Woman harassed in women's bathroom by a gender critical woman who thinks she is trans, she is upset by the experience.

[MargaritaPie]

twitter.com/KatyMontgomerie/status/1586295024672808961

The direct statement by Berkshire Transport police is even more clear! Let’s break it down by adding MargaritaPie and Discovereads interpretations of it. Original statement in italics, the only way they could be reading it in bold:

Do you recognise this person? [the purple wigged male person in the photo below]

Officers investigating an incident in which a person [but not necessarily the purple wigged male person in the photo below] exposed their genitals to two teenagers at Theale station are releasing CCTV images in connection.

At just before 3pm on 2 September, two teenage girls, aged 15 and 16, were sat on-board a train at the station when someone [who?] on the platform approached the train’s window.

As the train started the depart the station the person [but not necessarily the purple wigged male person in the photo below] exposed their genitals to the two teenagers before making lewd hand gestures in their direction.

They [could be anyone, not necessarily the purple wigged male person in the photo below] then walked into a shelter at the station and masturbated.

Officers believe the person in the CCTV images may have information which could help their investigation [and we aren’t saying the person in the images is the person who exposed themselves, and we aren’t NOT saying that either, they could be a suspect, a witness, or just a person].

Like I said, only a select group of special people could add that to interpret that statement in that way.

I will absolutely correct ANYBODY who prefixes "women" with bloody "cis".

Well by your logic (which completely ignores the legal definitions), if a victim is a witness because they witnessed an attack, well then the perpetrator must also be a witness because they would also have witnessed their own attack.

Everyone’s a witness!

And if that's the witness, where's the CCTV of the pervert? And if there isn't any how did they know he wanked in the shelter? And why don't they describe him?

Questions, questions...

Well said!

“Do you recognise this person?

Officers investigating an incident in which a person exposed their genitals to two teenagers at Theale station are releasing CCTV images in connection.”

If they were known by the police to be one and the same, the second sentence should not have said “a person” but repeated “this person.”

Then they said:
“Officers believe the person in the CCTV images may have information which could help their investigation.

If you recognise them, or have any information, please contact BTP by texting 61016 or calling 0800 40 50 40 quoting reference 2200089694.

Alternatively, you can call Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555 111.”

Compare the above tone and wording to other appeals where it is implied the person is a suspect:
“If you see someone matching this image, please contact police urgently by calling 999 and referencing 517 of 27/10/22.

Please do not approach them. If you recognise him, please contact us by texting 61016 or calling 0800 40 50 40. Alternatively you can call Crimestoppers anonymously.”

Thats not what I said. I said the BTP appeal is not clear. As in it isn’t written clearly enough to draw any conclusions beyond what they said later and that is this is a person who may have information.

Ok so you’re both saying it’s not clear. So you’re both in agreement. And I’ve posted the statement for everyone to read how unclear it is🙄.

I didn’t claim you said that. But you did say what I responded to. You said essentially that the possibility that the police release images of witnesses is nonsense.

You said you didn’t claim I said that then you immediately follow it up by again claiming I said that! Do you not proof read?! I reposted what I said, I clearly stated that in the incident of indecent exposure it was nonsense to claim the police were looking for a witness. Again, not generally.

And as for your minor error sorry, but putting those two side by side it wasn’t a minor error. It was a wilful misrepresentation of what was said.

It was not wilful. I got mixed up with the claim of possible witness in my second post. My first post on this thread references MargaritaPie’s post about a witness, but you believe what you want here.

No I’m not in agreement for the umpteenth time.

You both think the statement is not clear. You’ve stated that. So did MargaritaPie. So you agree.

The whole thread is there for everyone to see how you are covering yourself in shit.

🤣🤣🤣

Okay.

I know you're not actually this thick @Discovereads

Exactly. Which means it’s on purpose.

That force are so dense. Pictures of the witness, but not a single description of the perv they're trying to catch.

Idiots.

And to bring it back to the OP, if people like MargaritaPie and Discovereads are so determined to pretend that the male person in the purple wig is anything other than the suspect in a crime or indecent exposure, why should we believe a word of anything they say on anything else any other time?

Did Cif used to be Jif?

Yes

Good point. Is the police statement worded like this as there is a lack of evidence perhaps?

We don't. Well I don't. I rarely read their posts tbh. Looking at this nonsense, that's prob a good call.

*”….police statement worded like this as there is a lack of evidence perhaps?”

I’m pretty sure that the police have to be a little circumspect - innocent til proven guilty so can’t go round saying we are trying to catch this perv before there’s even been an interview never mind a verdic.

I would have flashed my gash if she tried that on me 🤭

@MargaritaPie so if cis woman means on the same side as woman then they are a woman. Therefore transwoman means on the opposite side of a woman so a man?

@Thehawki same question as above to you.

She was a woman in a woman's bathroom. The woman hassling her was very aggressive.

This in no way changes the fact that public toilets should be single sex.

I've also been assaulted in a bathroom by a non trans identified man. The problem with any man being able to self identify as women now means that more men will feel entitled to come into womens intimate spaces unchallenged.
I'm really unsure as to why anyone would be unclear on this.

It's unfortunate that androgynous women are being called men for having short hair or other physical features that pander to stereotypes of what men and women "should" look like and that this is meaning that women are being bullied for it. Whether that is the posts that have been mysteriously appearing here about models or if it's in real life. All the more reason for the stereotypes to die. However this doesn't excuse men being able to just freely walk into womens bathrooms, now unchallenged. It doesn't. Social conventions are ones that men have always flouted to get what they want. Now however we've removed the ability of women and girls to say no to the presence of men because we will now be told that these men are women. Why would anyone sane think this is ok?

This example by OP is an attempt at a gotcha. And a goady one at that.

And OP (and Monty) can get to fuck with their Cis shit.

Yup all cis does is confirm transwomen are indeed in no way women.

If only men stayed out of women's toilets and hadn't been so emboldened by a vicious lobby and its unthinking supporters. We wouldn't have these issues if people used the correct facilities for their sex. P.S. that's not what fascist means.

If the trans brigade weren’t so interested in infiltrating women’s spaces women wouldn’t be so on edge about make bodies persons being in women’s spaces.

What a surprise though who the OP is lol!!! Makes me take this even less seriously 😂😂😂

I heard a good quote lately. ‘Good men stay out so bad ones stand out’. It’s quite obvious that those men desperate to get into female spaces are those who should never be let in. Decent men would never dream of disrespecting womens boundaries.