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.

She used hurty words wen she was talking about paedophiles.

@IwantToRetire this police interview where KJK is being told to attend at Trowbridge is in relation to a complaint made to the police about words KJK spoke in at the Brighton event in September. The complainant has alleged that words that she said constituted a public order offence. There was a constant police presence at this event, shadowing KJK, who didn't arrest her or take any action at the time. But still, she is being investigated for this alleged public order offence.

Initially KJK was "invited" to an interview but declined the invitation. This is the follow up to that "invitation".

She is still attending for a voluntary interview now though

So, presumably her solicitor had advised her to attend for the interview

Are you sure the complaint is regarding words she said publicly at the event (via the mic) or was it words she said off mic while working the crowd?

Weren’t the police acting as a buffer to protect KJK and SFW attendees from the counter protesters? So, was one standing right by KJK?

As in, you saying “shadowing” implies there was a police officer glued to her side and monitoring her every word and movement? Was there?

If not, are you sure the police would definitely have been aware of/overheard the alleged offence?

There cannot have been a public order offence if the alleged offensive words were not said publicly...

Ah yes, non crime hate incidents. Didn't a high court judge describe the police as behaving like the Gestapo over "checking people's thinking"?

It's no wonder so many serious crimes go unsolved the police are too busy harassing women, dressing umin rainbow costumes and covering up the domestic abusers and rapists in uniform.

In think the police have forgotten they police by consent and I do not consent to public money being wasted on this.

My mum is probably spinning in her grave at how far my estimation of the police has fallen.

Don't bother to post @ me Felix, I won't read it because you are so boring.

Birdsweepsin
And its not just down to 'hurty words' as there is no such offence.
Oh yeah, how about Non Crime Hate Incidents?

Non crime hate incidents are just that - incidents which are recorded but are not crimes.

We have been through that on another thread where i gave examples of such and why the are recorded as incidents and/or intelligence

Police deal with lots of things which are not crimes - MFH's, mental health issues, sudden deaths etc etc

Indeed, although Susie's TED Talk has just disappeared. Fortunately, the internet never forgets...!

Onnabugeisha · Today 16:53

Don’t be daft, run ins with the police doesn’t mean convicted in a court of law of a crime. The only disingenuous thing is you conflating the two.

It's not me being disingenuous, it's you. Why else would you have written: "his isn’t her first run in with the police as she frequently pushes the boundaries of the law, and one day she may overstep."

Your evident meaning is that she's someone who sails close to illegality, even though there's no evidence to support that.

And it's not me conflating the two, it was the whole point of what you wrote, to imply that she's a wrong 'un.

You can say stuff in public but not over a microphone as an event speaker, as in I can growl “go to hell you <hate speech slur>” and throw a milkshake at someone while an event speaker is 200m away saying something on a mic, but I’m over in the crowd. Not on camera. Not picked up by the mic. But still said in public.

SinnerBoy

precisely - and the person making the complaint against KJK has been claimed to be a persistent false reporter to police - yet there is no evidence for that either as they have had no convictions for this known

Well she has had run ins with the police. And the police don’t go round doing frivolous interviews for shits and grins, it’s all approved and audited at higher levels.

It’s up to you if you think that fact makes her a national hero suffragette fighter or a “wrong’un”. 🤷‍♀️ I can’t be held responsible for what you infer.

Thanks for responses. I will try searching again later tonight when I am less rushed.

So just wanted to be sure it is about an alleged comment that someone found offensive, and the police chose to act on that allegation.

I hope this gets coverage in the media. It is as though the police are willing to be used to publicly harass someone. Seems directives from the Government on not wasting police time haven't really been listened to!

If you read the relevant sections of the public order act (there are two about using words, it's not clear to me which is being alleged but the wording is the same for both), it simply states in public or in private as long as both the offender and victim are not in a dwelling:

"An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the person who is harassed, alarmed or distressed is also inside that or another dwelling."

So public means in front of others but not in a dwelling, by which I would understand to be a private home or place where the offender/victim is living as their home.

IwantToRetire

Thanks for responses. I will try searching again later tonight when I am less rushed.
So just wanted to be sure it is about an alleged comment that someone found offensive, and the police chose to act on that allegation.

In essence - yes

An allegation is made which is classed as a crime in law

The person making the allegation has evidence to support their allegation and is willing to stand in court if necessary

Investigation starts

As part of that investigation, the alleged suspect is interviewed for their side of the story

Exactly the same process with other crimes - thefts, assaults, damages, breaches of non-mol orders, mal comms etc etc

I think this is the thread about the police turning up but no time to read now www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4682441-here-we-go-again-brighton-police-want-to-interview-kjk-about-a-hate-crime

Onnabugeisha · Today 17:52

Well she has had run ins with the police.

That phraseology suggests that she's a reckless, borderline criminal, rather than someone who's had spurious complaints made against her, by political activists.

If I knew who you were, I could make some complaint about you, encourage a few friends to follow suit and you'd be likely to get some visits from the Police. (I don't know you and even if I did, I wouldn't do that).

I could then dog you round MN, telling other posters to ignore you, because you'd had run ins with the Police. How would that suit you?

This is the original video in which the police contact her,(she's recorded the call). She has ignored the invitation to be interviewed till now. She's only going because of the Australian trip she's got planned. Leaving the country could end up with arrest.

She can refuse to be interviewed if she wants

But - I assume her solicitor has advised her to be interviewed

SinnerBoy · Today 18:23

If I knew who you were, I could make some complaint about you, encourage a few friends to follow suit and you'd be likely to get some visits from the Police. (I don't know you and even if I did, I wouldn't do that).

You could - but you also run the risk of being prosecuted for making a false allegation if there is sufficient evidence

Thanks for finding and linking that @Imnobody4

The fact the incident happened in September and we are just getting around to interview her now - shows that the case is not very high up on the police officer's agenda.

It's pointless telling women that this is all due process when the first time she was interviewed it was because she used the word castration, which offended Susie Green who tried to make out it fell under the crime of malicious communications, as, according to her, the word implied sex offending. The second time she was told she was untoward towards paedophiles.

Other women have been interviewed for hanging ribbons, or posting stickers. Even a judge just had to tell the police to stop acting like the gestapo. He knows it, we know it.

Pointless telling us otherwise.

Especially in the voice of Mr Bean telling us he was proceeding in a south-westerly direction.

I agree it’s pointless @Datun
Im sure the “Decapitate TERFS” guy also feels the police are “gestapo” and sees nothing wrong with his message too.

@SinnerBoy
That phraseology suggests that she's a reckless, borderline criminal, rather than someone who's had spurious complaints made against her, by political activists.

Theres no evidence the complaints were spurious. KJK did say/write the things she was alleged to have said/written.

Obviously when a complaint is received, the police check the veracity of it and gather evidence before deciding if an interview is warranted. If KJK had not said something borderline, then they’d have dismissed the complaint out of hand.

I do think KJK is reckless btw. Generally, you don’t have multiple run ins with the police over your civil disobedience activities if you’re staying well within the law. She’s not much different from Insulate Britain imho except she’s pushing free speech boundaries instead of gluing herself to the motorway.