Complaint to OPCC about Lisa Townsend (not upheld)

[ScreamingMeMe]

A TRA tried to complain about Surrey's PCC Lisa Townsend:

"Thread TW: Transphobia

A couple of months ago, the Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner Lisa Townsend made yet another transphobic tweet that rolled into a harrassment campaign that was taking place against Emily Bridge at the time.

t.co/VCvGI89eWX

I reported this tweet to the office of the PCC, which is not the first complaint I have made about her transphobic statements. I was apparently one of 6 complainants on this particular
comment.

t.co/nBZu0BxKmW

We've just received the response (it was delayed by some internal processes and they considered multiple different complaints about her transphobia at the same sitting).

The response clarifies the PCC code of conduct that they consider.

t.co/tJFmR0IO77

The response also includes some advice received by the complaints Sub-Committee that they considered in their decision.

They were advised that gender critical beliefs are protected and that holding or expressing them is fine.

And that only misgendering isn't. t.co/YE9KLhgF7R

You can see where this is going.

The committee found that this tweet was fine and no further action was required.

The committee specifically decided that calling a trans woman 'male' is not misgendering her, because no pronouns were used.

I literally cannot with this. t.co/80xiwV3AXj

No breach of the provisions of the code of conduct. That explicitly require objectivity, treating others with dignity and respect, and harrassing or bullying anyone.

Read that tweet. Read the code of conduct. Then read this finding.

Maya lost and still totally fucked us. t.co/9nvvobs8xh

Going to go ahead and tag @GoodLawProject @JolyonMaugham @DisabledJess @truesolicitor in this as I think it's an important example of the impact that the gender critical court cases have had and. I just don't know if there's any recourse, anything we can do about this?

Just coming back to this bit, in combination with the final finding:

-Expressing GC beliefs is protected.
-As long as you don't use the wrong pronouns.
-Referring to trans people by 'birth sex' is fine.
-And calling a GC a bigot is unlawful harrassment.

t.co/ecV94wMXNG

Additional tag for @NancyMK - not sure if this is something Stonewall can do... Literally anything about, or has any thoughts on, or anything?

The responses so far:

Jess O'Thompson (who?)

Yeah this contradicts Forstater and Mackereth.

twitter.com/DisabledJess/status/1559920723308806144?t=FJ1oNHNA0ZAqo7xIcSUVJg&s=19

Nancy Kelly, Stonewall:

"This isn't in keeping with the decision in Forstater or Mackareth :( "

twitter.com/Nancy_M_K/status/1559860538787696643?t=g--ZWodHu9z3ktWxFqTzuQ&s=19

I'm sorry Lisa is being hassled yet again.

However,

"Maya lost and still totally fucked us."

Is priceless.

"Not in-keeping"? I find the apparent lack of comprehension either deliberate or just shockingly poor.

'Misgendering' someone is not illegal! The judgment in Forstater basically said that deliberate and continued misgendering of an individual might constitute harassment, which obviously IS illegal. Maya's case was never about harassment; she did not harass anyone, nor was she fighting for the right to harass someone.

The twitter threads are fascinating. They seem to want 'misgendering' to be a very flexible definition. If you followed their thinking, no one would ever be able to say anything that would make any sense.

I did enjoy the growing sense of disbelief in the long thread above 😁

Glad the complainants weren't upheld. TRAs may find those comments offensive but they're not threatening violence, putting people in danger or in any way illegal. This should definitely come under the freedom of speech heading. I'm slightly concerned at the comments that it wasn't misgendering because no pronouns were involved. But long may she tweet

I saw this and found it quite the insight. On this board, you'll often see women recognising the word and limits of the law for example what the law actually says on single sex services.

But this shows a total lack of willing or ability (or both) to examine the decision and why it was made.

One on level, it's highly amusing. On another, it's worrying because people are either that dense or stubborn, and/or it's possible that bad advice is being given to individuals who are being misled as to the law.

Jesus, i love it when the cognitive dissonance this lot so embrace comes home to roost.

Maya totally lost and yet....

So good to see the impact of her ruling.

Just going on the above, it really smacks of the whole, 'but Stonewall said ... the Stonewall training documents say ... I was told by my manager who went on an awareness seminar ...'

Has the Bailey judgement been mentioned yet?

This is what happens when you let go of material reality and critical thought. It suddenly becomes really easy to believe total bollocks and also to totally believe two things that are diametrically opposed.

All those £25s we all paid into Maya's Crowdfunder have paid off, haven't they?

I am extremely pleased the Panel gave the correct verdict and ditched this and the other ridiculous complaints in the bin.

I am finding the hurty feelings and complete shock, horror and cognitive dissonance about the ruling by the complainant extremely funny.

"Maya lost and still totally fucked us."

You have to wonder just when the crappy false-propping up rhetoric will actually be questioned. I mean, I am laughing hugely at this statement, but some people do believe it. We have some posters on other threads gleefully stating that Stonewall won in Allison’s case… completely and determinedly celebrating some fucked up logic that keeps them feeling morally superior.

It is really a case of dancing while Rome burns. The reputation of Stonewall as a reliable guide to the law and even a guide to the ‘righteousness’ has been been significantly damaged over the past couple of years… but some people are falsely propping themselves up declaring Stonewall have won. And denying that SW’s reputation may be irrevocably damaged with organisations pulling their funding … but hey… what a ‘win’!!!

That quote is a sign of the cracking under the cognitive dissonance.

"Maya lost and still totally fucked us."

I mean, I am laughing hugely at this statement, but some people do believe it.

You and me both on the laughing front Hellofabore, it's an absolute classic.

Wasn't Mackareth the one that didn't set a precedent being as it was heard in the lower Tribunal bit?

Why do they think Maya lost?

*"Maya lost and still totally fucked us."

just read that, and came here to see that several other witches are already cackling heartily at it. TRAs! You have to love them. Well, no, you don’t. But sometimes they brighten up your day by accident.

@DarkDayforMN I even had it copied all ready for the sharing had OP not done so 🤣

The absolute outrage at correct interpretation of the law is genuinely embarrassing to read.

The government has plenty of things to keep it busy, I realise, but I think that with the confirmation TERF is a slur & GC views are protected in law they ought to force Twitter to accept those things when it comes to acceptable usage in the UK. Similar to NetzDG, basically. Because - as we’ve seen repeatedly - Twitter cannot manage to keep its house in order.

I can understand their disappointment that they misunderstood the impact of the judgment(or that they believed the p-news version of the judgement)

But I genuinely don't understand the transwomen are female stance?
I can see them refuting the transwomen are male posters but I can't figure out the angle...

One is saying if you said that in the states you'd be sued? Has someone lost a legal challenge of harassment for using birth sex in the states? Especially when taking about someone in the third person? Is there a precedent? If so what's the reasoning?

Just in case anyone think Maya Forstater lost: it is worth reading the judgement in May Forstater's case:

www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Forstater-JR-AG.pdf

It’s the reply’s to Nancy on Twitter are hilarious. Pricking the pomposity of Stonewall and it’s acolytes

Because they are repeatedly telling themselves and each other that Maya lost.

That's fine, if it makes them feel better.

Hmm. It seems Dr Alix Weasel is a furry according to they's bio.

When you live in a world where you believed truth can be detached from facts and science... what is a desperate grasping at straws about the truth of a legal judgement in comparison.

I mean.... the crack of the dissonance alarm breaking is desperately being tamped down by a zillion zealous feet but it is there when you are in that position of 'once you see it you can never unsee it again'.

Three reasons:

1. Some of them are thick as mince
2. A lot of them are grifting, and need to keep up the pretence that what they are doing is some noble cause rather than being unlawful, unethical misogyny, eg Stonewall, Kimono Prick Law Project, Prick News, so it pays to tell people she lost (see 1)
3. Some people think that if they wish for something, then it becomes reality. It's part and parcel of the weird cognitive dissonance of gender ideology. They want Maya to have lost; therefore she lost (and see 1 and 2)

it's possible that bad advice is being given to individuals who are being misled as to the law.

Given the claim Maya lost and NK dragging in confusion in re: Forstater and Mackereth, I like Alix's confident assertion

I've replied asking if they can share where their advice came from, as while I recognise the court cases, I'm pretty sure this interpretation and application is very, very wrong.

Amongst whom, given her response, is Nancy Kelley. I do feel for people like Alix who've been actively misled by people and organisations whom they trust. They genuinely seem to believe the version of law and events put about by RMW and whomever else has been involved in the interpretations that have been circulated amongst them and accepted as accurate.

tbh, I don't consider that the sub-committee have expressed their thoughts well although they've ended up in the right place.