Woman told by PSCO that her thinking is wrong and she needs to educate herself.

[Signalbox]

Woman is visited by a PSCO and told to remove an "offensive" sticker, told that her thinking is wrong and that she needs to educate herself. Also that TWAW is a fact.

FFS what the fuck is going on...

twitter.com/IXthoth/status/1558864403746922496

Interesting that the PCSO says that one problem with the sticker is that 'people in the real world might see it and begin to think along the same lines‘

wow, I didn’t catch that. The PSCO clearly isn’t much of a thinker but how can you hear yourself say things like that and not stop to give your head a wobble? ‘You can’t be allowed free speech because it might persuade other people.’

More seriously, this indoctrination and politicisation of the Police HAS to be reversed - no wearing of ANY badges or lanyards apart from the neutral Force Badge

I mean, some might hold the view that participating in the Pride shenanigans is technically a bit off in terms of neutrality, but does no real harm.

But I don't think that's tenable when you see stuff like this happening. It's clear that the Police do not have sufficient internal discipline and training to stop attitudes picked up during the Pride stuff leading to officers being unable to do their actual job.

This PCSO is apparently under the impression that the organisation would approve of what she's doing. The Pride stuff must have contributed to that.

@Aberration

Likely to cause alarm or distress isn’t offence. This sticker is very unlikely to cause alarm or distress to any reasonable person. Offence is not a crime. It is taken, not given, for a start.

If a police man or woman wishes to attend Pride they should absolutely do so - in their own time and not in uniform, those there to police the parade should be in uniform with no embellishments, they are there to work.

Read the links I posted upthread.

The criteria for whether something is considered serious enough to be recorded as a NonCrime Hate Incident is whether it offends someone. The definition rests entirely on the perception of the person reporting.

(IANAL, I could be wrong, I'd be bloody delighted if someone would correct me if so. It's chilling, it's wrong, and it is Thoughtcrime enshrined in law.)

The Hate Crime Bill in Scotland is probably going to be even worse.

‘As I've said above, if one person finds something offensive, that is enough for an 'incident' to be recorded as a Non Crime Hate Incident.’

Non-Crime. Not a crime. They can record it if they want (although this is subject to legal challenge and I believe the bar needs to higher than this). They can’t stop her doing or saying it, whatever they think of it. It’s not illegal.

Yes, it's bollocks. Unfortunately, it's also law.

‘The definition rests entirely on the perception of the person reporting.’

There has been progress on this after the College of Police went to court, I think. They now have to show an objective likelihood that people would find it ‘hateful’, although I can’t remember the details.

There is no bar. I've posted the relevant legislation upthread.

The 'bar' is the perception of the person reporting. And yes, it will be recorded and it will show up on a DBS check.

Definition of a non-crime hate incident:

'A single distinct event or occurrence which disturbs an individual, group or community’s quality of life or causes them concern.

If anyone can disabuse me of this, please do step in and do so!

From what I can read, the updated guidance is just as vague and open to (mis) interpretation as it was previously.

Part of me is hoping that it's a hoax because of how awful it is. I thought the copper turning up at Harry's work to 'check his thinking' was sinister, but this is something else, the police are getting more extreme.

They've deliberately targeted this woman to discriminate against her. Turned up to her house, her safe space, to intimidate, to proselytise, spout ideological nonsense, called the woman uneducated, compared her to a racist, dismissed her when she said she'd been raped to tell her how men have it so much worse with a hint of 'reframe your trauma', with some homophobia sprinkled in too (''why would lesbians exclude transwomen''). Made the woman cry, and then when she says she's not going to be educated (indoctrinated) in to believing men can be women, the police start the gaslighting by saying 'nobody is being told anything' as if she hasn't just spent the last 20 minutes doing just that, stating nonsense as fact.

God I hope that PCSO is sent for re-education. the absolute cheek of her!

I take it this is Wiltshire Police? Have Faircop made a statement?

How does that not apply to pride? Many, many people see pride as undermining homosexuality, because they include transgenderism.

How does that not include rainbows sp splattered all over the police force?

Many lesbians, who stonewall refer to as sexual racists, could in a matter of seconds, explain quite eloquently wholly convincingly, why they find rainbows, stonewall and pride highly offensive and gives them grave cause for concern.

I have no doubt the police are recording things that are very minor. That needs to be dealt with. People are still not breaking the law and the police can’t force them not to display legal content on their own property.

I hope this goes to court. Clear interference with her legal rights.

‘A single distinct event or occurrence which disturbs an individual, group or community’s quality of life or causes them concern.’

This definition applies to the actions of the PCSO. Let’s report her?

I recommend you all to actually listen to the incident. When I read the transcrpt I was shocked, when I heard the recording I was appalled. It's one of the occasions when the emotions on display on both sides add so much.

This is one of the most horrific things I have come across in a long time.

Is there a link to the one long recording?

Yes it's the youtube link up thread

Apart from the obvious free speech issues, the problem with non crime hate incidents is that it's so one sided.

Women have repeatedly say they find TWAW extremely offensive, being reduced to body parts offensive and yet no 'non crime hate incidents' are reported here. There is absolutely no attempt to balance the conflicting needs of different protected characteristics.

Because it's vague it's open to abuse and the pushing of political agendas.

I don't feel as a woman with incidents like this and what happened with Sarah Everard (and the police's woeful response) that the police are fit for purpose for more than 50% of the population any more.

And even though it's not illegal, as can be heard on the recording, it's bloody intimidating, threatening and traumatic to be told that you've committed wrong think by a PCSO or police officer.

Is Bella going to be brave enough to put another sticker up after this treatment? Maybe, maybe not. A lot of people wouldn't. (I bet her kids are GC for life after this though).

Yes, it is truly shocking to listen to. The poor woman is almost in tears. The PCSO's words in the transcript are bad enough but when you hear her bullying tone and how she speaks to the distressed woman it's a whole other level.

Apart from the obvious free speech issues, the problem with non crime hate incidents is that it's so one sided.

Exactly. You either have the criteria, or you don't.

If the criteria is that someone finds it offensive, and can easily demonstrate why, then that's the end of it. Especially when one's opinion is protected by law.

You can't apply the criteria to one section of society and not another. Or if you do, you should be held accountable for it.

Yes @blahblahblahspoons - they don’t care what we find frightening or highly offensive. They’re looking to expand their remit in order to control what they find offensive. That’s undemocratic and authoritarian.