advice for what we should do if the police visit?

[vivariumvivariumsvivaria]

It occurred to me that I have no idea what I should do if the police came to my door.

Am I right in thinking that if they request an interview you can refuse to attend until you have posted on MN?

Can anyone point a boring, conformist, clean living woman who may have written polite emails, harbour stickers and haberdashery (and who is definitely offensively female) in the direction of practical advice?

I think Ceri Black politely refused all invitations to go to the station, Marion Millar and PP both attended with a solicitor, and Granarchist went alone.

Because, frankly, I'm now at the stage of "bring it on".

@Donkeyinamanger

In theory the court can draw an inference from a no comment interview, (doubt your truthfulness basically if you later come up with a defence) however that doesn't often seem to happen. No comment interview does stop you dropping yourself in it by accidentally admitting to more than you intended. It's probably good advice in most cases.

You should actually get appropriate advice from a solicitor before committing to a "no comment" interview. It is almost impossible to draw negative inferences in court from such an interview (when in court you can say you refused to comment on the basis of legal advice, though you obviously have to speak to a solicitor first). However, refusing to comment may prolong your police experience, particularly as most officers really just want an explanation of events; proper legal advice will let you know whether you are better making a prepared statement or answering all questions.

What you should never do is answer some questions, and respond with "no comment" to others. That really does make you look guilty, and is likely to harm you if a case ever comes to court.

I might finally get round to using my Footner thing 🤔

Possibly better to say nothing at all?

@JohnRokesmith "when in court you can say you refused to comment on the basis of legal advice, though you obviously have to speak to a solicitor first"

I wonder whether the court would accept "I refused to comment because, well, have you seen Mumsnet?" as a justification?

My problem will be only saying "no comment". I have few skills in the "keeping my mouth shut" department.

@HereticFanjo - footner. Good idea. I did it once, it was weird, but picking my feet might pass the time in the station.

They have come for the schools, the unis, the refuges, the jails, the rape crisis, the Guides, the midwives, the unions, the Arts, the sports, the billionaires, the politicians, the media and many women who have far more interesting opinions than mine.

They will come for me. And, woe betide them.

@TurquoiseBaubles

I thought we weren't allowed to make generalisations about an entire group of people? Blueberry seems to get away with it, including an accusation of fraud and dishonesty against gender critical women, in general.

I'm not usually keen on reporting, but should Mumsnet really let such an accusation stay, especially as it's not too hard to work out who in particular it's directed at

Bit of an own goal here, Turquoise - if you think you know who it's directed at, you must be able to recognise the sequence of events, which only goes to confirm there's some truth to it.

Yes, you are obviously directing it at women. In fact, you and Barley seem to be running tag team on accusing women of defrauding donors to crowdfunders.

You really, really don't like women do you?

I wonder whether the court would accept "I refused to comment because, well, have you seen Mumsnet?" as a justification?

My problem will be only saying "no comment". I have few skills in the "keeping my mouth shut" department.

Most people do find it difficult not to comment, which is why I wouldn't recommend it as an option without first consulting a solicitor, and having said solicitor in the same room during the interview.

I once worked on a particular matter where an individual in a police interview answered no comment to every question, except for providing a truthful, non-incriminating, three-word answer to a single question ... and that led them to submitting a guilty plea on legal advice a week later, leading to seven years in prison.

This is, of course, why you need a lawyer, and why you need to listen to what they tell you.

After what I've read of police conduct, it scares to think how many misogynistic police officers are absolutely loving this moment in history when they can intimidate and punish women in a way they would have found more difficult to do more than a decade ago. They are really having their moment, aren't they?

@GenderCriticalDad

If denied menstrual products would leaving bloody handprints everywhere be a valid response.

Don't know, but some women have such heavy periods that they practically gush or piss blood when they cough, sneeze or move in a certain way.

@TurquoiseBaubles

Yes, you are obviously directing it at women. In fact, you and Barley seem to be running tag team on accusing women of defrauding donors to crowdfunders.

You really, really don't like women do you?

I am a woman.

And as it happens, I can think of a number of GC crowdfunders which raised substantial amounts for a stated purpose which never materialised.

But please, I'm fascinated to know who in particular sprang to mind for you at the mention of someone crowdfunding for legal fees then going awol with the cash?

What's your definition of a woman?

What springs to mind is the continual accusations levelled at crowdfunders for adult human females. But you know that. Women-haters really hate women raising money to help other women.

Most people do find it difficult not to comment, which is why I wouldn't recommend it as an option without first consulting a solicitor, and having said solicitor in the same room during the interview.

That's what KJK recommends. With the addition of reading the prepared statement (statement prepared by solicitor).

No I didn't. I have answered your question twice.

I presumed (rightly) that you were talking about the same crowdfunders that all the TRAs talk about - they (and you) always say "and then they ran off with the money and went silent".

Most women and indeed men know that no-one can change sex.

If you want to see "bonkers obsessed irrational bigots who've fallen down a conspiracy hole and have no grasp on reality" it's worth looking in a mirror

No horse in this race, but "women-haters" can easily be women themselves. That quoted post doesn't say you are male.

@SwissBall

go mysteriously quiet and don't tell anyone what's happened to their money or whether they're going to get it back.

Hang on I thought all the legal cases were funded by the right-wing Christians?

Ah, that makes sense. So we contribute to the crowdfunders who then give it to the rightwingers who give it back to us as payment for posting on MN and twitter. Seems a bit convoluted, if you ask me 😆 As for what happens to the money, solicitors don't refund for services already rendered if they're successful in their job and get the charges dropped.

Why don't you ask in AIBU, Blueberry?

I know, right? That's why this board is the second or third most popular one on the entire site

And when these topics, such as rapists in women's prisons, women's sports being destroyed, GGs safeguarding issues etc come up on Chat, on AIBU (probably the most popular board), the overwhelming majority have the same opinions as us.

You inevitably get a few sulkers that try and get the threads moved to the naughty corner, because they can't handle seeing proof that the majority of women, on the biggest female dominated site, are refusing to swallow an ideology that is detrimental to women.

@DialSquare

Why don't you ask in AIBU, Blueberry?

Good idea. Why don't you do that blueberry?

This site is the biggest gathering of women in history. AIBU is the most popular board.

It couldn't be more representative of women.

Ask them.