KJK v the Police this Friday

[Birdsweepsin]

Kellie is still getting harassed by TRAs it seems. Come and support if you can at Trowbridge Police Station, midday on 24th Feb.

She asked for carrots this afternoon to help pay her legal fees and she is close to 5 and a half already, more than the 3 she needed urgently. What a woman.

“Disproportionately targeted” - is that something the ONS tracks? 😂
I mean come on, no such statistic exists.

I didn't say "statistics", it's a personal observation, but I'm going to continue scrolling all of your posts, like I generally do Felix's and most obvious sealioning.

Ereshkigalangcleg
You are not a good faith poster, Felix. You've been made aware of lots of incidents where women have been disproportionately targeted for perfectly reasonable beliefs and statements. We see you.

But this thread is talking about this specific allegation
KJK is being interviewed on Friday about one specific allegation
Which is what I am posting about

incidents where women have been disproportionately targeted for perfectly reasonable beliefs and statements. - is another discussion entirely

Datun

I couldn't care less what this one is.

It the subject of this thread though......

CryInToYourCornflakesNicola

Yes its fine to have a solicitor - its her right to have one so its no problem at all
It often makes the interview go quicker, which is better for everyone concerned.

Oh dear.

Do you think if she gets done it will affect women's support of her negatively?

It absolutely won't. It will do the opposite.

it will never cease to amaze me how men simply do not understand this.

Datun

No - I don't anticipate it will effect her support at all
But that's not what the investigation is for

Someone has reported a crime - crime gets investigated - if there is a case to answer at the end of the investigation it gets sent to court.

If not - it gets NFA'd

Wrong. I've been a juror, more than once. I guarantee some of the cases I sat on were bullshit from start to finish.

I cant tell what is up with you, but as you keep bumping this important thread, i will ponder no more and just let you keep bumping.

CryInToYourCornflakesNicola

You will have to give a bit more as to why it was 'bullshit'

Has the victim pulled out before court?
Have the witnesses pulled out
Has evidence had to be withdrawn?
Is their conflict on forensic issues etc etc

What was the CPS's charging decision as compared to the outcome
What was the defences challenge to it

If it was a jury trial then this has been passed through the Mags to the Crown
And there will a be a Judge presiding - did they throw it out as 'bullshit'
So there must have been a case to answer

Felix125 · Today 17:59

So - what ever the allegation is that has been reported - it appears more than just an opinion of "No man has a vagina, no woman has a penis"

Why? Was she Dah dah DAAAAHH! wearing a Suffragette ribbon at the time?

No - because that would not be a crime either!

But a woman was interrogated in a Police station for posting a picture of one, so presumably, some numbskulled flatfoot thought that it was.

No - I don't anticipate it will effect her support at all
But that's not what the investigation is for

Of course it is!!

It's the entire point. To stop women talking about the issue.

These man desperately want to keep a lid on the entire problem. Making the process the punishment is their vain hope that it will achieve the aim.

Hint: it won't.

It's the entire point. To stop women talking about the issue.

These man desperately want to keep a lid on the entire problem. Making the process the punishment is their vain hope that it will achieve the aim.

Hint: it won't.

Because it's completely obvious that's what's happening. To all but TRAs and police shills and they see it too but pretend not to

To all but TRAs and police shills...

They know exactly why they're doing it.

Datun & Ereshkigalangcleg

So how should we do it then?

A crime allegation is made against KJK

But despite us not knowing what the allegation is - we should be happy to just ignore the allegation entirely and not investigate at all?

Is that how you want the justice system to operate?

They could look into it, conclude, like all sane and rational people that it's complete bollocks and file in under B/One/N.

Datun

No - I don't anticipate it will effect her support at all
But that's not what the investigation is for
Of course it is!!
It's the entire point. To stop women talking about the issue.

She is perfectly free to talk - she has the right to free speech

But if a crime has been alleged - it needs to be investigated

SinnerBoy
They could look into it, conclude, like all sane and rational people that it's complete bollocks and file in under B/One/N.

Yes - it could have been concluded at source if there was no evidence to support it

But what if there was...?

What if there was a lot of evidence to support it....?

What then....?

Or what if the investigating officers are fully Stonewalled, or worried about being assailed by the Blue Haired Fascist Brigade? Like many other people in public life, as well as organisations are.

Do you have proof that the investigating officer is 'Stonewalled'?

Perhaps the investigating officers are more aligned with KJK's beliefs

Perhaps they have no opinions on the subject at all

What if KJK's solicitor is 'Stonewalled' and is just keeping it quiet?

And what if the fucking moon is made of cheese!

Didn't you just acknowledge that crimes against celebs are alleged all the time?

at least try to stay consistent

Datun

And what if the fucking moon is made of cheese!

Indeed - if we are going along with SinnerBoy's rationale

So according to that call, the crime alleged is 'use of words or behaviour to stir up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation'.

IANAL but looks like this is referring to Section 3A of the Public Order Act 1986 as modified at a later date... www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64
"A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred or hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation."

"Threatening", "intends" and "hatred". And "sexual orientation". Those are the words that would have to be proved if this were to come to anything. They're not meant lightly in the legislation, if you read subsequent notes. It seems that you can accidentally stir up hatred, no offence. You can deliberately stir up ridicule, no offence. Your words have to be actually threatening, not just disagreeable. Not that I'm saying KJK did any of the milder things either. And again, IANAL, just reading what it says.

I speculate that it's "lesbians don't have penises", and that they're alleging that she was trying to stir up hatred against that very special group of "lesbians who do have penises". And I further speculate that they're fishing, trying to get her to say something to indicate such an intent, because if they had proof of it they'd have arrested her by now. And I further speculate that it isn't going to happen as she had no such intent and she's not one to get riled or use words carelessly so that they could be misinterpreted.

I'm sure KJK will tell us all about it tomorrow if she is allowed. I absolutely trust based on what I have seen of her events and her communications that she has done no such thing, so good luck Kelly.