Police interview Nicola Murray

[SunnyDelite]

I don't think this has been posted before?
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/police-interview-charity-chief-nicola-murray-after-tweet-ending-referrals-to-edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre-plwgxfjfv?fbclid=IwAR1cgMoH7Lup-Y30dFxgC0QDelhthJZQndMwPRg5HYnfVOUZ1wsMsabE7D4

Do you stand by this claim?

I think I addressed this quite well in other posts barley.

Unlike you, if I have made an error, I will fess up and if I have that pointed out I don't double down or leave the thread.

However, I would like to point out that if the police have done this on their own initiative or have had an 'informal 'complaint that has not be registered or whatever ... THIS is a type of 'quiet word' that you have been rather supportative about in the past.

As I said up thread, no paper trail, no following protocols... just a 'quiet word'.

But yes, if a person with the twitter and social media savvy and so much support of legal minds as MW has not posted an answer to a clear lie about them, then I do question whether it may well be true. I also suggested that I might have missed it and that they may have done this and asked for anyone to post a link. No doubt it will become clear soon. These issues generally do.

Now barley are you still standing by your claim that "The Times are now saying this story wasn't true?"

barley?
Oh, they've gone.

I do understand. Statements about whether things are true or not are really difficult, aren't they, when words can have any meaning you like!

@bishophaha

Now barley are you still standing by your claim that "The Times are now saying this story wasn't true?"

barley?
Oh, they've gone.

I do understand. Statements about whether things are true or not are really difficult, aren't they, when words can have any meaning you like!

It wasn't true. The Times story said she'd been interviewed. The police do not interview people if there is no investigation taking place. The Times have confirmed no investigation was taking place.

Unlike you, if I have made an error, I will fess up and if I have that pointed out I don't double down or leave the thread.

You have made an error. In fact you told a lie. You quite specifically claimed Wadwa made the report to the police and said you could point to a tweet which proved it. Not for the first time you have claimed that something that might be true, is true.

THIS is a type of 'quiet word' that you have been rather supportative about in the past.

No I haven't, not when it comes to the police. I don't think you even know what the truth is anymore.

Sorry, your post is unclear. Please can you post the wording the Times have used, that you believe says "the story wasn't true"?

Fuck me, does barley actually understand what he posts? Or is it just the first thing that pops into his head?

barley

It seems like your issue is with the words 'interviewed' and 'reported'.

If the first sentence in the story read "The founder of a charity supporting women who have suffered domestic violence has been asked some questions by police after tweets after stressing its female-only services were brought to their attention" would that then make the story 'true'?

If they are now rewritten as above, do you still believe the story not to be true purely because the Times has confirmed that no "complaint" happened, and confirmed Nicola's statement that there was 'no investigation'?
Or do you think the Times have also said that the substance of the story is in some way untrue?

(ignore the second 'after' in my rejig!)

@bishophaha

Sorry, your post is unclear. Please can you post the wording the Times have used, that you believe says "the story wasn't true"?

First line:

The founder of a charity supporting women who have suffered domestic violence has been interviewed by police after she was reported for hate crime after stressing its female-only services.

The police do not interview people unless there is an ongoing investigation. There was no investigation. The story later claims the police said it was an insanity that they had been asked to speak to her which also implies an investigation, rather than a couple of coppers acting off their own backs. She also claims they had screen shots of the tweets which they said had been brought to police attention - implying a complaint. There was no complaint. The entire story appears to be largely a fabrication.

I always find it ironic when a TRA accuses someone of lying when they have been insisting that TWAW for years.

So it seems there is evidence that there was a visit. Of course it might have been barleybadminton and Wadhwa pretending to be male police officers in order to freak her out ...

It could be that two officers visited Nicola Murray about another matter altogether.

We might have to wait a while before we learn what happened.

I don't understand how the line you have quoted in bold can be interpreted as saying 'The story is untrue'.

I asked you to post the wording that the Times used to say that the story was untrue.

So, they haven't said "the story is untrue".

You seem to have an issue with the two words I highlighted in my previous post.

@bishophaha

barley

It seems like your issue is with the words 'interviewed' and 'reported'.

If the first sentence in the story read "The founder of a charity supporting women who have suffered domestic violence has been asked some questions by police after tweets after stressing its female-only services were brought to their attention" would that then make the story 'true'?

If they are now rewritten as above, do you still believe the story not to be true purely because the Times has confirmed that no "complaint" happened, and confirmed Nicola's statement that there was 'no investigation'?
Or do you think the Times have also said that the substance of the story is in some way untrue?

If it could be re-written so easily The Times would have done that with a correction - the substance of the story doesn't change.

That they have chosen to pull it entirely, along with references to it in a column is very rare and hugely embarrassing for a newspaper. And the Mail have done the same. That suggests the story wasn't rescueable. In fact it suggests it was a complete fabrication, either based on embellishment on the part of the journalist (as Murray suggests) or someone making things up.

The Times story said she'd been interviewed. The police do not interview people if there is no investigation taking place. The Times have confirmed no investigation was taking place.

There are several untrue statements here. By your exacting standards of truthful discourse (🤪🤣) they are lies and you are a liar.

I’ll focus on just one example. The Times did not confirm that no investigation was taking place. They said that Nicola Murray is not the subject of any investigation.

Now, retract your filthy lies immediately! Or whatever.

Incidentally since you’ve given a direct answer to a question for once, I’d love to see another.

Do you think the photograph of the cops at Nicola Murray’s house, referenced in the Times article, is
a) faked
b) made up
c) actually a photo of two randomers in cop costumes
d) a real photo of real cops verified by a journalist working for the Times?

Right, so you believe removing an article literally equates to "The Times are now saying this story wasn't true".

OK. At least we've finally established what you're basing your statement on. Not the first line of the story that you posted, not the corrections text you posted that basically agrees with the story, but the fact it was removed.

Bloody hell, that was more painful than asking my child if he's changed his socks or not.

You have made an error. In fact you told a lie. You quite specifically claimed Wadwa made the report to the police and said you could point to a tweet which proved it. Not for the first time you have claimed that something that might be true, is true.

I did. And I will retract that when Nicola Murray's statement has been declared a lie.

Shall I list the things that you have claimed that were lies barley.

Let's see... that the first wave of detransitioners had retransitioned due to feminist abuse, that women were not being housed in female prisons at the moment with not fully transitioned males.... I can keep going.

The list is getting longer.

You have accused me of lying before. And the very thing you actually accused me of was then proven on the thread. And you slyly moved it to another thing you declared I was 'lying' about. And it again was another very ambiguous thing that has not actually been disproved or properly rebutted.

No I haven't, not when it comes to the police. I don't think you even know what the truth is anymore.

Ok.... so, just for safeguarding then. YOU believe that having a 'quiet word' is ok for safeguarding BUT NOT for police procedures. Good to know you draw the line. I think I do know a great deal about truth barley. I don't try to twist truth to fit my needs to be accepted in life. I stand up for the truth of women and children and I do not dodge that truth.

I also don't try to smudge the truth when it comes to safeguarding ... something which you have shown you do. In a long history on MN. And safeguarding is just one area where you like to smudge the truth... to erode away at what is and is not robust safeguarding.

No I haven't, not when it comes to the police. I don't think you even know what the truth is anymore. Oh the irony.

The statement on The Brodie's Trust Facebook page from the 1st February would explain why the articles have been removed;

A statement from Nicola Murray:
“I will make no further comments regarding the police visit to my home.
As a survivor of domestic violence, it should not be necessary to point out that publications should not make my location public.
As a mother, it should not be necessary to point out that publications should not contact or print photographs of my children.
As the director of a charity, it should not be necessary to point out that communication channels should be used by those in need of help, not those attempting to inflame the situation.
As a woman, it should not be necessary to point out it is inappropriate to pass my private contact details to anyone without my express permission.
I will be contacting all publications individually who have lied, embellished my words or used my photographs without permission. My experience does not require further hyperbole to generate hits on press websites.
I spoke out to protect women and I am truly grateful for all the support I have received. I would now appreciate the peace to get on with being a mum and supporting all the women who have suffered violence and trauma. Thank you.”
Brodie's Trust Facebook page

Note there's no comment then or after to say the original posting has been withdrawn.

If my memory serves me, it was mentioned in The Daily Mail article that Nicola had a photograph/video of the two officers leaving her house and returning to their car.

It is possible of course that the 'officers' weren't genuine police officers, or that they weren't acting in an official role, but rather had been sent to Nicola's house to satisfy the demands of a private citizen, seeking to have her frightened. Indeed in the dialogue that Nicola related, one of the officers noted that they didn't want to say anything that was construed as coming from police.

If either of the above has merit, then there are a number of criminal offences, ranging from Section 90 - Police Act 1996 for impersonating a police officer (imprisonable for up to six months). If the 'officers' were genuine then there's Misfeasance in public office (Common Law, can see imprisonment for life on conviction)if they were 'rogue', i.e acting outside their prescribed roles. And there are the obvious public order offences of harassment (Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021)) The Official Secrets Act offences for misuse of the PNC, and GDPR civil complaints against Police Scotland.

As mentioned, I've not seen anything to indicate that Nicola's relating of her experience has been withdrawn; just her request that the articles with her personal details be withdrawn, which has happened. If Police Scotland reckon there was no complaint/criminal investigation, then they should be submitting themselves for investigation by The Scottish Police Authority to find out who visited her and under whose orders/instructions. And that's before Nicola, if she was so-inclined, raised a complaint herself.

Thanks secular. Let's get on with supporting women and perhaps avoid further speculation. I'll leave people to make up their own minds about whether the fact an article is removed from a website means it was all untrue.

I'm sure any pertinent information about this will find its way into daylight in due course.

Let's see... that the first wave of detransitioners had retransitioned due to feminist abuse, that women were not being housed in female prisons at the moment with not fully transitioned males.... I can keep going.

You are correct that I made a flippant comment that the detransitioners were retransitioning, which in several cases is true. I do not recall making the comment about prisoners, I suspect this is yet another embellishment.

What I have not done is fabricated information about named individuals presumably with the intent of damaging their reputations. You did it to Monica Sulley after claiming without any evidence whatsoever that her instagram name was a deliberate sexual reference and you did it on this thread by explicitly claiming Mridul Wadhwa had tweeted that it has her who reported Murray to the police.

You make things up, with the intent of harming people. That's bullying in my book and very unpleasant.

What I have not done is fabricated information about named individuals presumably with the intent of damaging their reputations

You stated that a paper had "said" a story "wasn't true" when they hadn't. That was just on this thread.

In my opinion I observe that a person lied by omission to further an agenda so would find it difficult to believe them about many things...

You'd think the Times printing a correction was pretty much the end of the story but when people don;t believe science I guess its not much of a stretch for them not to believe whats before their eyes in general

And I think that person’s “ reputation “ has been “ harmed” by their own words and actions.

@DisgustedofManchester

You'd think the Times printing a correction was pretty much the end of the story but when people don;t believe science I guess its not much of a stretch for them not to believe whats before their eyes in general

Always pleased to see people rally to the side of rationality in re: science and the evidence of one's eyes which so many affect to disdain.

It is, indeed, unfortunate, that clarifications need to be issued several times when they are so poorly worded as to lack transparency.

Nicola M's clarification is clear. The Times and DM have failed to be of much assistance in the matter.