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

And you'd be wrong. Obviously it does. Public, multiple occupancy rooms do.

Witnesses or the possibility of witnesses are a deterrent to predators.

Mixed sex spaces are statistically more dangerous for women.

No, you defended the idea that specifically in the Berkshire police tweet, they could have meant witness.
Nope. Haven’t even seen the tweet. I stated the appeal. And I didn’t say they could have meant witness. I have stated factually that they said “person” and they meant “person” when they said it, not “suspect”.

So what you think in this specific instance? Is the male in the purple wig a suspect or is it not clear?
Unlike you, I am not speculating, the police have said they are a person who may have information, as in a person of interest. I am happy to wait for the outcome of the investigation and not engage in trial by media. I know you personally have done a bit of profiling and due to anti-trans prejudice think they are definitely the suspect, but I like to wait for the police to actually charge someone before entertaining thoughts they might be guilty.

It is not factual. Because to everyone else who viewed that tweet it is perfectly clear.. It is factual because it’s merely repeating what the police have released verbatim. Not everyone thinks it’s perfectly clear that “person” really means “suspect”. Not the police who wrote it because they deliberately chose to use “person” not “suspect” and they’re the ones doing the investigation. 🤷‍♀️

everyone who isn’t disingenuous, stupid or a TRA. and I am not casting aspersions on your intelligence. sort of conflict….but the gist is that if I don’t agree with you, you will think me disingenuous, stupid or a TRA? Why so intolerant of someone who doesn’t have a mob justice mentality? Are you used to bullying people into agreeing with you with such tactics?

DO think it’s possible that the person in the purple wig could be a witness and not the suspect?. I don’t care to speculate on this. All I know is they are a person of interest and I’m happy to wait for the police to inform me on any developments in the investigation.

@Datun
Im pointing out the uncomfortable truth that a 🚺 on a door doesn’t generate a force field of ultimate protection from men. It doesn’t buy you safety.

You then said
And you'd be wrong. Obviously it does. Public, multiple occupancy rooms do.

You seriously believe that a 🚺 protects you from men? That you’re safe in the womens toilets? I think you are confusing your continuing good luck with actual safety.

Safer.

A seat belt doesn't guarantee survival in a car accident. It does however substantially improve your chances.

I think we understand the sign sadly isn’t a deterrent for all. However, the response to the harassment, assault and rape of some women and girls in a single sex space should never be to allow both sexes into the space as this is totally incongruous to the protection of women and girls. Until recently, most men harassing women wouldn’t pass the threshold of a single sex space and this is changing sadly. None of this makes us spectacularly naive if anything, quite the opposite, rather those advocating for gender neutral spaces the naive ones. We now live in a time, where we realise the power single sex spaces hold and of needing to be super vigilant in these spaces as a consequences of such spaces being eroded.

It's a deterrent. You're the one calling it a force field.

If you've never slipped into the ladies to escape a pervy bloke, you're in a minority.

Nope. Haven’t even seen the tweet. I stated the appeal. And I didn’t say they could have meant witness. I have stated factually that they said “person” and they meant “person” when they said it, not “suspect”.

You said you were on the thread. Did you read the Berkshire police thread without even reading the original tweet that it was about? You think it could have been about anyone other than a suspect, despite not even having read the tweet. Okay.

Unlike you, I am not speculating, the police have said they are a person who may have information, as in a person of interest. I am happy to wait for the outcome of the investigation and not engage in trial by media. I know you personally have done a bit of profiling and due to anti-trans prejudice think they are definitely the suspect, but I like to wait for the police to actually charge someone before entertaining thoughts they might be guilty.

You realise there’s a difference between thinking the person the police are clearly interested in is a suspect and saying they are guilty, don’t you?

It is factual because it’s merely repeating what the police have released verbatim. Not everyone thinks it’s perfectly clear that “person” really means “suspect”. Not the police who wrote it because they deliberately chose to use “person” not “suspect” and they’re the ones doing the investigation.

And when they’re looking for a witness, they state “witness”, as your links demonstrated. Have you or have you not read the original tweet, I’m confused, because you say you haven’t then you’re intent on quoting it verbatim.

sort of conflict….but the gist is that if I don’t agree with you, you will think me disingenuous, stupid or a TRA? Why so intolerant of someone who doesn’t have a mob justice mentality? Are you used to bullying people into agreeing with you with such tactics?

Not at all. Believe what you want. But don’t expect us to. You’re keen to not gaslight victims but are determined to take the view that it’s not the person in the purple wig who allegedly indecently exposed their genitals to teenagers.

I don’t care to speculate on this. All I know is they are a person of interest and I’m happy to wait for the police to inform me on any developments in the investigation.

And I don’t care to speculate on anything MargaritaPie or Katy Montgomery posts due to their history.

I have, and he followed me in. It was not a deterrent in a real life situation.

Jeez, it's not this one you're talking about is it, NotBadConsidering

Recognise this person?

We're investigating an incident at #Theale station and releasing CCTV images in connection.

A person exposed their genitals to two teenagers and masturbated in a station shelter.

With a picture of a man in a wig and short skirt?

I thought it was something else!!

Gaslighting indeed. Although it's an insult to the term really. Gaslighting is supposed to have a shred of credibility surely?

If he followed you, then no you haven't.

Most women have. Witnesses and challenges by women to men in their loos are a deterrent. But if that's not your personal experience then it's not surprising you didn't know.

You said you were on the thread. Did you read the Berkshire police thread without even reading the original tweet that it was about? You think it could have been about anyone other than a suspect, despite not even having read the tweet.

Have you or have you not read the original tweet, I’m confused, because you say you haven’t then you’re intent on quoting it verbatim.

I don’t do Twitter. Too many fake and hacked accounts. i have not read the tweet. As I said, I have read the appeal published by the police. I go to the source:
www.btp.police.uk/news/btp/news/appeals/cctv-images-released-after-indecent-exposure--berkshire/

And when they’re looking for a witness, they state “witness”, as your links demonstrated. No, when the police know the person they are looking for is a witness, they state witness. When they are looking for a person of interest, as in they don’t know if they are a suspect, witness, not involved but has information, then they state person.

determined to take the view that it’s not the person in the purple wig who allegedly indecently exposed their genitals to teenagers.

Thats not my view. My view is that the person in the purple wig is a person that may have information about the incident. Which is exactly what the BTP appeal written by the police states:

“Officers believe the person in the CCTV images may have information which could help their investigation.”

To think they are not a suspect would be a form of speculation.

Yes that’s the one. The one that Discovereads has both simultaneously not seen yet is quoting verbatim and the one that to anyone with any sense who doesn’t want to gaslight victims is clearly looking for that person as a suspect.

Of course it's the bloody suspect!

Strewth. No-one thinks otherwise either. It's just another wind up. Ignore.

I don’t do Twitter. Too many fake and hacked accounts. i have not read the tweet. As I said, I have read the appeal published by the police. I go to the source:

So the blue-tick verified Berkshire Transport Police account which tweeted and was in the OP of the thread you were on was not reliable? Okay.

Thats not my view. My view is that the person in the purple wig is a person that may have information about the incident.

Okay. So you DO agree with MargaritaPie’s post that it’s not necessarily the suspect, and by doing so you are defending that post that MargaritaPie made on that thread. You are not just taking issue with me getting victim and witness mixed up, you also share the same view of the Berkshire transport police statement and are defending that view and MargaritaPie’s posting of that view.

Glad we cleared that up.

So the blue-tick verified Berkshire Transport Police account which tweeted and was in the OP of the thread you were on was not reliable? Okay.

I don’t go on Twitter. How hard is that to understand? I’ll post this again. I went to the appeal. I have always referenced the appeal in all my posts. Not “tweet”.
www.btp.police.uk/news/btp/news/appeals/cctv-images-released-after-indecent-exposure--berkshire/

DO agree with MargaritaPie’s post that it’s not necessarily the suspect
No I do not. The only part of her post I agree with is that the BTP appeal is not clear.

You are not just taking issue with me getting victim and witness mixed up,
I was just taking issue with that. But then you jumped all over me and started hammering me with questions about defending her posting history and what I think about this and that which I have politely answered. You’ve been taking issue with me, massively, as some sort of revenge I suppose.

you also share the same view of the Berkshire transport police statement
Yes. Nothing wrong with that.

I’m not quoting the tweet. I’m quoting from the appeal the link for which I have posted about a dozen times now so I’ll thank you for not making up yet more shit to suit your narrative.
www.btp.police.uk/news/btp/news/appeals/cctv-images-released-after-indecent-exposure--berkshire/

Yeah, I don’t have that false sense of security. That bubble was burst.

You cant possibly believe that's a witness? They have two witnesses already.

No I do not. The only part of her post I agree with is that the BTP appeal is not clear.

MargaritaPie says it not necessarily the suspect. You’re saying it’s not clear it’s the suspect. How are those positions not in agreement?

I was just taking issue with that. But then you jumped all over me and started hammering me with questions about defending her posting history and what I think about this and that which I have politely answered. You’ve been taking issue with me, massively, as some sort of revenge I suppose

You replied directly to me claiming something I didn’t say, that police generally don’t ask for witnesses. I haven’t “jumped all over” you. I’ve asked to to clarify whether you’re defending that post and that position as well as picking up on my minor error. And you have. You are.

Yes. Nothing wrong with that

So you ARE in agreement with MargaritaPie! Cleared up again.

Not you too. Honestly. You don’t know the difference between a victim and a witness do you? The two girls are victims not witnesses. 🙄

@Thehawki I'm honestly just going off what I've been told by friends/ trans people that I know.

I suggest you get yourself some better friends, because they all seem misogynistic, and unfortunately some trans people and trans activists are deeply misogynistic and truly hate women so calling us 'ci*s' the the Mens Rights Activist method to devalue women. Using the word 'c.s' (for which I've reported the OP for because I was under the understanding that 'c.s' is not allowed to be used on this board) is deeply and utterly offensive to most women which is why trans activists and MRAs (mostly trans activists) use it. Don't fall for their 'woke' talking points that it's inclusive. It is not inclusive, it excludes and invalidates women.

As to the OP, I am certainly not gullible enough to believe anything from the hateful misogynist bigot who tweeted that 'video'. Nice try but no dice.

Lol. To me, the victims witnessed the man in the picture expose himself.

I'd like to think we won't have long to settle it, as he's pretty conspicuous, but I suspect the wig and the skirt have been long ditched.

He's a witness. Honestly.

MargaritaPie says it not necessarily the suspect. You’re saying it’s not clear it’s the suspect. How are those positions not in agreement?

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.

You replied directly to me claiming something I didn’t say, that police generally don’t ask for witnesses.. 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.

I haven’t “jumped all over” you. I’ve asked to to clarify whether you’re defending that post and that position as well as picking up on my minor error.

Yes you have. It’s not defending a post or position to say that Marg’s statement of It isn't clear if the person in the photo is the suspect or a witness. was actually said instead of your claim this was said attempted to convince us that the images of the male person in a wig and skirt who exposed male genitals to children and then masturbated might not have been the images of this perpetrator, but may have been the victim instead.

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.

Just like this:
“Yes. Nothing wrong with that” (me)

So you ARE in agreement with MargaritaPie! Cleared up again.

No I’m not in agreement for the umpteenth time. You’ve cut and pasted my response to do I share the view of the police and are pretending that was my response to the do you agree with MargaritaPie. Why even do this? The whole thread is there for everyone to see how you are covering yourself in shit.

But you CAN'T TELL how a person identifies. That's the gaslighting that your side does, so that is simply your own side's logic and gaslighting and DARVO coming around to bite you. You have no right to assume that person next to you identified as a man. No right. That's your side's own argument! So how you like them apples?