Here we go again! Brighton Police want to interview KJK about a hate crime.

[ScreamingMeMe]

Notice in the video the police expect KJK to travel to Brighton for the voluntary interview, BUT if she doesn't turn up under her own steam and they decide to arrest her she will be interviewed by local officers. Officers from Brighton won't travel to where she is to interview here. Because it's a pain in the arse.
The process is the punishment.

Yes, it's very effective. Seeing other women wearing those T-shirts is huge.

And it's clever. Watching TRAs froth over the dictionary definition of woman, and saying how we shouldn't have it, is illuminating to those who are unfamiliar with the issue. Just as she knew it would be.

Way back to Harrop. She actually told him that the reason she put the billboard up was because she knew 'chaps like him' would object.

She wants the world to know that gender ideology objects to the very concept of a woman.

And she doesn't have to say a word, does she?

They do it all for her.

I can imagine people agreeing that, yes, Julie bindel has to make a living. But KJK doesn't because she is supported by her husband. How dare she make money, when she doesn't need to, because she's living off a man. In a big house. Buying hair dye all the live long day.

And they didn’t even tell her what the actual crime was. Just that she allegedly did something that was motivated by hate. This is the Stasi that the judge in the Fair Cop case was talking about. It’s like that judgement has just been ignored.

KJK should have pushed the PC on that I think. Clarify what actual crime. I would want to know to tell my lawyer. What crime am I being accused of before I go? Burglary? Fraud? Assault? GBH? Get that part clarified, first consider if the allegations of a crime are accurate, then the motivation of hate can be considered.

It’s pretty clear this is going to be a non-crime hate incident, because that only requires that someone took offence, and that the police are banking on intimidating her into believing she’s committed a crime. Stasi in action.

buying hair dye all the live long day

That made me chuckle!

I had to look up the meaning of the word spruiking - that's a new one on me.

Selling t-shirts to fund your activities = bad
Setting up crowdfunding and accepting charity/donations = good

Someone explain the difference, please?

I wonder about it myself - is she seen as too pushy to be quite 'nice'? Is it the platinum blond hair - is it too 'common'?

Me too! I thought it was a typo. But then I realised it was Helleofabore and how unlikely that would be 😁

She doesn't want to be a feminist. She doesn't claim to speak for feminism. She doesn't claim to be GC either for that matter. Her movement is "femalism".

What's the difference between selling a book of your personal thoughts (that may or may not resonate with - or even be understood by - the reader); and selling a t-shirt with a simple message that empowers the wearer, and also inspires and empowers and is instantly understood by the onlooker?

It also makes mockery of the idea that it's a "voluntary" interview. If the alternative to a voluntary interview is being arrested, then it's not voluntary, is it?

Oops. Sorry. I thought it was an English term.

It not only refers to people speaking in public to promote something, it is also a reference to people who stand in front of a store to encourage people to go into the store/club/restaurant or at exhibitions to promote something with a loud speaker etc.

It is the meaning of someone yelling into the area in front of their stall trying to get you to come over and buy a t-shirt at the local markets that I was referring to. That type of spruiking.

@NotBadConsidering the wording used by the police officer was "use of words or behaviour to stir up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation" which relates to the Public Order Act 1986 (and later amendments). So it's a public order offence that they are investigating, rather than a non crime hate incident.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/part/3A/crossheading/acts-intended-to-stir-up-religious-hatred

Im a wee bit confused at the ‘KJK should vet everyone she speaks to or has a photo taken with or is filmed by’ but it appears to be KJKs fault that helen saxby DIDNT vet anyone

and I appreciate that different people have made those two comments….its just weird that KJK is blamed no matter what

I have to say if I was looking to make a lot of money I don't think setting up spaces where women could speak in public and braving arrest, doxxing, threats, and the sneering condescension of my peers to try and flog T shirts is really something that would pop into my mind. It's not looking very robust, as a business plan.

This is a fair assessment too, I think.

I’m scratching my head about why viewers of a right wing website hearing Helen Saxby’s words is a bad thing

one of the good things about this shit show has been men who I would frankly have previously characterised as dick heads (looking at you Brendan O’Neil) become aware that yes, actually, women are still penalised just for being women, and no, that isn’t fair

right wing people hearing sound feminist logic is a good thing, no?

I think it's probably that it doesn't look 'feminist' enough.

She's quite difficult to pigeonhole, I imagine. Educated, articulate, passionate about women and children, can think on her feet, is a publicity guru and never waivers from the message. But also an old-fashioned 'suicide blonde' with painted nails, and likes being a SAHM in a big house with a doting husband.

I’m scratching my head about why viewers of a right wing website hearing Helen Saxby’s words is a bad thing

No..... silly...... they are allowed to 'listen'. But if they think that she has said something that should be heard by a wider community, they should not use social media functionality that everyone is free to use and post a speech in a open public place on their channel. Or even add it to their playlist.

Because... contamination.

@RoyalCorgi
The whole point of it being a voluntary interview is to try and get the suspect to let their guard down and for the police to get evidence against them. When you are arrested and interviewed it's human nature to be afraid, want a lawyer, and clam up. This happy shiney rainbow voluntary interview is meant to put the suspect more at ease. The police will use phrases like "an opportunity to tell us your side of the story", be reassuring, act nice, "you can stop at any time". The whole point is they are collecting evidence against the suspect. A person might not insist on legal representation during a happy clappy voluntary interview. This is a huge mistake.
Lets say the police already have some evidence against a person, but it's borderline, 50/50 at best, they know it's weak. So they invite them in for a voluntary interview. The suspect thinks they are just clearing the whole misunderstanding up, giving their side of the story, they don't bring legal representation. But during the vol interview they say something that the police consider good evidence. It's no longer 50/50, they have all they need. The person is arrested, charged, and it's game over, next stop court.
Without that vol interview the police may not have done the arrest for an interview. If the police did arrest the person may have had a lawyer present who stopped them saying anything incriminating, now the police still have very little and have to drop the charges.

She's quite difficult to pigeonhole, I imagine. Educated, articulate, passionate about women and children, can think on her feet, is a publicity guru and never waivers from the message. But also an old-fashioned 'suicide blonde' with painted nails, and likes being a SAHM in a big house with a doting husband

Which is why pigeon holing is quite sexist. Why the hell shouldn't a woman who is well groomed be intelligent and effective? Have you seen her husband? He is similarly well turned out. I bet he has never had to suffer slurs that this must mean he is a bit thick.

"I had to look up the meaning of the word spruiking - that's a new one on me."

Me too!

Yes, I was being sarcastic because her hair seems to be a sticking point with quite a few people. As does the size of her house.

Fortunately, (or unfortunately) for KJK, this is not her first rodeo. After the first time she was arrested, she actually advised any other woman in that situation to contact her because she would advise exactly what to do. (Along the lines of take a solicitor, and just button it for the whole interview, saying no comment).

Then they should have quoted the act then.

What a terribly worded law. “Stir up”?! I’d love to hear how they define that legally.