurt. As happened on this occasion.

So people should be silenced because other people don't like what they have to say and it might make those other people angry. Really?

The problem here is with the people who want others silenced because they don't like what they're saying.

If we allow people to be silenced because some other people might get violent if they are allowed to speak, where do you think that leads?

Guardian
(extract)
"The Metropolitan police, who described it as “a very distressing incident” for the victim, said officers were called on Sunday shortly after 3.30pm to reports that a woman had been assaulted.

A statement said the woman had a minor slash injury to her head and was treated by the London ambulance service before being taken to a central London hospital.

Her injuries were not life-threatening, police said. A knife was recovered nearby."

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/26/woman-attacked-with-knife-at-speakers-corner-in-hyde-park-london

Surely most speakers at Speakers' Corner are unlikely to find converts and will in fact make people annoyed or angry instead?

So people should be silenced because other people don't like what they have to say and it might make those other people angry. Really?

Where did I say that?

I do not dispute this woman's right to say whatever she wants, however people acting in a provocative manner do place themselves at risk of attack and they also place wider communities at risk of attack as the divisions grow and hatred between groups intensifies,

For example, a PUA could turn up at SC and start to share his "PUA secrets" with MRAs, he could make all kinds of misogynistic comments, wear a deeply offensive T Shirt featuring, say, a women dressed in fetishwear on a leash, like a dog.

What he does may not be illegal but he is likely to run into problems.

It is OK to hit him? Physically attack him? Stab him?

Of course it isn't. However if he was attacked or even stabbed, people may point out that he was behaving in a provoking and inciting way. This would not mean that people supported him being stabbed or that they misunderstand Speakers Corner, just that context is relevant in all things.

The problem here is with the people who want others silenced because they don't like what they're saying.

If we allow people to be silenced because some other people might get violent if they are allowed to speak, where do you think that leads?

I think that this gets right into the nuts and bolts of cancel culture.

Presumably posters here are very uncomfortable with cancel culture, I am, however some people should not be given a platform IMO.

When the Home Office refused to allow a notoriously misogynist PUA entry to the UK I was quite pleased. I would not argue that it was acceptable to stab him or otherwise attack him physically.

I think we all have limits to what we find acceptible.

Oh right, so we're in.the way 'if no one actually saw the exact moment the knife made that slash on her skin well did it actually happen?...'

Well whatever happened she was.wearing something I don't like....
Frightening.

The bottom line to me: woman attacked.
In a place where people gather to speak about whatever they choose within the law.
A woman has been attacked in a public place with witnesses.
A woman has been attacked.
No excuses it.

I do not dispute this woman's right to say whatever she wants, however people acting in a provocative manner do place themselves at risk of attack

The person responsible for violence is the perpetrator. How many men having assaulted a woman have said, "look what you made me do" ?

Doesn't the above verbosity boil down to "She was asking for it and anyway it was probably staged/fake news"? Or have I missed something?

Speakers.

Corner.

It matters not one whit what you have to say.

Men at Speakers Corner need to take this as a heads up!

You're next. (Not good news)

ofwarren

Thank you for the clarification.

It is not her prothelytising that is the important issue, it is the fact that she has been removed by police on at least one previous occasion for behaving in a provoking and inciteful way around Muslims.

Could not give less of a shit if I practiced.